Was this the correct call ?

[OldSchool101]

You see the left post (as if you were sitting in the endzone).....it was curving outside and away from it.

Better view of the field at the 19 minute mark:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Oh yeah. He missed it alright. Much better view thanks Poker

 

[Chris398]

Do you require me to be at every game and in a perfect position for every play to give my opinion? BTW, where were you sitting at that game to offer up your assessment of the play?

I said it was "the story I heard"......not my personal assessment

 

[Chris398]

Oh yeah. He missed it alright. Much better view thanks Poker

It looks like the camera is angled to the left since the ball is on the left hash mark. That could make it difficult deciding from the video since the ball was so high over the post. Lets just say the ref was in the best place to make the call and made the right call....case closed !

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It looks like the camera is angled to the left since the ball is on the left hash mark. That could make it difficult deciding from the video since the ball was so high over the post. Lets just say the ref was in the best place to make the call and made the right call....case closed !

Did you even listen to what Don Shula said in the video? "after that, they decided that they would put the officials under the uprights looking up to see whether or not the field goal was good"

LOL...."case closed".....you mean... "end of story, my final ruling, no more discussion"? A FG that has been debated for over 50 years and Chris finally comes in and solves the mystery!

Oh wait...

I said it was "the story I heard"......not my personal assessment

 

[sschind]

Uh, I think that something to do with a little book he wrote.

Uh, smiley face = joking

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm tired of hearing how it's so much harder to win a championship in today's swamp of mediocrity then it was then.
- then, 40% of the league didn't make the playoffs.
-You actually had to compete against other great teams , usually twice a season. Not see you once every 4 years or whatever.
-the '63 Packers went 11-2-1. No team in the league won more games . They didn't make the playoffs.
The '68 Colts went into the last week of the season undefeated; they finished 11-1-2 and didn't make the playoffs.

The key word here is competition. When you actually had to play against other great teams loaded with future HOF's to get limited playoff berths, that was competition. When now you play an extra game or two solely for TV purposes against crap with 7 or 8 wins doesn't begin to compare. The NFL then was giants slugging it out; today is a money/ratings driven shitshow.

I agree that it was tough to win championships back in the days but as HRE correctly pointed out once you had a great team it was easier to stay at an elite level because there was no free agency or salary cap.

 

[HardRightEdge]

-the '63 Packers went 11-2-1. No team in the league won more games . They didn't make the playoffs.
-The '68 Colts went into the last week of the season undefeated; they finished 11-1-2 and didn't make the playoffs.

The key word here is competition.

Competition indeed. In 1963, the Bears went to the championship game by beating the Packers twice.

The second meeting was in week 10 and amounted to the conference championship. The conference standings going into that game were:

GB 8-1
CHI 8-1
BALT 4-5
DET 4-5
MIN 3-6
LA 2-7
SF 2-7

This serves to illustrate my point. With only 14 teams, and where winning the Conference is entry to the championship game where only 1 postseason win earns a ring, getting to the postseason was harder in only a few seasons, but winning a championship was easier.

I say "some seasons" for a reason.

- In 1960, the Packers beat out the 7-5 Lions and 7-5 49ers in the regular season for entry to the championship game.
- In 1961, the Packers beat out the 8-5-1 Bears in the regular season for entry to the championship game.
- In 1962, the Colts beat out the 9-5 Steelers in the regular season for entry to the championship game.
- In 1964, the Colts beat out the 8-5-1 Vikings and Packers in the regular season for entry to the championship game.
- In 1965, the Browns beat out the 7-7 Giants and Cowboys in the regular season for entry to the championship game.
- In 1966, the Packers beat out the 9-5 Colts and the Cowboys beat out the 9-5 Browns and 9-5 Eagles for entry to the championship game.

In each of those cases, the second place team or teams had what we'd consider today a borderline or sub-playoff record.

As for your second example, it was 1967, not 1968, and that was the first season of divisional play which is an entirely different scenario. At that time the 4 division winners out of 16 teams made the postseason; it was easier to make the playoffs than before but you hand to win two postseason games to win a championship..

