Super Bowl V question (1 Viewer)

[JohnnyU]

It was known that Craig Morton had arm trouble in 1970 and was hurting with arm trouble going into Super Bowl V and Dallas had a great running game. Why didn't Landry start Roger Staubach? I watched that game in 1970 and as a Colts fan I'm certainly glad Morton was the QB, but I wonder if the outcome would have been different if Landry had started Staubach instead of Morton.

 

[Bruce Hammond]

Probably it was the highlighted below (qouting Wikipedia). The DAL defense was its strength, had won two playoff games with low scores, and I imagine Landry preferred what had been working over the erratic turnover-prone Staubach. Of course, Morton's 3 INTs in the SB killed them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_V

The Cowboys had to overcome many obstacles during the regular season. Running back Calvin Hill, the team's second leading rusher with 577 yards and 4 touchdowns, was lost for the year after suffering a leg injury late in the regular season. And wide receiver Bob Hayes was benched by head coach Tom Landry for poor performances on several occasions.

Most significantly, the Cowboys had a quarterback controversy between Craig Morton and Roger Staubach. Morton and Staubach alternated as the starting quarterback during the regular season. Landry eventually settled on Morton for most of the second half of the season, because he felt less confident that Staubach would follow his game plan (Landry called all of Morton's plays).[7] Also, Morton had done extremely well in the regular season, throwing for 1,819 yards and 15 touchdowns, with only 7 interceptions, earning him a passer rating of 89.8. In contrast, Staubach, although a noted scrambler and able to salvage broken plays effectively, threw for 542 yards, and only 2 touchdowns compared to 8 interceptions, giving him a 42.9 rating.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

That was also only Staubach's second season and Morton had previously been the number 5 pick in the draft, so maybe it was also not clear at that time how good Staubach would be?

 

[JohnnyU]

That was also only Staubach's second season and Morton had previously been the number 5 pick in the draft, so maybe it was also not clear at that time how good Staubach would be?

Perhaps, but what was known was that Morton had a wounded wing and Baltimore had a good run defense. It made them one dimensional.

 

[Hooper31]

I'm taking a wild guess there's next to no one here that can have an intelligent discussion about this game. Someone would have to be at least 70 years old now to have had any idea what was taking place and display even the slightest objective analysis.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I'm taking a wild guess there's next to no one here that can have an intelligent discussion about this game. Someone would have to be at least 70 years old now to have had any idea what was taking place and display even the slightest objective analysis.

To have their own informed opinions, sure. But a lot of first-hand accounts have been written about a lot of things over the years, and we needn't have been alive when those accounts were written to have read them and be able to reference them.

According to this book, Landry hadn't finally settled on Morton over Staubach until early October, but stuck with him in large part because the combination of Morton under center and Landry calling plays was 7-0. And it's easy to say that they should have played ball-control and hoped for a low-scoring game, but (A) Morton favored that approach more than the unpredictable Staubach, and (B) the Morton Cowboys had won games 45-21, 34-0, and 52-10 during that span.

So it sounds like it was a mix of "dance with the one that brung ya" and Morton being more predictable and less likely to leave the defense in a hole, (though with the benefit of hindsight, obviously that's exactly what happened). Another interesting footnote in that account I linked was that apparently, despite his success calling plays to that point in the season, Landry had let Morton run that final, ill-fated two-minute drill.

 

[JohnnyU]

I'm taking a wild guess there's next to no one here that can have an intelligent discussion about this game. Someone would have to be at least 70 years old now to have had any idea what was taking place and display even the slightest objective analysis.

To have their own informed opinions, sure. But a lot of first-hand accounts have been written about a lot of things over the years, and we needn't have been alive when those accounts were written to have read them and be able to reference them.

According to this book, Landry hadn't finally settled on Morton over Staubach until early October, but stuck with him in large part because the combination of Morton under center and Landry calling plays was 7-0. And it's easy to say that they should have played ball-control and hoped for a low-scoring game, but (A) Morton favored that approach more than the unpredictable Staubach, and (B) the Morton Cowboys had won games 45-21, 34-0, and 52-10 during that span.

So it sounds like it was a mix of "dance with the one that brung ya" and Morton being more predictable and less likely to leave the defense in a hole, (though with the benefit of hindsight, obviously that's exactly what happened). Another interesting footnote in that account I linked was that apparently, despite his success calling plays to that point in the season, Landry had let Morton run that final, ill-fated two-minute drill.

Very well said. Morton looked absolutely horrible in the Super Bowl and lost the game for them. The Colts' seven turnovers are the most ever committed by a winning team in a Super Bowl. Adding insult to injury Chuck Howley is the only SB MVP from a losing team. Morton was 12 of 27 for 127 yds and 3 picks. You could say at some point in the Super Bowl Landry could have given Staubach a try.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Timely topic.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It was always the same old rub, Staubach should have been the full time regular starter from the time he was a rookie but Landry never felt ok with his ad libbing, athletic ways. He wanted a QB who di what he told him when he told him ho he told him every single time.

In retrospect SB V or any other game aside it's crazy that Morton started over Staubach in any game.

 

[rockaction]

I was going to post today, but Adam Harstad and SID have covered it. Dialectic and the sharing of even the slightest of informed opinions doesn't have to be perfect to nudge a random reader in the direction of finding out more information so that they may come across or cultivate an informed opinion. If we sort through the noise, we might find the gems. Maybe Staubach should have started. I've seen North Dallas Forty and read Hollywood Henderson's book. There's criticism of Landry to be had. Did he cost them Super Bowl V is best left for historians other than me, but it's a worthy topic in a worthy place.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I'm taking a wild guess there's next to no one here that can have an intelligent discussion about this game. Someone would have to be at least 70 years old now to have had any idea what was taking place and display even the slightest objective analysis.

To have their own informed opinions, sure. But a lot of first-hand accounts have been written about a lot of things over the years, and we needn't have been alive when those accounts were written to have read them and be able to reference them.

According to this book, Landry hadn't finally settled on Morton over Staubach until early October, but stuck with him in large part because the combination of Morton under center and Landry calling plays was 7-0. And it's easy to say that they should have played ball-control and hoped for a low-scoring game, but (A) Morton favored that approach more than the unpredictable Staubach, and (B) the Morton Cowboys had won games 45-21, 34-0, and 52-10 during that span.

So it sounds like it was a mix of "dance with the one that brung ya" and Morton being more predictable and less likely to leave the defense in a hole, (though with the benefit of hindsight, obviously that's exactly what happened). Another interesting footnote in that account I linked was that apparently, despite his success calling plays to that point in the season, Landry had let Morton run that final, ill-fated two-minute drill.

