|
The Ombudsouche: CHFF wrong about Starr
Cold, Hard Football Facts for February 17, 2010
By Mark Wald
The Cold, Hard Football Facts screaming Ombudsdouche
Starr is on the short list of greatest winners of all time.
But he was also provided a greater opportunity to be successful than any quarterback of his era.
- Starr was protected by a great running game (something CHFF refutes), a great defense, and rarely had to carry a team.
- In Lombardi, Starr played for one of the greatest coaches of all time. His win-loss percentage before and after playing for Lombardi is a combined .340.
Here's why the Cold, Hard Football Facts are wrong about Starr:
No matter what CHFF would have you believe, the 60s Packers were a dominant running team
CHFF says the 1960s Packers passed far more effectively than they ran (particularly in the later years). They say the Packers dominant running game is a myth.
The evidence CHFF uses to draw this conclusion? Rushing average. That's a mistake
Unless you go to the extreme ends of the scale, teams with good rushing averages barely win more than teams with poor rushing averages. Since 1952 teams that rushed for 2.5 to 3.0 YPA in individual games won 46 percent of the time. In that same period, teams that rushed for 5.0 to 5.5 YPA in individual games won 53 percent of the time.
Even teams at the high end of the scale, teams that rushed for more than 5.5 YPA in individual contests, won only 55 percent of the time. Not a big difference and definitely not the stuff championships are made of.
NFL Win % by Yards Per Rush in Individual Games (1952 – 2009)
|
Yards Per Rush |
W |
L |
T |
% |
|
> = 5.5 yards |
1,197 |
979 |
14 |
55.0% |
|
> = 5.0 yards |
889 |
790 |
19 |
52.9% |
|
> = 4.5 yards |
1,482 |
1,265 |
29 |
53.9% |
|
> = 4.0 yards |
2,017 |
1,788 |
52 |
53.0% |
|
> = 3.5 yards |
2,097 |
2,012 |
38 |
51.0% |
|
> = 3.0 yards |
1,854 |
1,909 |
42 |
49.3% |
|
> = 2.5 yards |
1,135 |
1,354 |
45 |
45.7% |
|
< 2.5 yards |
751 |
1,325 |
27 |
36.4% |
Simply put, rushing YPA is irrelevant when it comes to winning, a fact Cold, Hard Football Facts is no doubt as aware of as Tiger Woods is aware of his fondness for white chicks. Since CHFF has stated they only look at statistics that show a direct correlation to winning, their leaning on rushing average as a crutch in their pro-Starr argument is nothing more than spin.
Not that the running game itself is meaningless. Its value lies in repetition, measured by attempts. Running the ball protects the quarterback and changes things up. It creates passing opportunity. This was particularly true in the era in which Starr played.
It's true the Packers under Starr passed efficiently, but almost all championship teams share that trait, so it's no surprise the 60s Packers would also be successful. But the Packers were a dominant ground-oriented ball control team that ran more often and racked up more first downs on the ground than almost any team of their era.
Some people say good teams rack up rushing attempts because they build leads passing and then run late in games to kill the clock.
Since there's some truth to that observation, I compared the 1960s Packers to only the other championship teams of the era, great teams like Starr's packers that presumably had leads in most games they played. Teams like the Packers that killed opponents and won titles. With rare exception, the Packers passed less, ran more, and achieved more first downs on the ground than the others. In fact, it's not even close.
The first set of data (left) is simly the run-pass ration of the AFL and NFL champion offenses. The second set of data (right) is the percentage of first downs achieved by run or pass.