My point is that since 1967, it has gotten progressively easier to make the playoffs but progressively harder to win a championship, regardless of free agency, because now, after a long season, you have to beat 3 or 4 other good teams to earn the ring which often comes down one play or one bounce of the ball over the course of those 3 or 4 games. Consider the outcome if the Steelers had gotten a bounce on Matthews forced fumble. That's compared to this Chandler FG...there were only two games (or in other seasons only one game) where a lucky event could be the margin of championship victory.

Since 1993 it has gotten progressively harder to win a championship for several reasons:

First, there was the implementation of true free agency 1993.

That was followed by the salary cap in 1994.

First round pick money escalated throughout the 90's and 00's to absurd levels, diminishing the value of draft acumen given the cap as teams had to pay unproven Peters at the expense of signing proven Pauls.

Exploding TV money led to the 2011 CBA increase in shared money and the requirement that all teams have a cash spend of 89 or 90% of cap over 5 year periods which is coming to full fruition now. Weak sisters in mid-to-low population markets spending well below the cap is largely a thing of the past; you can do it for a year or two now but not as a habit, and if you do have low spend years you'll have to play catch-up with high spend in the subsequent ones.

There are 32 teams, not 14, to compete with. All of these organizations are now mature, with the last expansion in 2002, all working with sufficient revenue to pay up to the cap while at least breaking even as a business venture.

Consider the raft of new stadiums, stadium renovations, and add-on entertainment districts in low-to-mid markets increasing local revenue; today failure to build leads to relocation, further narrowing the gap.

The only notable thing in the last 50 years that has made it easier to win a championship is the rookie salary scale implemented in 2011. With that change, at least draft acumen is more important than before it was implemented.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Now, the above comments do not diminish the record of the Lombardi Packers. 5 Championships in 7 years was a supreme accomplishment. During that period, any loss was a shock. You never had the sense that anybody beat the Packers, only that they beat themselves in any given loss. 1967 would have been the exception to the "how could they lose? perception, where the talent level and age was not quite up to the previous dominant teams. It was Lombardi's finest season.

What this does serve to illustrate is that the Belichick's accomplishments with the Patriots deserve to be considered as at least comparable.

16 seasons
13 playoff appearances
6 Super Bowl appearances
4 Super Bowl rings

One season they missed the playoffs with an 11-5 record.

And they look to be a lock for 14 playoffs in 17 seasons, with who knows what beyond that.

And he accomplished some of these feats in unconventional ways that nobody even tries to copy. He shifted from the conventional WR/RB centric offense to a TE/slot centric offense since 2009.

He uses a revolving door of free agents. He refuses to overpay his own guys. He makes a lot of trades involving picks and veterans on an annual basis, often on the eve of the season or mid-season as with Collins and Moss.

Belichicks performance given the impediments in the current age surely belongs in the first rank.

Of course, there's the "cheating". That detracts from these accomplishments only at the margins.

 

[Robert Mason]

Do you require me to be at every game and in a perfect position for every play to give my opinion? BTW, where were you sitting at that game to offer up your assessment of the play?[/QUOTE

Oh yeah. He missed it alright. Much better view thanks Poker

Of course he missed it. The Packers lost the game 10-7. Now we have to replay the 1965 championship.....Baltimore vs. Cleveland.

 

[PackerDNA]

I would add to my prior comment that there was no free agency and no salary cap.

Yeah, just a hell of a lot more competition and quality play with or without it.
While I see your point HRE, I feel they're different arguments. You could throw in all the rule advantages now as well.

 

[PackerDNA]

Now, the above comments do not diminish the record of the Lombardi Packers. 5 Championships in 7 years was a supreme accomplishment. During that period, any loss was a shock. You never had the sense that anybody beat the Packers, only that they beat themselves in any given loss. 1967 would have been the exception to the "how could they lose? perception, where the talent level and age was not quite up to the previous dominant teams. It was Lombardi's finest season.

What this does serve to illustrate is that the Belichick's accomplishments with the Patriots deserve to be considered as at least comparable.

