Leader Posted February 9, 2022 Author Share Posted February 9, 2022 The Packers Wire - Packers co-director of player personnel John Wojciechowski will interview with the Pittsburgh Steelers for the team’s open GM job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refugee Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 9 hours ago, Mr Bad Example said: I think the main part is GB was so far ahead of other teams w/r/t the passing game, and Hutson was the absolute perfect player in the perfect place...sort of like how Joe Montana was the perfect triggerman for the West Coast Offense, but now imagine if Montana's relative physical talent level was "Randy Moss." Other teams didn't even really have pass routes at that time, it was basically "run out there and get open" with maybe a rough plan of "cut outside" or "go deep." Arnie Herber was consitently leading the league in passing yds and tds prior to Huston's arrival. So you have a forward-thinking coach + a transcendent talent, you get an supernova. Some chalk his amazing 1942 season to playing during WW2, but he was putting doubling and tripling up the #2 rec guys prior to Dec 1941. My only question is why was no one able to recreate something close to it or at least mimic some of the concepts. I understand the game wasn’t dissected and split down to the hair as it is now, but there was still some oppositional awareness. Nowadays, if there is some new wrinkle that works or takes advantage of a rule you see it incorporated by other teams within weeks and definitely by the following season. Was the player and system so much more advanced that no one could retool it for their own offenses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted February 10, 2022 Author Share Posted February 10, 2022 Aaron Nagler - There’s no down side for Rodgers when it comes to returning to the Packers and taking their millions of dollars to continue to come up short year after year. Hell, it’s a no brainer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted February 10, 2022 Author Share Posted February 10, 2022 IKE Packers Podcast - Charles Woodson played exactly 100 games for the Packers…these numbers are ABSURD • 38 INT • 10 TDs • 11.5 sacks • 15 forced fumbles 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zycho32 Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 On 2/9/2022 at 9:58 AM, Refugee said: It absolutely makes no sense what he was able to do, in the era that he played, and then no one tried to or was able to replicate his type of play for many decades. A complete outlier. I know little about the game from that time but he’s a player I would like to understand better in the context of the era he played. Happy to Help! In 1935, the year Hutson arrived to the NFL, the league as a whole was just two years removed from a series of revolutionary rule changes in regard to the passing game, which eliminated several negative rules involving the act of passing and made a forward pass legal at any point behind the line of scrimmage(prior, you had to be five yards deep to throw it). Even so, while passing got a jump in importance, the process was still taking. Much of it boils down to personal innovation and developing passing talent. In short, the run game still ruled the roost. Key innovators of around Hutson's time(outside of GB anyway) consisted of Ralph Jones(the initial developer of T-Formation innovation), Steve Owen(who invented the insane-looking A-Formation), and Clark Shaughnessy(who really took the T to great heights but wouldn't show up in the NFL until the 40's). Much of their development involved freeing up the run game to be more effective, and any bolstering of the pass game was incidental at large. And with the exception of the Bears, the rest of the league still ran something called the Single Wing, which was essentially an overbalanced line with a strong side and a backfield that relied heavily on multi-dimensional Tailbacks to run their offenses. Tailbacks were typically the main passers but also among the main runners, and this diversity tended to punish the overall passing ability of those times(your typical third stringer has the same or superior passing ability as any tailback star during the early-to-mid thirites). In that sense, Hutson benefitted from three things coming in. One was his speed, which was very excellent(100 yards in 9.7 seconds, about 10.something-something for 100 meters). Possibly the fastest in the league(that's even when taking into account that African-Americans were not permitted in the NFL at his arrival, had been barred since '33, and wouldn't be seen in any Pro Football capacity until '46). The second was his coach. Curly Lambeau in terms of Xs and Os diagrammed plays in the 20's like he was a one-year student at Notre Dame, and while he got better as the years progressed, it wasn't his strong suit. His willingness to go to the air was, however. His Packers teams were the most risk-taking, even when passing carried a lot of penalties(and a fatter ball, can't forget that). So when Hutson came along, he knew what he had and split