Run vs. Pass of NFL and AFL champions
|
Year |
Team |
Rush Att |
Pass Att |
Rush % |
|
Year |
Team |
1st D Rush |
1st D Pass |
% Rush |
|
1962 |
Packers |
518 |
311 |
62% |
|
1961 |
Packers |
142 |
115 |
55% |
|
1961 |
Packers |
474 |
306 |
61% |
|
1962 |
Packers |
145 |
120 |
55% |
|
1966 |
Packers |
475 |
318 |
60% |
|
1967 |
Packers |
115 |
112 |
51% |
|
1962 |
Texans |
479 |
322 |
60% |
|
1964 |
Browns |
119 |
118 |
50% |
|
1967 |
Packers |
474 |
331 |
59% |
|
1962 |
Texans |
119 |
125 |
49% |
|
1965 |
Packers |
432 |
306 |
59% |
|
1963 |
Bears |
108 |
117 |
48% |
|
1964 |
Browns |
435 |
344 |
56% |
|
1963 |
Chargers |
112 |
124 |
47% |
|
1964 |
Bills |
492 |
397 |
55% |
|
1964 |
Bills |
114 |
130 |
47% |
|
1963 |
Bears |
487 |
404 |
55% |
|
1966 |
Packers |
98 |
115 |
46% |
|
1966 |
Chiefs |
439 |
377 |
54% |
|
1965 |
Packers |
85 |
103 |
45% |
|
1959 |
Colts |
435 |
375 |
54% |
|
1966 |
Chiefs |
106 |
140 |
43% |
|
1963 |
Chargers |
395 |
357 |
53% |
|
1959 |
Colts |
95 |
148 |
39% |
|
1960 |
Eagles |
351 |
331 |
51% |
|
1965 |
Bills |
69 |
119 |
37% |
|
1960 |
Oilers |
452 |
456 |
50% |
|
1960 |
Oilers |
83 |
153 |
35% |
|
1967 |
Raiders |
458 |
464 |
50% |
|
1961 |
Oilers |
97 |
182 |
35% |
|
1961 |
Oilers |
452 |
498 |
48% |
|
1967 |
Raiders |
79 |
154 |
34% |
|
1965 |
Bills |
392 |
461 |
46% |
|
1960 |
Eagles` |
54 |
121 |
31% |
The five Packers championship teams ran the ball more than any other NFL/AFL championship team from 1959-1967 (exception: 1962 Texans), never running less than 59 percent of the time.
More, Packers teams hold the top three spots on this list in terms of highest percent of first downs achieved running the ball. That includes the 1967 "late-era" Packers, the same team CHFF says weren't a dominant running team based on the irrelevant yards per rush statistic.
Note to CHFF: when you move the chains on the ground more any championship team of your era, you're a dominant running team.
Starr could pick his spots, and he picked them well. But the facts show he carried less of the load than any championship quarterback of his era.
Starr was supported by one of the best defenses of the era
Based on points allowed, the Green Bay Packers were the best defensive team in the NFL/AFL from 1959-1967.
NFL/AFL Top 10 Scoring Defenses – Lombardi Era 1959-67
|
Team |
Games |
Pts Allowed |
PPG |
|
Green Bay |
122 |
1,873 |
15.4 |
|
Baltimore Colts |
122 |
2,298 |
18.8 |
|
Detroit |
122 |
2,318 |
19.0 |
|
Chicago |
122 |
2,372 |
19.4 |
|
Cleveland |
122 |
2,394 |
19.6 |
|
Buffalo |
112 |
2,216 |
19.8 |
|
Dallas/Kansas City |
112 |
2,213 |
19.8 |
|
San Diego |
98 |
2,029 |
20.7 |
|
St. Louis |
110 |
2,402 |
21.8 |
|
Boston Patriots |
112 |
2,485 |
22.2 |
|
L.A. Rams |
122 |
2,704 |
22.2 |
|
Houston Oilers |
112 |
2,548 |
22.8 |
The Packers gave up an average of only 15.4 points per game on defense under Lombardi. The difference between the Packers and the second best defense on the list, 3½ points, doesn't look like much on paper but on average over nine years it is significant.
No other quarterback came close to having the defensive support Starr did.
As a result, Starr rarely faced the pressure of a shootout. He didn't need to force risky passes, but if he wanted to he still could, comforted in knowing the impact of an incompletion or interception was lessened because the other team probably wouldn't score anyway. It was a tremendous advantage in terms of confidence and play calling opportunity.
The Lombardi Factor
Most of the statistics cited up to this point focused on years 1959-1967, when Starr played for Lombardi. It's to Starr's benefit, because pre- and post-Lombardi the quarterback lost far more than he won.
- Starr's regular season record under Lombardi is 77-23-4.
- Outside of Lombardi it is 17-34-2.
Stating the obvious? Sure, but it was CHFF who threw down the gauntlet by stating "the Packers of the 1960s would have been just another team without the prolific Starr as their beloved on-field leader."
If Starr is to receive the lion's share of the credit for the championships then its only fair game he gets some of the blame for the performance of his team when Lombardi wasn't around.
Maybe that's a tough standard, but it's a standard underscored by the presence of other quarterbacks often mentioned among the greatest ever who managed to win for more than one coach.