16 seasons
13 playoff appearances
6 Super Bowl appearances
4 Super Bowl rings

One season they missed the playoffs with an 11-5 record.

And they look to be a lock for 14 playoffs in 17 seasons, with who knows what beyond that.

And he accomplished some of these feats in unconventional ways that nobody even tries to copy. He shifted from the conventional WR/RB centric offense to a TE/slot centric offense since 2009.

He uses a revolving door of free agents. He refuses to overpay his own guys. He makes a lot of trades involving picks and veterans on an annual basis, often on the eve of the season or mid-season as with Collins and Moss.

Belichicks performance given the impediments in the current age surely belongs in the first rank.

Of course, there's the "cheating". That detracts from these accomplishments only at the margins.

Agree, outside of the 'cheating' part which is irrelevant and has not won a game for them.
Also, BB's ability to adjust gameplans to opponents week to week is second to none.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Agree, outside of the 'cheating' part which is irrelevant and has not won a game for them.
Also, BB's ability to adjust gameplans to opponents week to week is second to none.

Who is this "None" guy I keep hearing about, I want him as our GM and Coach!

 

[PackerDNA]

I agree that it was tough to win championships back in the days but as HRE correctly pointed out once you had a great team it was easier to stay at an elite level because there was no free agency or salary cap.

Again, it does not change the fact that it was much harder to get to a title game, much less win it , than it is now. Irregardless of the changes to the game from then till now, my argument is they are seperate subjects and debates; the old NFL was a much tougher place to succeed than todays mishmash.

 

[Robert Mason]

Did you even listen to what Don Shula said in the video? "after that, they decided that they would put the officials under the uprights looking up to see whether or not the field goal was good"

The sound quality on that video was very bad. I could not hear Shula's comments. I thought that incident was the reason for increasing the height of the side posts ?

 

[Robert Mason]

The sound quality on that video was very bad. I could not hear Shula's comments. I thought that incident was the reason for increasing the height of the side posts ?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The sound quality on that video was very bad. I could not hear Shula's comments. I thought that incident was the reason for increasing the height of the side posts ?

Yes, as well as positioning 2 refs, one under each goal post looking up. As you can see, the one ref was standing towards the middle and in back of the goal post when he made the call......really bad angle to make that call IMO.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Again, it does not change the fact that it was much harder to get to a title game, much less win it , than it is now. Irregardless of the changes to the game from then till now, my argument is they are seperate subjects and debates; the old NFL was a much tougher place to succeed than todays mishmash.

While it was way tougher for the players to play the game because of different rules winning a championship was easier for a team as they had to compete against fewer opponents.

 

[Sky King]

While it was way tougher for the players to play the game because of different rules winning a championship was easier for a team as they had to compete against fewer opponents.

Counterpoint: Which also means the talent pool was not as diluted.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Counterpoint: Which also means the talent pool was not as diluted.

The talent pool was undiluted for everyone in the olden days, just as it diluted for everyone now. On this point I don't see how one way or the other makes an argument for difficulty or ease of winning. Everybody's in the same boat.

However, prior to free agency if you did acquire talent you could pay them what you want, and thereby retain them for a career. You could keep a generation of winning players together as the Packers did. The team didn't fall into disrepair because Lombardi left; the team just got old.

Now, you have to repeat the process in increments every year to stay on top. Lose a few, gain a few every year, and if you don't get good value in those replacements you sink.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Counterpoint: Which also means the talent pool was not as diluted.

True, it doesn't change the fact that a team had to compete with fewer opponents for a championship though.

 

[HardRightEdge]

True, it doesn't change the fact that a team had to compete with fewer opponents for a championship though.

Yeah, the number of teams alone makes the argument.

In the olden days there were 14 teams, fewer than there are today in either conference.

Getting a ticket to the championship game then is roughly equivalent to having either the best or second best record in a conference today. And what does that first or second best record earn you today? The requirement that you beat two decent teams in succession in the playoffs to get to the Championship game.

The format today would be equivalent to requiring the Lombardi Packers beating the second and third place teams in their conference in succession in a playoff to get to the championship game.