Very well said. Morton looked absolutely horrible in the Super Bowl and lost the game for them. The Colts' seven turnovers are the most ever committed by a winning team in a Super Bowl. Adding insult to injury Chuck Howley is the only SB MVP from a losing team. Morton was 12 of 27 for 127 yds and 3 picks. You could say at some point in the Super Bowl Landry could have given Staubach a try.

When? Through 3 quarters, everything was going fine from Dallas' perspective. They were having trouble moving the ball on offense, but Morton hadn't turned the ball over. He'd thrown Dallas' only touchdown (on a short drive after a Unitas fumble). They'd scored another 3 points off a field goal after a Morton bomb to Bob Hayes. They were winning 13-6, and the 6 points they had given up were on one of the flukiest plays in superbowl history, a 75-yard touchdown pass that caromed off of two other players before settling in the hands of Mackey. And entering the fourth quarter, Unitas was already out for the game, and Baltimore was relying on Earl Morrall, who had famously melted down just two years prior in SB III (6/17 passing for 71 yards, 0 INTs, and 3 TDs). And then the first play of the fourth quarter was an interception from Morrall. Like I said, Dallas had to be feeling pretty good about where they stood there.

Then Dallas punted. Then Baltimore turned it over again. And then, with under ten minutes in the game, Craig Morton threw his first interception of the game, and Baltimore turned a very short field into a tying score. But what, are you going to bench your quarterback because he threw a single interception? Of course not. So they stuck with Morton and trusted that defense, which had been absolutely impenetrable to that point, to make something happen.

And then, after trading punts, disaster struck and Morton threw his second interception. And maybe now you consider benching Morton... but then again, by this point there's only one second left in the game. Maybe they should have brought Staubach in for the final hail mary? Seems like an awfully small thing to quibble over. And then Morton threw his final interception with no time left on the clock, which hardly seems like his fault.

The game plan going in was "have the game manager play things safe while we rely on our defense and special teams to win it", and for 50 minutes of game time, that's exactly how the script played out. Through the first 51:26 of game action, Craig Morton was turnover-free, the Dallas defense had just produced its 7th takeaway, and the Cowboys had a 13-6 lead that easily could have been 13-0. The Colts' future HoF QB had been knocked out of the game, and taking his place was a backup perhaps best known for his epic choke job in the Super Bowl two years prior.

Things really went off the rails over the final three drives for Dallas, with Morton throwing two back-breaking interceptions (and one meaningless intercepted hail-mary with a second left on the clock) in the final 8:31 of the game. But what, are we blaming Dallas for not knowing that was coming? Again, prior to that point, everything was going exactly to script. Are we blaming Dallas for not making the switch once the implosion was under way? Again, by the time it was apparent that Morton was falling apart, there was only one second left on the clock.

I really don't see what the mystery is, here. Dallas decided in early October that they were better off with Morton than Staubach, they made it to the Super Bowl with Morton and not with Staubach, and they dominated the first 50 minutes of said Super Bowl with Morton and not with Staubach. Criticising their decision at this point feels like the ultimate case of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. A couple thousand mondays removed.

Edit: Remember, too, we're looking back with the knowledge of how Staubach's career turned out. At the time, whether he was going to be good or not was still very much in doubt. 35 quarterbacks attempted at least 50 passes during the 1970 NFL season. Of those 35 players, Craig Morton's 89.8 passer rating stood as the 5th best. Roger Staubach? His 42.9 rating was the 5th worst.

Pro Football Reference tracks a stat called "Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt", (or ANY/A), which is basically Yards per Attempt factoring sacks, with a bonus for touchdowns and a penalty for interceptions. It correlates better with winning than any other simple statistic, and is probably the gold standard for measuring quarterback play, (outside of the much more complex "black box" algorithms like ESPN's QBR, Advanced Football Analytics EPA/WPA, or Football Outsiders' DVOA). Craig Morton's ANY/A was 7.22, which is phenomenal and actually ranked 2nd in the entire NFL. Staubach's ANY/A was 0.91, which is unfathomably bad, and ranked 3rd worst in 1970.

In addition to throwing interceptions at an obscene rate, Staubach also took a boatload of sacks in his first two seasons. From 1969-1970, Roger Staubach took 31 sacks on 129 attempts, which meant fully one out of every five times he dropped back to pass, (actually, 19.4% of the time), he wound up hitting the turf, instead. For context, when David Carr set the NFL sack record as a rookie, he was sacked on just 14.6% of his dropbacks. Morton, behind the exact same line, was sacked on just 8.9% of his dropbacks.

So in 1970, Dallas was facing a choice between Craig Morton, who led the NFL in yards per attempt and touchdown percentage, who had a top 5 passer rating... or Roger Staubach, a 2nd-year player who was twice as likely as Morton to get sacked, who was three times as likely as Morton to throw an interception, and who, quite frankly, wasn't very good at the time. Now, with hindsight we know that Staubach wound up turning out pretty decent in the end. But at the time? He was just bad in 1970. Not mediocre. Not so-so. We're talking "cover-your-eyes-awful". And Morton had a really strong regular season. Honestly, it really wasn't much of a choice.

Edit #2: Staubach also had 4 fumbles on 128 "action plays" in 1970, (passes + sacks + rushes- basically, the number of times he took the snap and didn't hand off). Morton had 1 fumble on 243 "action plays". Staubach was just a negative play machine- huge sack totals, huge turnover totals. He was awful in 1970. A.W.F.U.L.

 

[rockaction]

I'm taking a wild guess there's next to no one here that can have an intelligent discussion about this game. Someone would have to be at least 70 years old now to have had any idea what was taking place and display even the slightest objective analysis.

To have their own informed opinions, sure. But a lot of first-hand accounts have been written about a lot of things over the years, and we needn't have been alive when those accounts were written to have read them and be able to reference them.

According to this book, Landry hadn't finally settled on Morton over Staubach until early October, but stuck with him in large part because the combination of Morton under center and Landry calling plays was 7-0. And it's easy to say that they should have played ball-control and hoped for a low-scoring game, but (A) Morton favored that approach more than the unpredictable Staubach, and (B) the Morton Cowboys had won games 45-21, 34-0, and 52-10 during that span.

So it sounds like it was a mix of "dance with the one that brung ya" and Morton being more predictable and less likely to leave the defense in a hole, (though with the benefit of hindsight, obviously that's exactly what happened). Another interesting footnote in that account I linked was that apparently, despite his success calling plays to that point in the season, Landry had let Morton run that final, ill-fated two-minute drill.

Very well said. Morton looked absolutely horrible in the Super Bowl and lost the game for them. The Colts' seven turnovers are the most ever committed by a winning team in a Super Bowl. Adding insult to injury Chuck Howley is the only SB MVP from a losing team. Morton was 12 of 27 for 127 yds and 3 picks. You could say at some point in the Super Bowl Landry could have given Staubach a try.