out his position to put his defenders on an island against him- Hutson was the ringleader of the eventual term 'Split End'. The third was an exceptional passer in Arnie Herber, who easily possessed the best deep ball accuracy out of any fellow passer during his time. As for the hidden skills, Hutson introduced the Route Tree to the NFL. A lot of routes you take for granted these days were either rudimentary at best in '35 or nonexistent. It doesn't seem like much, but back then deep balls tended to be 'wing and a prayer' type of deals, relying more on a receivers ability to muscle into position and catch a jump ball. Hutson ran routes and his passers could hit him in specific spots downfield, which is normal stuff these days, but tended to give defenses fits, especially if they had to converge on those spots which they couldn't see coming. That said, Hutson's numbers from '35 to '38 were hardly groundbreaking. Others such as Bill Hewitt of Chicago, Gaynell "Gus" Tinsley of the Cardinals, and a few others could replicate his success statistically. To that end, WW2 bolstered his future stats for sure, but two Outlier influences emerged. The first was the arrival of a man named Larry Craig in '39. Craig, offensively, did little besides block. His defensive skills were a plus to Hutson. You probably know this was Two-Way football back then. You played Offense and Defense. Problem was while Hutson was playing wideout on offense he was still playing the traditional End role on defense, which involved him getting into scrums on the line, and in general just beating him up because he really was built like a wide receiver rather than a lineman. Craig took over Hutson's lineman spot in '39, allowing Hutson to be moved to safety, which preserved his body and allowed him to expend more energy on offense. The second was an earlier arrival; a Purdue tailback named Cecil Isbell. Isbell arrived in '38, essentially the heir apparent to Arnie Herber and by all accounts his superior in the passing game. By then Green Bay Tailbacks were not expected to be runners(only Tony Canadeo would buck this trend), and were focused passers mainly. The Outlier happened off the field however. Y'see, Hutson and Isbell had the same job during the offseason, and during lunch breaks they would go out and practice timing. Timing, in this case, is learning where exactly to throw the ball at the right time and at the right place depending on the route the receiver is running, so you could, if done right, hit the receiver in full stride, which in turn means said receiver is still going full stride to pick up additional yardage. It also drastically shortens the time between pass and catch, giving defenses less time to converge on the play, and remember, it was already bad enough that Hutson was very very fast for his era. Timing routes was something the NFL had yet to get into during this time, and these guys were creating it during their lunch breaks in the off-season. Now teams do this kind of training all the time. That said, Hutson was largely in a league of his own from a statistical standpoint only. I mentioned guys like Bill Hewitt, who was maybe not as fast as Hutson but just as dangerous as a receiver, and was actually a stalwart on defense. Same of Gus Tinsley, who was befallen by injuries shortly after an electric rookie performance during his first year. Or even guys like Wayne Millner of Washington(one of Sammy Baugh's favorite targets), and a highly competent guy for the Rams who came into the fold just as Hutson was leaving in Jim Benton. They were also defenders who didn't have weaknesses to hide(maybe Benton, but the rest were bona-fide), and so weren't hidden even though it might have bolstered their offenses. Great passers started to emerge in the 40's(Baugh, Sid Luckman, Bob Waterfield), but the running game still held strong. You have to go all the way to the arrival of Platoon football in the 50's to see receivers start to come close to Hutson's production, let alone replicating it. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zycho32 Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 12 hours ago, Refugee said: My only question is why was no one able to recreate something close to it or at least mimic some of the concepts. I understand the game wasn’t dissected and split down to the hair as it is now, but there was still some oppositional awareness. Nowadays, if there is some new wrinkle that works or takes advantage of a rule you see it incorporated by other teams within weeks and definitely by the following season. Was the player and system so much more advanced that no one could retool it for their own offenses? An addendum, assuming the first post didn't answer your concerns. The cumulative level of incorporation was of a lesser grade than now(compare it to the technological advances Pre-Industrial Revolution and Post-Industrial Revolution if you want an idea of the graph chart). From my understanding, the ideas involving splitting out an End and running more elaborate routes probably were adopted by teams after Hutson showcased them, and