 

[Forget Favre]

You see the left post (as if you were sitting in the endzone).....it was curving outside and away from it.

Better view of the field at the 19 minute mark:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

And no names on the backs of jerseys.
Score board is very simple and no video. If you forgot your binoculars at home, too bad so sad.
ALL officials wear white hats. (Did they have them broken down to Line Judge etc etc?)
No gloves or those fanny pack hand warmers. Brutal.
The helmets don't look as complicated as they do now. Probably just one helmet for two or three seasons or until there is a crack in it.
Who is #12? Starr?
I thought he was #15?
No way it can be Rodgers, can it?

 

[HardRightEdge]

And no names on the backs of jerseys.
Score board is very simple and no video. If you forgot your binoculars at home, too bad so sad.
ALL officials wear white hats. (Did they have them broken down to Line Judge etc etc?)
No gloves or those fanny pack hand warmers. Brutal.
The helmets don't look as complicated as they do now. Probably just one helmet for two or three seasons or until there is a crack in it.
Who is #12? Starr?
I thought he was #15?
No way it can be Rodgers, can it?

- O-Linemen could not use open hands; blocking was with the forearms and the side of closed fists.
- There was no chuck rule. You could maul a receiver all the way down the field so long as you didn't grab him and were off of him by the time the ball was in the air in his vicinity.
- The extensive chop block rules of today were not in place. There was something of a "gentleman's agreement" that you don't take a guy's knees out from behind, but that didn't stop some guys from doing it or prevent Conrad Dobler from getting to 3 Pro Bowls.
- Pass rushers could do just about anything they wanted to get to the QB short of yanking a face mask. Deacon Jones perfected the head slap; others copied it.
- Headhunting was standard operating procedure. Vontaze Burficts were all over the place. You had best play with your head on a swivel.
- Quarterback protections did not exist, nor defenseless receiver protections.
- Bounty programs were common.

This state of affairs persisted until the early 1980's, then gradually changed, for 3 reasons:

1) The NFL wanted more scoring for the TV audience.
2) Once free agency kicked in, expensive "skill position" players, especially QBs, needed to be protected.
3) Bad PR over concussions.

 

[Forget Favre]

- O-Linemen could not use open hands; blocking was with the forearms and the side of closed fists.
- There was no chuck rule. You could maul a receiver all the way down the field so long as you didn't grab him and were off of him by the time the ball was in the air in his vicinity.
- The extensive chop block rules of today were not in place. There was something of a "gentleman's agreement" that you don't take a guy's knees out from behind, but that didn't stop some guys from doing it or prevent Conrad Dobler from getting to 3 Pro Bowls.
- Pass rushers could do just about anything they wanted to get to the QB short of yanking a face mask. Deacon Jones perfected the head slap; others copied it.
- Headhunting was standard operating procedure. Vontaze Burficts were all over the place. You had best play with your head on a swivel.
- Quarterback protections did not exist, nor defenseless receiver protections.
- Bounty programs were common.

This state of affairs persisted until the early 1980's, then gradually changed, for 3 reasons:

1) The NFL wanted more scoring for the TV audience.
2) Once free agency kicked in, expensive "skill position" players, especially QBs, needed to be protected.
3) Bad PR over concussions.

So it was a lot tougher and more smash mouth football back then?

And they wanted more chances at throws and catches to make it more exciting and to increase scores and ratings?

I was thinking of the concussions thing.

Do we know if players at that era suffered the results of them as they do now?
I only hear of modern players getting the brain damage and I have yet to hear of any players back then going through the same thing.

 

[swhitset]

So it was a lot tougher and more smash mouth football back then?

And they wanted more chances at throws and catches to make it more exciting and to increase scores and ratings?

I was thinking of the concussions thing.

Do we know if players at that era suffered the results of them as they do now?
I only hear of modern players getting the brain damage and I have yet to hear of any players back then going through the same thing.

I think many did, however As athletes have gotten much bigger and faster, the relative danger of severe brain trauma has likely increased as well.