I really don't see what the mystery is, here. Dallas decided in early October that they were better off with Morton than Staubach, they made it to the Super Bowl with Morton and not with Staubach, and they dominated the first 50 minutes of said Super Bowl with Morton and not with Staubach. Criticising their decision at this point feels like the ultimate case of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. A couple thousand mondays removed.

I appreciate what you're saying and the link you provided, but 12-16 for 129 and 1/13 on third downs sounds like room for criticism. Perhaps…who knows? I don't feel like a fight or anything. The Colts had seven turnovers, too. It's not like a first down or two wouldn't have helped the Cowboys. But they went with what they went with, and Landry apparently acceded the play calling to Morton in the last two minutes, and they lost.

All a bit weird, considering.

Regardless, I'm more interested in the information, sources, and the affirmation that this is a valid topic of discussion and one that I appreciate. I remember the old NFL Films version of Super Bowl V, and it's a dud of an NFL presentation but has now taken on more life, I guess.

I got very few responses while wondering if the Giants ran Kevin Gilbride's former Oiler offense to a modified run-and-shoot title back in '11 with the Giants, and it got similar responses, despite Granland and Chris Brown articles essentially making that case, so I can relate, I guess, as someone who will start a topic or two about both inquisitive and sometimes trivial stuff.

eta* for clarity and grammar, not content

eta2* posted before later edits above. Interesting stuff.

 

[cstu]

Cowboys were up a TD with 8 minutes to go in the game. Had Morton not thrown a near pick-6 (ball was downed at the 3) that tied the game then Landry would have made the right call.

 

[rockaction]

Whoa, wait. This was really weird, Adam. I began to think that your response was hostile, so here's me, and here's Pro Football Reference. Your guy (Chase Stuart), your turf.

Okay, here's something. Here is Craig Morton in the prior two games to Super Bowl V. The playoffs.

ANY/A - 1.91, seemingly historically bad.

Completions - 11/50

Completion % - 22%

Yards/game - 65

TD - 1

INT - 1

Roger Staubach, 1971

Record 10-0

ANY/A - 7.8 (higher than Morton's 1970 rating by at least .5)

Sacks - 9.8%

etc. I don't even think I need to spell it out, so I'll just link. JohnnyU's question is totally legit.

Here's the link to both guys, where you can see 1970 and 1971.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MortCr00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/StauRo00.htm

And, oh yeah, Roger Staubach, Super Bowl Champion one year later.

I'm not sure Staubach could have been so historically bad one year and so good the next. Weirder things have happened, but this is not Monday morning quarterbacking. Morton could very well have been hurt and it's a legit question to ask.

eta* I still appreciate the discussion. It doesn't even get off the ground if nobody takes part. It's just the swing from encouraging it to sort of then blistering the opinion that started it makes me wonder a bit and want to look these things up.

 

[rockaction]

Cowboys were up a TD with 8 minutes to go in the game. Had Morton not thrown a near pick-6 (ball was downed at the 3) that tied the game then Landry would have made the right call.

See my post.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Whoa, wait. This was really weird, Adam. I began to think that your response was hostile, so here's me, and here's Pro Football Reference. Your guy (Chase Stuart), your turf.

Okay, here's something. Here is Craig Morton in the prior two games to Super Bowl V. The playoffs.

ANY/A - 1.91, seemingly historically bad.

Completions - 11/50

Completion % - 22%

Yards/game - 65

TD - 1

INT - 1

Roger Staubach, 1971

Record 10-0

ANY/A - 7.8 (higher than Morton's 1970 rating by at least .5)

Sacks - 9.8%

etc. I don't even think I need to spell it out, so I'll just link. JohnnyU's question is totally legit.

Here's the link to both guys, where you can see 1970 and 1971.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MortCr00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/StauRo00.htm

And, oh yeah, Roger Staubach, Super Bowl Champion one year later.

I'm not sure Staubach could have been so historically bad one year and so good the next. Weirder things have happened, but this is not Monday morning quarterbacking. Morton could very well have been hurt and it's a legit question to ask.

eta* I still appreciate the discussion. It doesn't even get off the ground if nobody takes part. It's just the swing from encouraging it to sort of then blistering the opinion that started it makes me wonder a bit and want to look these things up.

Yeah, I wasn't meaning to be hostile. I was just meaning to provide some context. Morton had obviously been used as a game manager in 1970, ranking 24th in pass attempts, (and the Cowboys as a whole ranked 1st in rush attempts but 16th out of 26th in passes). But Morton had performed fantastically in that role. Staubach, on the other hand, was really, really bad in what limited opportunities he received in 1970. Yeah, he took a massive step forward in 1971, and with the full benefit of hindsight it's obvious that he was better than he looked in 1970. But in 1970, they didn't have the full benefit of hindsight. They could only evaluate him based on what he had actually been to that point... and what he had actually been to that point in 1970 was a sack-taking turnover machine nonpareil. Roger Staubach turned out to be a good quarterback, but given his body of work over his first two seasons, that was hardly a fait accompli.

I do think there's an interesting question in "how bad does someone have to be before a switch makes sense, and for how long"? Craig Morton was really bad in his two playoff games, for sure. Was that enough to warrant a switch for the Super Bowl? Six days before the playoffs started, Morton was 13 of 17 passing for 349 yards and 5 touchdowns, an insane 20.5 yards per attempt. Did Morton suddenly turn into a pumpkin between December 20th and December 26th? How bad does a quarterback have to be over a two game sample in order to negate a terrific regular season, including a transcendent regular-season finale?

And then there's a question of the Super Bowl itself. Was there ever any point where Landry should have realized that Morton just wasn't cutting it? Like I said, up to the final 9 minutes of the game, everything was working out perfectly for Dallas. Morton was avoiding turnovers and their defense was putting the clamps down on the Colts. How badly would Morton have had to play in the final 9 minutes to cause Landry to change his mind? Did Morton actually meet that threshold?

I think the question of whether Dallas would have been better off starting Staubach, with the full benefit of hindsight, is an interesting one. Maybe things would have turned out differently for the Cowboys. On the other hand, maybe Staubach would have continued on where he left off in the regular season and the Colts would have blown the Cowboys out. I don't really know.

But that wasn't the question that was asked. The question that was asked was "Why didn't Landry start Roger Staubach?" And the answer to that question is actually pretty easy- because Staubach was a loose cannon who didn't follow Landry's directions, because he produced negative plays at a historic rate during the 1970 regular season, because Morton had been playing very well to that point, and because the combination of Morton-as-passer and Landry-as-playcaller had been undefeated to that point. Given all of that, it's no surprise at all that he stuck with Morton. Was he right to do so? I don't know, but I get why he did.