to some extents offenses were bolstered(Washington and Chicago in the 40's, and the Rams of the same time, not to mention the insanity brought about by the Cleveland Browns and San Francisco 49ers and the AAFC in general). What you really seem to be asking is why wasn't such an elaborate hookup replicated in the stat line? Well, the innovations first. This was still a run-heavy league(even Green Bay relied upon Clarke Hinkle for ground game yardage during this time), that relied upon the old formulas to develop said run game(receivers were Tight Ends who could play defense, etc.), and the Single Wing continued to dominate discourse until the T Formation finally took flight in the 40's, so those rugged blocking ends continued to be in vogue. Some could replicate Hutson's overall production- Hewitt, Tinsley, Millner- but were often placed in run-heavy teams with either inadequate passing, or in Millner's case, a far more varied passing attack. Shoot, for Chicago their best overall passer before Sid Luckman came along was Bronko Nagurski. A fullback. As for the passer/receiver dynamic. Sammy Baugh arrived in '37, and was the first great passing talent the Redskins had. Same for Luckman arriving to the Bears in '39. Bob Waterfield arrived with the Rams in the 40's. You either had hybrid runner/passers(the Tailback formation in a nutshell), or you had misdirection artists faking and handing off(a guy named Carl Brumbaugh who played for the Bears and was the de-facto QB during a large portion of the 30's). It took some years for offenses to get comfortable with relying on the pass on near-equal terms to the run game and it probably took great talents like these guys to finally break the dam, so to speak. Same goes for receivers, though they really didn't start thriving as offensive dynamos until the arrival of Platoon football in the 50's('47 for the AAFC). Then you saw offenses go nuts, like the Browns, the Rams, the Lions, and the beginning of elite connections such as Johnny Unitas and Raymond Berry. In short, you had to unlock passers and receivers from additional responsibilities in order for them to thrive at that level... and you can't really say Green Bay dominated the Lambeau Years either, having only won three titles during Hutson's career, which means they didn't win enough to force faster innovational progress as a result. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bad Example Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 13 hours ago, Refugee said: My only question is why was no one able to recreate something close to it or at least mimic some of the concepts. I understand the game wasn’t dissected and split down to the hair as it is now, but there was still some oppositional awareness. Nowadays, if there is some new wrinkle that works or takes advantage of a rule you see it incorporated by other teams within weeks and definitely by the following season. Was the player and system so much more advanced that no one could retool it for their own offenses? Post WW2 is where the Lambeau luster dulled, so I think that teams DID adapt defensively and lift ideas offensively - you can see the bump in passing (and offense in general) in the late 40s and into the 50s. Taking a decade or half-decade to come around to a good idea is the NFL (and football in general) way. Pittsburgh ran the single-wing until 1953. The run-and-shoot has been around since the 70s, and hit the NFL in the late 80s, and it STILL took until the aughts for people to stop talking **** about it (even though by the mid 90s almost every passing offense had taken key elements from the scheme). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bad Example Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Zycho32 said: you can't really say Green Bay dominated the Lambeau Years either, having only won three titles during Hutson's career, which means they didn't win enough to force faster innovational progress as a result. I'd say that in ANY era, even one with 10 teams, 3 titles over 10 yrs ain't bad. Other than that quibble, those 2 posts are some downright amazing stuff. I regret I have but one like to give. Edited February 10, 2022 by Mr Bad Example Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFLGURU Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 2 hours ago, Leader said: IKE Packers Podcast - Charles Woodson played exactly 100 games for the Packers…these numbers are ABSURD • 38 INT • 10 TDs • 11.5 sacks • 15 forced fumbles Most instinctive player I've ever seen. Wasn't the fastest,,or the best measurables, but just knew where to be and when. The guy just knew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smidgeon Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 2 hours ago, Zycho32 said: An addendum, assuming the first post didn't answer your concerns. The cumulative level of incorporation was of a lesser grade than now(compare it to the technological advances Pre-Industrial Revolution and Post-Industrial Revolution if you want an idea of the graph chart). From my understanding, the ideas involving splitting out an End and