Johnny Unitas
|
Coach |
Reg Season Record |
|
Weeb Ewbank |
48-33-0 |
|
Don Shula |
55-20-3 |
|
Don McCafferty |
14-8-1 |
|
Howard Schnellenberger |
1-3-0 |
John Elway
|
Coach |
Reg Season Record |
|
Dan Reeves |
89-52-1 |
|
Wade Phillips |
16-14-0 |
|
Mike Shanahan |
43-16-0 |
Joe Montana
|
Coach |
Reg Season Record |
|
Bill Walsh |
75-36-0 |
|
George Seifert |
25-3-0 |
|
Marty Schottenheimer |
17-8-0 |
Bart Starr
|
Coach |
Reg Season Record |
|
Lisle Blackbourn |
3-9-0 |
|
Raymond McLean |
0-6-1 |
|
Vince Lombardi |
77-23-4 |
|
Phil Bengston |
14-17-0 |
|
Dan Devine |
0-2-1 |
Unitas, Elway, and Montana each led their teams to winning records under three different head coaches.
You could point to the quality of coaches each played under, but I don't think enigma Don McCafferty, CHFF punching bag Wade Phillips, or one-and-done Marty Schottenheimer will enter the Hall of Fame anytime soon. As for Shanahan, his stock dropped faster than a portfolio of tech stocks circa 2002 once Elway left.
And if you subscribe to the CHFF theory that the quarterback makes the coach (ala Tom Brady/Bill Belichik), then Starr fails that test based on his inability to win under anyone but Lombardi.
The truth about the Green Bay's defensive decline after Lombardi
Starr's apologists claim the Packers losing ways after Lombardi aren't his fault, that the team lost talent, particularly on defense. They mention his two passing titles in 1968 and 1969 and paint a picture of a still wildly productive quarterback on a weak team.
That theory doesn't hold water.
The truth is the Packers' decline on defense in the years 1968-69 is dubious. Whether or not they lost talent after Lombardi left, defensive points allowed tell a different story.
In 1959, 1960, and 1964 the Packers gave up more points per game than they did in 1968 and 1969, the first two years after Lombardi. Further, the (approximately) 16 points per game the Packers defense allowed in 1968-69 is roughly the same amount surrendered in 1961 and 1965 when the Packers won championships.
That said, even if the Packers declined on defense in the later years of Starr's career there are other quarterbacks who won under similar circumstances.
In 1969-1971 when the Oakland Raiders' defense gave up more points than earlier years quarterback Daryle Lamonica still won, including 1970 when he won twice as many games as he lost despite his defense giving up the most points per game in his tenure as starter.
|
Year |
Raiders Def PPG |
Lamonica Record |
|
1967 |
16.6 |
13-1-0 |
|
1968 |
16.6 |
11-2-0 |
|
1969 |
17.3 |
12-1-1 |
|
1970 |
20.9 |
8-4-2 |
|
1971 |
19.9 |
7-4-2 |
|
1972 |
17.7 |
10-2-1 |
|
Year |
Packers Def PPG |
Starr Record |
|
1959 |
20.5 |
4-1-0 |
|
1960 |
17.4 |
4-4-0 |
|
1961 |
15.9 |
11-3-0 |
|
1962 |
10.6 |
13-1-0 |
|
1963 |
14.7 |
8-1-1 |
|
1964 |
17.5 |
8-5-1 |
|
1965 |
16.0 |
10-3-1 |
|
1966 |
11.6 |
11-2-0 |
|
1967 |
14.9 |
8-3-1 |
|
1968 |
16.2 |
4-5-0 |
|
1969 |
15.8 |
4-5-0 |
|
1970 |
20.9 |
6-7-0 |
To top it off, in 1968 and 1969, the beginning of Green Bay's supposed defensive decline (and when Starr lost more games than he won) the Packers defense actually surrendered less points per game than the Raiders defense surrendered in any of the six years Daryle Lamonica was the starter. Lamonica still won more games than he lost each of those years.
Let's face it, Starr's apologists give him all the credit for the Lombardi Packers success but have conveniently decided not to address his shortcomings. It'd be nice if we could all pick and chose what we're held accountable for, but life doesn't work that way.
I mean no disrespect to Starr. His statistics are impressive and he's one of the greatest winners of all-time. And CHFF is on the money ranking him in the top ten, if not top five, of all time. Starr played so long ago he runs the risk of being cast aside in the QB debate the same way The Honeymooners is cast aside in the debate of greatest sitcoms of all time by wet behind the ears punks who think Seinfeld is awesome.
But Starr had help, more help than most. Supported by a defense and running game that controlled the game at a level clearly superior to the other championship teams of his era, Starr was in a situation tailor-made for quarterback success. A success he never duplicated outside of playing for one of the greatest coaches of all time.
Many fail when opportunity calls. There's no question Starr delivered when he had the opportunity. He deserves a shitload of credit for that.
But as Robert De Niro's character in Goodfellas might have said to CHFF: "no, no, no, no, you overrated him a little bit, a little bit you did."
|