Looking back at things as one cohesive whole, it's easy to see that maybe Staubach might have made sense. But looking at it as a sequence of events, on a game-by-game basis leading up to the Super Bowl and on a play-by-play basis within the Super Bowl itself, I don't really see the point where the switch ever becomes the smart or obvious play. Everything was going incredibly well until it wasn't, and by that point it was too late to switch. That was the point I was trying to get at in my last post. I wasn't shooting for a "blistering" takedown, and I'm really sorry if it came off that way.

I was just trying to say, let's look at this from the perspective of Tom Landry on the morning of January 17th, 1971. How had Morton looked that season? How had Staubach looked? How had Morton looked in the playoffs? What kind of game plan are you trying to install? Who best fits that game plan? As the game is unfolding, how do things look compared to the script? When do you realize you need to make a change? Do you ever realize you need to make a change? Do you even need to make a change? Was the loss poor planning or poor luck? Ignoring all of the other things we would learn about the NFL from 1971 onward and knowing only what we knew then, what choice would we have made in his shoes? What choice should he have made with the information he had available?

I think an interesting modern parallel to this would have been the Superbowl after the 2001 season. New England had a good record with Tom Brady, but he wasn't blowing anyone away. In the playoffs, Tom Brady was averaging just 6 yards per attempt, with zero touchdowns and one interception, (passing, at least: Brady did rush for a touchdown against Oakland). Drew Bledsoe was back and healthy, and he'd just led a come-from-behind victory in the AFC Championship Game against the Steelers. Belichick decided to stick with Tom Brady, who went just 16/27 for 145 yards passing and 1 TD, (5.37 yards per attempt) against the Rams.

Had Vinatieri missed that final kick and the Rams won on the first possession of overtime, I think there would be some second-guessing about whether the Pats should have possibly started Bledsoe, instead. Maybe the outcome would have been different if they had. At the same time, regardless of what the final outcome was, we know why Belichick opted to start Tom Brady; because Brady was the guy who had brought them that far.

Craig Morton was the Tom Brady of the 1970 Dallas Cowboys. Roger Staubach was the Drew Bledsoe. Regardless of how things might have been with the benefit of hindsight, I totally get why Landry and Belichick made the choice they made.

 

[rockaction]

Whoa, wait. This was really weird, Adam. I began to think that your response was hostile, so here's me, and here's Pro Football Reference. Your guy (Chase Stuart), your turf.

Okay, here's something. Here is Craig Morton in the prior two games to Super Bowl V. The playoffs.

ANY/A - 1.91, seemingly historically bad.

Completions - 11/50

Completion % - 22%

Yards/game - 65

TD - 1

INT - 1

Roger Staubach, 1971

Record 10-0

ANY/A - 7.8 (higher than Morton's 1970 rating by at least .5)

Sacks - 9.8%

etc. I don't even think I need to spell it out, so I'll just link. JohnnyU's question is totally legit.

Here's the link to both guys, where you can see 1970 and 1971.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MortCr00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/StauRo00.htm

And, oh yeah, Roger Staubach, Super Bowl Champion one year later.

I'm not sure Staubach could have been so historically bad one year and so good the next. Weirder things have happened, but this is not Monday morning quarterbacking. Morton could very well have been hurt and it's a legit question to ask.

eta* I still appreciate the discussion. It doesn't even get off the ground if nobody takes part. It's just the swing from encouraging it to sort of then blistering the opinion that started it makes me wonder a bit and want to look these things up.

Yeah, I wasn't meaning to be hostile. I was just meaning to provide some context. Morton had obviously been used as a game manager in 1970, ranking 24th in pass attempts, (and the Cowboys as a whole ranked 1st in rush attempts but 16th out of 26th in passes). But Morton had performed fantastically in that role. Staubach, on the other hand, was really, really bad in what limited opportunities he received in 1970. Yeah, he took a massive step forward in 1971, and with the full benefit of hindsight it's obvious that he was better than he looked in 1970. But in 1970, they didn't have the full benefit of hindsight. They could only evaluate him based on what he had actually been to that point... and what he had actually been to that point in 1970 was a sack-taking turnover machine nonpareil. Roger Staubach turned out to be a good quarterback, but given his body of work over his first two seasons, that was hardly a fait accompli.

I do think there's an interesting question in "how bad does someone have to be before a switch makes sense, and for how long"? Craig Morton was really bad in his two playoff games, for sure. Was that enough to warrant a switch for the Super Bowl? Six days before the playoffs started, Morton was 13 of 17 passing for 349 yards and 5 touchdowns, an insane 20.5 yards per attempt. Did Morton suddenly turn into a pumpkin between December 20th and December 26th? How bad does a quarterback have to be over a two game sample in order to negate a terrific regular season, including a transcendent regular-season finale?

And then there's a question of the Super Bowl itself. Was there ever any point where Landry should have realized that Morton just wasn't cutting it? Like I said, up to the final 9 minutes of the game, everything was working out perfectly for Dallas. Morton was avoiding turnovers and their defense was putting the clamps down on the Colts. How badly would Morton have had to play in the final 9 minutes to cause Landry to change his mind? Did Morton actually meet that threshold?

I think the question of whether Dallas would have been better off starting Staubach, with the full benefit of hindsight, is an interesting one. Maybe things would have turned out differently for the Cowboys. On the other hand, maybe Staubach would have continued on where he left off in the regular season and the Colts would have blown the Cowboys out. I don't really know.

But that wasn't the question that was asked. The question that was asked was "Why didn't Landry start Roger Staubach?" And the answer to that question is actually pretty easy- because Staubach was a loose cannon who didn't follow Landry's directions, because he produced negative plays at a historic rate during the 1970 regular season, because Morton had been playing very well to that point, and because the combination of Morton-as-passer and Landry-as-playcaller had been undefeated to that point. Given all of that, it's no surprise at all that he stuck with Morton. Was he right to do so? I don't know, but I get why he did.

I think an interesting modern parallel to this would have been the Superbowl after the 2001 season. New England had a good record with Tom Brady, but he wasn't blowing anyone away. In the playoffs, Tom Brady was averaging just 6 yards per attempt, with zero touchdowns and one interception, (passing, at least: Brady did rush for a touchdown against Oakland). Drew Bledsoe was back and healthy, and he'd just led a come-from-behind victory in the AFC Championship Game against the Steelers. Belichick decided to stick with Tom Brady, who went just 16/27 for 145 yards passing and 1 TD, (5.37 yards per attempt) against the Rams.

Had Vinatieri missed that final kick and the Rams won on the first possession of overtime, I think there would be some second-guessing about whether the Pats should have possibly started Bledsoe, instead. Maybe the outcome would have been different if they had. At the same time, regardless of what the final outcome was, we know why Belichick opted to start Tom Brady; because Brady was the guy who had brought them that far.

Craig Morton was the Tom Brady of the 1970 Dallas Cowboys. Roger Staubach was the Drew Bledsoe. Regardless of how things might have been with the benefit of hindsight, I totally get why Landry and Belichick made the choice they made.