running more elaborate routes probably were adopted by teams after Hutson showcased them, and to some extents offenses were bolstered(Washington and Chicago in the 40's, and the Rams of the same time, not to mention the insanity brought about by the Cleveland Browns and San Francisco 49ers and the AAFC in general). What you really seem to be asking is why wasn't such an elaborate hookup replicated in the stat line? Well, the innovations first. This was still a run-heavy league(even Green Bay relied upon Clarke Hinkle for ground game yardage during this time), that relied upon the old formulas to develop said run game(receivers were Tight Ends who could play defense, etc.), and the Single Wing continued to dominate discourse until the T Formation finally took flight in the 40's, so those rugged blocking ends continued to be in vogue. Some could replicate Hutson's overall production- Hewitt, Tinsley, Millner- but were often placed in run-heavy teams with either inadequate passing, or in Millner's case, a far more varied passing attack. Shoot, for Chicago their best overall passer before Sid Luckman came along was Bronko Nagurski. A fullback. As for the passer/receiver dynamic. Sammy Baugh arrived in '37, and was the first great passing talent the Redskins had. Same for Luckman arriving to the Bears in '39. Bob Waterfield arrived with the Rams in the 40's. You either had hybrid runner/passers(the Tailback formation in a nutshell), or you had misdirection artists faking and handing off(a guy named Carl Brumbaugh who played for the Bears and was the de-facto QB during a large portion of the 30's). It took some years for offenses to get comfortable with relying on the pass on near-equal terms to the run game and it probably took great talents like these guys to finally break the dam, so to speak. Same goes for receivers, though they really didn't start thriving as offensive dynamos until the arrival of Platoon football in the 50's('47 for the AAFC). Then you saw offenses go nuts, like the Browns, the Rams, the Lions, and the beginning of elite connections such as Johnny Unitas and Raymond Berry. In short, you had to unlock passers and receivers from additional responsibilities in order for them to thrive at that level... and you can't really say Green Bay dominated the Lambeau Years either, having only won three titles during Hutson's career, which means they didn't win enough to force faster innovational progress as a result. Thanks for the backgrounds, Mr. Christl! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 2 hours ago, NFLGURU said: Most instinctive player I've ever seen. Wasn't the fastest,,or the best measurables, but just knew where to be and when. The guy just knew. LOL! He was instinctive as you say, but he was also a freakish athlete for his day. Is RAS would be off the charts. The fastest watch at the combine had him at a 4.32. The slowest was a 4.42. His official time as a 4.37 forty in 1998. The dude had a great vertical leap as well as great hips. He was strong enough to press and great in run support too. In his draft, he absolutely had the best measurables. He was a generational talent and GM's knew it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFLGURU Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Old Guy said: LOL! He was instinctive as you say, but he was also a freakish athlete for his day. Is RAS would be off the charts. The fastest watch at the combine had him at a 4.32. The slowest was a 4.42. His official time as a 4.37 forty in 1998. The dude had a great vertical leap as well as great hips. He was strong enough to press and great in run support too. In his draft, he absolutely had the best measurables. He was a generational talent and GM's knew it. He wasn't later in his career. He slowed down compared to his earlier days. His instincts and anticipation was extrordinary after his physical skills diminished. That's what I was referring to. Edited February 10, 2022 by NFLGURU 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 1 hour ago, NFLGURU said: He wasn't later in his career. He slowed down compared to his earlier days. His instincts and anticipation was extrordinary after his physical skills diminished. That's what I was referring to. He ran with receivers stride for stride in the Super Bowl year. Including the play he broke his collarbone on just before halftime. He was in perfect position. He was covering Wallace who was a very fast guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFLGURU Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 26 minutes ago, Old Guy said: He ran with receivers stride for stride in the Super Bowl year. Including the play he broke his collarbone on just before halftime. He was in perfect position. He was covering Wallace who was a very fast guy. That's instincts and anticipation. Woodson isn't outrunning Wallace at that point in their careers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 I think before I can accept Rodgers back for this season, I need to see a haircut. This look ain't it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.