Bob Rowe Inducted Into St. Louis Sports Hall of Fame.

By Howard Balzer 

For years, former St. Louis Cardinals defensive tackle Bob Rowe has wondered why he has been listed as having played in the Pro Bowl in 1968, his second season in the NFL and first as a starter.

“If I went, I must have been suffering from a concussion,” he joked. The website, pro-football-reference.com, had him in that season’s Pro Bowl, as did the Cardinals media guide.

Rowe will be inducted in the St. Louis Sports Hall of Fame Monday night (Nov. 11) and because it will be my honor to present him, he insisted that no reference be made to that Pro Bowl when we talked recently. When he was presented with a plaque this fall that will be displayed at his high-school field in Flushing, Mich., a story in the local paper mentioned the phantom Pro Bowl. All the details made me eager to get to the bottom of the story.

Rowe said, “I don’t want misinformation out there especially when you’re with other professional football players that you played with. Maybe they know or don’t know, and maybe they don’t care. But I do.”

In recent years, he had family members try to set the record straight, but nothing was done.

Meanwhile, he has often wondered if it was Dave Rowe, a New Orleans Saints defensive tackle, that was in that game. Coincidentally, Bob (43rd from Western Michigan) and Dave (53rd from Penn State) were second-round NFL draft choices in 1967 and they were born 28 days apart in 1945. They also both played in the East-West Shrine Game after their senior seasons and then the College All-Star game against the Green Bay Packers.

It now can be considered a mystery solved and record corrected. After researching the issue, it has been confirmed that Dave was in the Pro Bowl in 1968, the first season Bob was a starter for the Cardinals.

After communicating with pro-football-reference.com and the Cardinals, the website now credits Dave and not Bob with that Pro Bowl and the Cardinals have removed Bob from their list of 1968 Pro Bowlers.

One part of the mystery still unsolved is how he came to be listed in the team’s media guide. It turns out that Bob’s name wasn’t there for 36 years until it suddenly appeared in 2005! It is believed that someone saw Bob’s pro-football-reference.com record that included the Pro Bowl and contacted the Cardinals, who then added it without doing further research.

Meanwhile, living now in North Carolina, Dave Rowe had no idea this had been the case. He did confirm he was in the Pro Bowl and added that Tom Landry was the coach of the East team.

He also joked, “I would guess over the years as a player and broadcaster I have been asked 1,000 times or more if he (Bob) was my brother.”

As for that second season, Bob recalls being upset that he wasn’t starting during his rookie year. He approached defensive coach Chuck Drulis and told him, “I’m a second-round pick. I’m not a bench-rider. I don’t know if I want to come back to the team next year. He said, ‘Are you out of your mind? Next year, you will be starting.’” Drulis kept his word.

He missed only one game and two starts for the remainder of his career.

And, truth be told, Bob did have Pro-Bowl caliber years during his nine seasons with the Cardinals from 1967-75. He played 122 games, starting 111, and according to researcher John Turney, amassed 53.5 career sacks, which did not become an official NFL statistic until 1982.

Bob had 5.5 in 1968, which was third on the team, and 24.5 in his final three seasons, including 9.5 in 1973. Five times he led the team and tied for the lead once. That’s impressive on a team that didn’t have consistent pressure from their defensive ends.

He also had 9.5 blocked kicks in his career, including three blocked field goals in one 1972 game against the Baltimore Colts, which earned him an AP Defensive Player of the Week Award.

“I was always extremely quick off the ball,” Bob said, explaining his ability to penetrate for blocked kicks and sacks. “I could get to the guard and be off the ball as fast as any lineman in the NFL.”

That also helped him recover nine fumbles during his career. In 1969, he had two interceptions, one of which he returned 18 yards for a touchdown, according to pro-football-reference.com. That came on a screen pass attempted by Minnesota Vikings quarterback Joe Kapp. Bob remembered it being 19 yards, because he jokes, “If I caught it at the 20, I would have been stopped at the 1!”

His final three seasons coincided with Don Coryell’s first three seasons as the Big Red head coach, and the team made the playoffs in 1974 and ’75.

Bob has fond memories of Coryell.

He said, “He was a player’s coach. He put his players first. As a player, you couldn’t help but get excited because of his intensity; not wanting to let him down or his staff down. He was put on this earth to coach and be very creative and come up with the things that he did that turned offenses in the NFL around.”

He does, though, recall one quote from Coryell about his team’s defense, saying, “It’s Roger Wehrli and everybody else!”

Now, Bob Rowe isn’t just somebody else as a member of the St. Louis Sports Hall of Fame.

If truth be told, he is also a Hall of Fame man for always trying to set the record straight for the Pro Bowl that never was.

Howard Balzer has been covering pro football for 43 years and is a selector for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He co-hosts the weekly Hall of Fame show on SiriusXM NFL Radio.

NFL/NFLGSIS 'Tackles for Loss' and 'QB Hits' Stats are Misleading

PERSPECTIVE
By John Turney

Jordan Phillips

We've posted on this before, but it is a subject that needs consistent reminders. The main theme is this: NFL/NFLGSIS's  'Tackles for Loss' and 'QB Hits' Stats are Misleading are B.S.