Adam:

I agree. It's late. I don't think, upon reading your post again, that it was in any way out of line. I'm tired. Sometimes a lot of information and a strong opinion is cause for taking things the wrong way.

As to your points: I'd actually thought of the New England analogy, only in reverse. Your way of looking at it makes more sense both as an analogy and statistically.

Also, if Morton had that kind of day the week before the playoffs, it becomes awful tough to sit him.

Thanks for the response. Interesting article you linked to about Super Bowl V in your first post. I read it. One thing: There's a part in there where it seems like a Dallas writer pens a book in frustration after the year is over. He actually penned it in '68. According to amazon.com, it had significant sections about Don Meredith, of all people. Just an FYI to anybody who researches the source only to be disappointed like I was.

I was hoping for the inside scoop. It's the way the NFL wrote the article.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Adam:

I agree. It's late. I don't think, upon reading your post again, that it was in any way out of line. I'm tired. Sometimes a lot of information and a strong opinion is cause for taking things the wrong way.

As to your points: I'd actually thought of the New England analogy, only in reverse. Your way of looking at it makes more sense both as an analogy and statistically.

Also, if Morton had that kind of day the week before the playoffs, it becomes awful tough to sit him.

Thanks for the response. Interesting article you linked to about Super Bowl V in your first post. I read it. One thing: There's a part in there where it seems like a Dallas writer pens a book in frustration after the year is over. He actually penned it in '68. According to amazon.com, it had significant sections about Don Meredith, of all people. Just an FYI to anybody who researches the source only to be disappointed like I was.

I was hoping for the inside scoop. It's the way the NFL wrote the article.

That is interesting that the book botched the dates on "Next Year's Champions", but it's not surprising. The book I linked to was written after the 2012 season, so obviously in their research into the late '60s and early '70s Cowboys they got some of their dates wrong.

For what it's worth, the Don Meredith Cowboys were one of the most interesting teams of the '60s and '70s. For a franchise that gave us Roger Staubach, Troy Aikman, and Tony Romo, this may come as a surprise... but the two highest-scoring offenses in franchise history were the 1966 and 1968 Meredith Cowboys. (And the third-highest scoring team were the 1983 Danny White Cowboys, and the 1980 Danny White Cowboys check in at 6th.)

Remember in 2013 how Peyton Manning and the Broncos kept breaking records every week for "most points through X games"? The records they kept breaking belonged to the 1966 Cowboys. That Dallas team scored 52, 28, 47, and 56 points in its first four games, then chipped in another 50+ point game in week 7 just for fun. And the 1968 Cowboys weren't far behind. Check out these scorching starts. From 1966 to 1971, Dallas scored 445, 342, 431, 369, 299, and 406 points. That 1970 season really stands out as an outlier there.

I'm unfamiliar with "Next Year's Champions", but the 1968 Cowboys, (about whom it was written), were one of the greatest teams of all time. Since the end of World War II and the merger with the AAFC, there have only been five NFL teams that averaged a larger margin of victory in the regular season. You've got the 16-0 Pats, the GSoT Rams, Vince Lombardi's best Packers squad, the '69 Vikings who were littered with Hall of Famers and would go on to make four Super Bowls... and the 1968 Baltimore Colts. Which means, yes, two of the best teams of all time played in 1968. And neither of them won the Super Bowl.

 

[Fariq]

Yes, the "Next Year's Champions" moniker surfaced after one of the title game losses to Green Bay.

 

[Hooper31]

I'm taking a wild guess there's next to no one here that can have an intelligent discussion about this game. Someone would have to be at least 70 years old now to have had any idea what was taking place and display even the slightest objective analysis.

To have their own informed opinions, sure. But a lot of first-hand accounts have been written about a lot of things over the years, and we needn't have been alive when those accounts were written to have read them and be able to reference them.

According to this book, Landry hadn't finally settled on Morton over Staubach until early October, but stuck with him in large part because the combination of Morton under center and Landry calling plays was 7-0. And it's easy to say that they should have played ball-control and hoped for a low-scoring game, but (A) Morton favored that approach more than the unpredictable Staubach, and (B) the Morton Cowboys had won games 45-21, 34-0, and 52-10 during that span.

So it sounds like it was a mix of "dance with the one that brung ya" and Morton being more predictable and less likely to leave the defense in a hole, (though with the benefit of hindsight, obviously that's exactly what happened). Another interesting footnote in that account I linked was that apparently, despite his success calling plays to that point in the season, Landry had let Morton run that final, ill-fated two-minute drill.

Very well said. Morton looked absolutely horrible in the Super Bowl and lost the game for them. The Colts' seven turnovers are the most ever committed by a winning team in a Super Bowl. Adding insult to injury Chuck Howley is the only SB MVP from a losing team. Morton was 12 of 27 for 127 yds and 3 picks. You could say at some point in the Super Bowl Landry could have given Staubach a try.

Whether or not you intend it, it looks like you're stroking each other in a exercise of self aggrandization because you happen to know the minutia and details of a game single game that was played nearly 45 years ago. And how do I look? I'm the guy telling you your conversation isn't worthy of having in public. IMO if you're going to waste time (yes, I think its a waste of time) second guessing a coach's decision you could pull off the same conversation over a more recent incident like Seattle's choice to throw the ball at the end of the super bowl. Look, I don't know the finer details from that season, and I follow this league as closely as anyone I know. The counter argument has been provided. Dallas was cruising through the season and the team was playing well. To go back and question Landry's decision 45 years later looks like an opportunity to make sure the rest of the board members knows just how much you know. From my perspective that's how it looks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Whoa, wait. This was really weird, Adam. I began to think that your response was hostile, so here's me, and here's Pro Football Reference. Your guy (Chase Stuart), your turf.

Okay, here's something. Here is Craig Morton in the prior two games to Super Bowl V. The playoffs.

ANY/A - 1.91, seemingly historically bad.

Completions - 11/50

Completion % - 22%

Yards/game - 65

TD - 1

INT - 1

Roger Staubach, 1971

Record 10-0

ANY/A - 7.8 (higher than Morton's 1970 rating by at least .5)

Sacks - 9.8%

etc. I don't even think I need to spell it out, so I'll just link. JohnnyU's question is totally legit.

Here's the link to both guys, where you can see 1970 and 1971.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MortCr00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/StauRo00.htm

And, oh yeah, Roger Staubach, Super Bowl Champion one year later.

I'm not sure Staubach could have been so historically bad one year and so good the next. Weirder things have happened, but this is not Monday morning quarterbacking. Morton could very well have been hurt and it's a legit question to ask.

eta* I still appreciate the discussion. It doesn't even get off the ground if nobody takes part. It's just the swing from encouraging it to sort of then blistering the opinion that started it makes me wonder a bit and want to look these things up.

Yeah, I wasn't meaning to be hostile. I was just meaning to provide some context. Morton had obviously been used as a game manager in 1970, ranking 24th in pass attempts, (and the Cowboys as a whole ranked 1st in rush attempts but 16th out of 26th in passes). But Morton had performed fantastically in that role. Staubach, on the other hand, was really, really bad in what limited opportunities he received in 1970. Yeah, he took a massive step forward in 1971, and with the full benefit of hindsight it's obvious that he was better than he looked in 1970. But in 1970, they didn't have the full benefit of hindsight. They could only evaluate him based on what he had actually been to that point... and what he had actually been to that point in 1970 was a sack-taking turnover machine nonpareil. Roger Staubach turned out to be a good quarterback, but given his body of work over his first two seasons, that was hardly a fait accompli.

I do think there's an interesting question in "how bad does someone have to be before a switch makes sense, and for how long"? Craig Morton was really bad in his two playoff games, for sure. Was that enough to warrant a switch for the Super Bowl? Six days before the playoffs started, Morton was 13 of 17 passing for 349 yards and 5 touchdowns, an insane 20.5 yards per attempt. Did Morton suddenly turn into a pumpkin between December 20th and December 26th? How bad does a quarterback have to be over a two game sample in order to negate a terrific regular season, including a transcendent regular-season finale?

And then there's a question of the Super Bowl itself. Was there ever any point where Landry should have realized that Morton just wasn't cutting it? Like I said, up to the final 9 minutes of the game, everything was working out perfectly for Dallas. Morton was avoiding turnovers and their defense was putting the clamps down on the Colts. How badly would Morton have had to play in the final 9 minutes to cause Landry to change his mind? Did Morton actually meet that threshold?

I think the question of whether Dallas would have been better off starting Staubach, with the full benefit of hindsight, is an interesting one. Maybe things would have turned out differently for the Cowboys. On the other hand, maybe Staubach would have continued on where he left off in the regular season and the Colts would have blown the Cowboys out. I don't really know.

But that wasn't the question that was asked. The question that was asked was "Why didn't Landry start Roger Staubach?" And the answer to that question is actually pretty easy- because Staubach was a loose cannon who didn't follow Landry's directions, because he produced negative plays at a historic rate during the 1970 regular season, because Morton had been playing very well to that point, and because the combination of Morton-as-passer and Landry-as-playcaller had been undefeated to that point. Given all of that, it's no surprise at all that he stuck with Morton. Was he right to do so? I don't know, but I get why he did.

Looking back at things as one cohesive whole, it's easy to see that maybe Staubach might have made sense. But looking at it as a sequence of events, on a game-by-game basis leading up to the Super Bowl and on a play-by-play basis within the Super Bowl itself, I don't really see the point where the switch ever becomes the smart or obvious play. Everything was going incredibly well until it wasn't, and by that point it was too late to switch. That was the point I was trying to get at in my last post. I wasn't shooting for a "blistering" takedown, and I'm really sorry if it came off that way.

I was just trying to say, let's look at this from the perspective of Tom Landry on the morning of January 17th, 1971. How had Morton looked that season? How had Staubach looked? How had Morton looked in the playoffs? What kind of game plan are you trying to install? Who best fits that game plan? As the game is unfolding, how do things look compared to the script? When do you realize you need to make a change? Do you ever realize you need to make a change? Do you even need to make a change? Was the loss poor planning or poor luck? Ignoring all of the other things we would learn about the NFL from 1971 onward and knowing only what we knew then, what choice would we have made in his shoes? What choice should he have made with the information he had available?

I think an interesting modern parallel to this would have been the Superbowl after the 2001 season. New England had a good record with Tom Brady, but he wasn't blowing anyone away. In the playoffs, Tom Brady was averaging just 6 yards per attempt, with zero touchdowns and one interception, (passing, at least: Brady did rush for a touchdown against Oakland). Drew Bledsoe was back and healthy, and he'd just led a come-from-behind victory in the AFC Championship Game against the Steelers. Belichick decided to stick with Tom Brady, who went just 16/27 for 145 yards passing and 1 TD, (5.37 yards per attempt) against the Rams.

Had Vinatieri missed that final kick and the Rams won on the first possession of overtime, I think there would be some second-guessing about whether the Pats should have possibly started Bledsoe, instead. Maybe the outcome would have been different if they had. At the same time, regardless of what the final outcome was, we know why Belichick opted to start Tom Brady; because Brady was the guy who had brought them that far.

Craig Morton was the Tom Brady of the 1970 Dallas Cowboys. Roger Staubach was the Drew Bledsoe. Regardless of how things might have been with the benefit of hindsight, I totally get why Landry and Belichick made the choice they made.

Wait, what? It's different situations but if anything Morton is closer to having been the Bledsoe there except the situation would have been if Bledsoe had not been hurt and people would look back and ask why Brady was not started (though Bledsoe was much better than Morton, but also Morton (like Bledsoe) was a 1st rounder (5th overall) and Staubach (like Brady at 6.199) was a 10th rounder (10.122)). Staubach started the 1970 season and went 2-0 and then had one bad game, and Morton finished that game and they still lost and he played perhaps as poorly as Staubach, maybe worse (This was StL, the same team they would lose to 38-0 later that year under Morton). Morton went 4/18/38/0/1 in the first playoff (W 5-0) and then 7/22/101/1/0 in the NFCC (W 17-10). The Boys were lucky to make the SB at all under Morton (and their defense was one of the best ever). In SBV Morton threw the interception in his own territory that resulted in the game winning kick at the end. Then in the final possession he threw yet another pick to seal the deal. Brady meanwhile was the guy who took that final drive and generated the winning FG. Staubach would become famous for just that. - Staubach finally starts the next season and goes 10-0. 104.8 QBR (in 1971!), 15 TD, 4 Int. And they destroy Miami in the SB.

Also in those years when fans would mock Dallas for not being able to win the big one, he was a big part of the reason, he had gone 9/23/163/1/1 (L Cle) and 8/24/92/0/02 (L Cle) the prior two seasons. Later with Denver in the SB he would go 4/15/39/0/4 (L-Dal).

 

[Adam Harstad]

Whether or not you intend it, it looks like you're stroking each other in a exercise of self aggrandization because you happen to know the minutia and details of a game single game that was played nearly 45 years ago. And how do I look? I'm the guy telling you your conversation isn't worthy of having in public. IMO if you're going to waste time (yes, I think its a waste of time) second guessing a coach's decision you could pull off the same conversation over a more recent incident like Seattle's choice to throw the ball at the end of the super bowl. Look, I don't know the finer details from that season, and I follow this league as closely as anyone I know. The counter argument has been provided. Dallas was cruising through the season and the team was playing well. To go back and question Landry's decision 45 years later looks like an opportunity to make sure the rest of the board members knows just how much you know. From my perspective that's how it looks.

Alternate theory: we're two guys who really like NFL history and figure a good place to find likeminded individuals would be on a message board devoted to football. I'm not trying to impress anyone with my knowledge, because it's not "knowledge". I ran a google book search looking for references to the game. I ran an additional google search looking for primary sources. (That search was unsuccessful.) I spent some time on PFR looking up player stats and game logs. I looked at the play-by-play data from the Super Bowl. These weren't things I "knew", they were things I learned by researching. Why? Because now I know something about football history that I didn't know yesterday, and that makes me happy. It might be silly, but no more silly than pretending we win fake football games by "drafting" and "starting" real NFL players, in my opinion. At the end of the day, it's all about what makes us happy.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Wait, what? It's different situations but if anything Morton is closer to having been the Bledsoe there except the situation would have been if Bledsoe had not been hurt and people would look back and ask why Brady was not started (though Bledsoe was much better than Morton, but also Morton (like Bledsoe) was a 1st rounder (5th overall) and Staubach (like Brady at 6.199) was a 10th rounder (10.122)). Staubach started the 1970 season and went 2-0 and then had one bad game, and Morton finished that game and they still lost and he played perhaps as poorly as Staubach, maybe worse (This was StL, the same team they would lose to 38-0 later that year under Morton). Morton went 4/18/38/0/1 in the first playoff (W 5-0) and then 7/22/101/1/0 in the NFCC (W 17-10). The Boys were lucky to make the SB at all under Morton (and their defense was one of the best ever). In SBV Morton threw the interception in his own territory that resulted in the game winning kick at the end. Then in the final possession he threw yet another pick to seal the deal. Brady meanwhile was the guy who took that final drive and generated the winning FG. Staubach would become famous for just that. - Staubach finally starts the next season and goes 10-0. 104.8 QBR (in 1971!), 15 TD, 4 Int. And they destroy Miami in the SB.

Also in those years when fans would mock Dallas for not being able to win the big one, he was a big part of the reason, he had gone 9/23/163/1/1 (L Cle) and 8/24/92/0/02 (L Cle) the prior two seasons. Later with Denver in the SB he would go 4/15/39/0/4 (L-Dal).

I'm not talking about with the benefit of hindsight, the analogy is based on who the players were at the time. In 2001, Brady was viewed as a limited-but-efficient game manager who couldn't carry an offense on his own, but who was already developing a reputation for avoiding negative plays and letting his defense and special teams do their thing. Bledsoe was viewed as a high-volume franchise quarterback, capable of shouldering a huge amount of the offensive load all by himself, but also prone to some backbreaking errors. It seems to me that both coaches opted for the lower-ceiling, higher-floor guy in the Super Bowl, entrusting the game to the hands of their standout defensive and special teams units.

Yes, Staubach would eventually go on to prove he was an extremely efficient, low-risk quarterback in his own right. And Tom Brady would prove that he was no mere game manager. But in 1970 and 2001, that's how they were perceived.

 

[JohnnyU]

Cowboys were up a TD with 8 minutes to go in the game. Had Morton not thrown a near pick-6 (ball was downed at the 3) that tied the game then Landry would have made the right call.

That's irrelevant because it doesn't change the fact that Morton was 12 for 27 for 127 and 3 picks. I somehow think Staubach would have fared better.

 

[JohnnyU]

I'm taking a wild guess there's next to no one here that can have an intelligent discussion about this game. Someone would have to be at least 70 years old now to have had any idea what was taking place and display even the slightest objective analysis.

To have their own informed opinions, sure. But a lot of first-hand accounts have been written about a lot of things over the years, and we needn't have been alive when those accounts were written to have read them and be able to reference them.

According to this book, Landry hadn't finally settled on Morton over Staubach until early October, but stuck with him in large part because the combination of Morton under center and Landry calling plays was 7-0. And it's easy to say that they should have played ball-control and hoped for a low-scoring game, but (A) Morton favored that approach more than the unpredictable Staubach, and (B) the Morton Cowboys had won games 45-21, 34-0, and 52-10 during that span.

So it sounds like it was a mix of "dance with the one that brung ya" and Morton being more predictable and less likely to leave the defense in a hole, (though with the benefit of hindsight, obviously that's exactly what happened). Another interesting footnote in that account I linked was that apparently, despite his success calling plays to that point in the season, Landry had let Morton run that final, ill-fated two-minute drill.

Very well said. Morton looked absolutely horrible in the Super Bowl and lost the game for them. The Colts' seven turnovers are the most ever committed by a winning team in a Super Bowl. Adding insult to injury Chuck Howley is the only SB MVP from a losing team. Morton was 12 of 27 for 127 yds and 3 picks. You could say at some point in the Super Bowl Landry could have given Staubach a try.

I really don't see what the mystery is, here. Dallas decided in early October that they were better off with Morton than Staubach, they made it to the Super Bowl with Morton and not with Staubach, and they dominated the first 50 minutes of said Super Bowl with Morton and not with Staubach. Criticising their decision at this point feels like the ultimate case of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. A couple thousand mondays removed.

I appreciate what you're saying and the link you provided, but 12-16 for 129 and 1/13 on third downs sounds like room for criticism. Perhaps…who knows? I don't feel like a fight or anything. The Colts had seven turnovers, too. It's not like a first down or two wouldn't have helped the Cowboys. But they went with what they went with, and Landry apparently acceded the play calling to Morton in the last two minutes, and they lost.

All a bit weird, considering.

Regardless, I'm more interested in the information, sources, and the affirmation that this is a valid topic of discussion and one that I appreciate. I remember the old NFL Films version of Super Bowl V, and it's a dud of an NFL presentation but has now taken on more life, I guess.

I got very few responses while wondering if the Giants ran Kevin Gilbride's former Oiler offense to a modified run-and-shoot title back in '11 with the Giants, and it got similar responses, despite Granland and Chris Brown articles essentially making that case, so I can relate, I guess, as someone who will start a topic or two about both inquisitive and sometimes trivial stuff.

eta* for clarity and grammar, not content

eta2* posted before later edits above. Interesting stuff.

you meant 12 for 27, not 12 for 16.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Cowboys were up a TD with 8 minutes to go in the game. Had Morton not thrown a near pick-6 (ball was downed at the 3) that tied the game then Landry would have made the right call.

That's irrelevant because it doesn't change the fact that Morton was 12 for 27 for 127 and 3 picks. I somehow think Staubach would have fared better.

The 3 picks were - the pick to the 3 that tied the score, the pick that led to the winning Colts FG, and the pick that sealed the game. Maybe this was kismit for the Colts being so badly outcoached vs an inferior squad just 2 years before. What's more, the Jets did not even pass in the 4th Quarter in SB III, if the Boys had done that they might have won as well.

 

[JohnnyU]

Whether or not you intend it, it looks like you're stroking each other in a exercise of self aggrandization because you happen to know the minutia and details of a game single game that was played nearly 45 years ago. And how do I look? I'm the guy telling you your conversation isn't worthy of having in public. IMO if you're going to waste time (yes, I think its a waste of time) second guessing a coach's decision you could pull off the same conversation over a more recent incident like Seattle's choice to throw the ball at the end of the super bowl. Look, I don't know the finer details from that season, and I follow this league as closely as anyone I know. The counter argument has been provided. Dallas was cruising through the season and the team was playing well. To go back and question Landry's decision 45 years later looks like an opportunity to make sure the rest of the board members knows just how much you know. From my perspective that's how it looks.

Alternate theory: we're two guys who really like NFL history and figure a good place to find likeminded individuals would be on a message board devoted to football. I'm not trying to impress anyone with my knowledge, because it's not "knowledge". I ran a google book search looking for references to the game. I ran an additional google search looking for primary sources. (That search was unsuccessful.) I spent some time on PFR looking up player stats and game logs. I looked at the play-by-play data from the Super Bowl. These weren't things I "knew", they were things I learned by researching. Why? Because now I know something about football history that I didn't know yesterday, and that makes me happy. It might be silly, but no more silly than pretending we win fake football games by "drafting" and "starting" real NFL players, in my opinion. At the end of the day, it's all about what makes us happy.

Checkout my Super Bowl V board and teams - http://www.miniaturefootball.com/forum/showthread.php?31646-My-Electric-Football-Room/page4

 

[rockaction]

you meant 12 for 27, not 12 for 16.

Yes. Yes, I did. 12 of 16 would've been competent.

Nice electric football rig, by the way. Pretty cool.

 

[JohnnyU]

you meant 12 for 27, not 12 for 16.

Yes. Yes, I did. 12 of 16 would've been competent.

Nice electric football rig, by the way. Pretty cool.

I had that board custom made specifically for that game to go along with the 1970 colts and cowboys teams I had made a couple of years ago.

 

[Hooper31]

Whether or not you intend it, it looks like you're stroking each other in a exercise of self aggrandization because you happen to know the minutia and details of a game single game that was played nearly 45 years ago. And how do I look? I'm the guy telling you your conversation isn't worthy of having in public. IMO if you're going to waste time (yes, I think its a waste of time) second guessing a coach's decision you could pull off the same conversation over a more recent incident like Seattle's choice to throw the ball at the end of the super bowl. Look, I don't know the finer details from that season, and I follow this league as closely as anyone I know. The counter argument has been provided. Dallas was cruising through the season and the team was playing well. To go back and question Landry's decision 45 years later looks like an opportunity to make sure the rest of the board members knows just how much you know. From my perspective that's how it looks.

Alternate theory: we're two guys who really like NFL history and figure a good place to find likeminded individuals would be on a message board devoted to football. I'm not trying to impress anyone with my knowledge, because it's not "knowledge". I ran a google book search looking for references to the game. I ran an additional google search looking for primary sources. (That search was unsuccessful.) I spent some time on PFR looking up player stats and game logs. I looked at the play-by-play data from the Super Bowl. These weren't things I "knew", they were things I learned by researching. Why? Because now I know something about football history that I didn't know yesterday, and that makes me happy. It might be silly, but no more silly than pretending we win fake football games by "drafting" and "starting" real NFL players, in my opinion. At the end of the day, it's all about what makes us happy.

Fair enough. Now get off my lawn.

 

[JohnnyU]

Whether or not you intend it, it looks like you're stroking each other in a exercise of self aggrandization because you happen to know the minutia and details of a game single game that was played nearly 45 years ago. And how do I look? I'm the guy telling you your conversation isn't worthy of having in public. IMO if you're going to waste time (yes, I think its a waste of time) second guessing a coach's decision you could pull off the same conversation over a more recent incident like Seattle's choice to throw the ball at the end of the super bowl. Look, I don't know the finer details from that season, and I follow this league as closely as anyone I know. The counter argument has been provided. Dallas was cruising through the season and the team was playing well. To go back and question Landry's decision 45 years later looks like an opportunity to make sure the rest of the board members knows just how much you know. From my perspective that's how it looks.

Alternate theory: we're two guys who really like NFL history and figure a good place to find likeminded individuals would be on a message board devoted to football. I'm not trying to impress anyone with my knowledge, because it's not "knowledge". I ran a google book search looking for references to the game. I ran an additional google search looking for primary sources. (That search was unsuccessful.) I spent some time on PFR looking up player stats and game logs. I looked at the play-by-play data from the Super Bowl. These weren't things I "knew", they were things I learned by researching. Why? Because now I know something about football history that I didn't know yesterday, and that makes me happy. It might be silly, but no more silly than pretending we win fake football games by "drafting" and "starting" real NFL players, in my opinion. At the end of the day, it's all about what makes us happy.

Fair enough. Now get off my lawn.

dude

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

NFLN A Football Life on Roger Staubach now on. Apparently Staubach told Landry after the SBV loss that he wanted to be traded if he couldn't play.

 

[Bruce Hammond]

you meant 12 for 27, not 12 for 16.

Yes. Yes, I did. 12 of 16 would've been competent.

Nice electric football rig, by the way. Pretty cool.

I had that board custom made specifically for that game to go along with the 1970 colts and cowboys teams I had made a couple of years ago.

Beautiful collector's item Chuck. Brings back memories -- I had the Super Bowl IV Chiefs - Vikings game as a kid. The game was played Jan of '70 so I must have gotten it the following December for Xmas which made me 12 at the time. I loved that game, though it was frustrating that the players went every which way instead of where you wanted them to when the vibration started, no matter how much you messed with the thingies on the underside of the player bases. No matter, it was high tech electric football! LOL. Good times, thanks for facilitating the memory flashback. I hadn't thought of that game in decades.

 

[JohnnyU]

you meant 12 for 27, not 12 for 16.

Yes. Yes, I did. 12 of 16 would've been competent.

Nice electric football rig, by the way. Pretty cool.

I had that board custom made specifically for that game to go along with the 1970 colts and cowboys teams I had made a couple of years ago.

Beautiful collector's item Chuck. Brings back memories -- I had the Super Bowl IV Chiefs - Vikings game as a kid. The game was played Jan of '70 so I must have gotten it the following December for Xmas which made me 12 at the time. I loved that game, though it was frustrating that the players went every which way instead of where you wanted them to when the vibration started, no matter how much you messed with the thingies on the underside of the player bases. No matter, it was high tech electric football! LOL. Good times, thanks for facilitating the memory flashback. I hadn't thought of that game in decades.

I can tweak the bases to make the players go where I want them to go. That's what age and knowledge will do for you that it didn't at 10 or 12 yrs old.