Why? In short they double count. And also omit key plays.

On Twitter today we saw this Tweet:

Don't infer that we are attacking the Twitter account that posted it. We are not. They are posing the information the NFL releases and they are doing it accurately.

The issue is as we said twofold.

The double-counting means that of his nine 'tackles for loss' six of them are his sacks. Traditionally, tackles for loss have been to denote tackles for loss in the run game.

However, when they are clumped together, many (not all) writers and announcers infer that he would have 6 sacks and 9 other tackles for loss.

Additionally, of the 8 'QB Hits', again, 6 are his sacks.

Also, the scoring can be odd.

Monday night on one play late in the 3rd quarter Demarcus Lawrence hurried the QB into an incompletion. He hit the quarterback and but the quarterback didn't fall down. As such he did not get credit for a 'QB Hit'.

Lawrence's name does not appear in backets, thus no 'QB Hit'

Here is the play.

On that play the hurry or hit, whatever you want to call it affected the play in a way favorable to the defense. An impact.

Earlier in the game, Lawrence rolled at the feet of the of quarterback and the ge tripped and fell down. Lawrence did get credit for a 'QB Hit' on that play, even though it did not impact the play (it was a complete pass for a first down).

Lawrence's name appears in brackets. It's a 'QB Hit'

So, what exactly is the 'QB Hit' measuring?

Finally, there is the issue of forced fumbles. Now, while we get that it is 'technically correct' when a player sacks the quarterback bu forcing a fumble, he gets credit for the sack and the forced fumble but it does not count as a 'tackle for a loss' or a 'QB hit'.

Again, we get it, he didn't hit the quarterback, though sometimes they do on a strip-sack, and it wasn't a tackle for a loss because the ball is loose, but it does impact the 'stat line' of a player in a way that is deceptive.

Once again, what is being measured?

In 2013 Robert Mathis had 19.5 sacks, 10 forced fumbles and 15 tackles for loss and 21 QB Hits. The reason he has more sacks than tackles for loss is that many of the sacks resulted in a forced fumble.

The same goes with the QB Hits. He had 19.5 sacks and only 21 QB Hits?

Here is the leaderboard for that season.

We would add sacks, whether they result in a fumble or not plus run stuffs (Mathis had 4.5) and have a total of 24 so-called tackled for loss. Or "Sacks plus Stuffs" (stuff being a tackle for a loss that is not ruled a sack).

We would also count sacks plus other QB knockdowns/Hits and include plays with a forced fumble. It would give a better perspective of what a player did—The purpose for stats is to measure productivity, not to be 'technically statistically consistent'.

Here are the stats from 2019. If Saquill Barrett hadn't have forced those 4 fumbles he'd have 13 TFLs and 18 QB Hits rather than 9 and 14. It makes a difference. A small difference, but a difference nonetheless.

The only way a guy can get a sack, a forced fumble and a tackle for a loss is after the ball is loose, tackle the guy who recovers the fumble. We've seen it happen. Chris Long once sack a QB, and he went to the ground (no QB hit) but on the way down the ball popped out. The opponent recovered the ball and Long touched that player down. Sack, a forced fumble, tackle for loss.

But did the extra stat, the touching down of the guy who fell on the ball really amount to anything worth measuring? The great play was the sack and forced fumble. And had Long recovered it, it would be meaning full and he gets credit for that. It's a possession change. But touching down a QB who recovered his fumble, is that anything?

So, we maintain that when you see a stat line of two tackles, two sacks, two tackles for loss and two QB Hits. All of those are the same two plays. If you know that, then you understand what is going on. But if you think that is more than two plays, and you post that on Twitter, then it's not painting an accurate picture. That's all we are saying.

We can get to the old Paul Zimmerman point of if a QB hurry/hit matters if the pass was complete. That goes to the DeMarcus Lawrence section of this post and we can have that discussion another day.

Jim LeClair—A Fine Linebacker Gone Too Soon

LOOKING BACK
By John Turney

Monday we got the news that longtime NFL linebacker Jim LeClair passed away at the age of 69. Sadly, gone too soon.

LeClair was a three-year apprentice to Cincinnati Bengal All-Pro Middle linebacker Bill Bergey and then in 1975, when Bergy was sent to the Eagles for a pair of first-round picks LeClair was ready to take over the position.

When he was drafted he was a tall, thin linebacker our of the University of North Dakota. He bulked himself up from about 210 pounds to 235 and increased his strength as well. He was a steady, not spectacular type, but he was efficient, had good size for the era and ran pretty well.

LeClair held it the MLB/ILB job for the next nine seasons (and then was a starter in the USFL for the 1984 season. He led the Bengals in tackles from 1978-81 and had 8.5 sacks and pickoff 10 passes in the NFL (and  2 sacks and 4 picks in the USFL).

He was a Pro Bowler in 1976 and a second-team All-AFC pick in 1982 and was All-USFL in 1984. So. he had some post-season honors.

Packers Fall to Chargers in 26-11 Laugher

By Eric Goska

Receiver Geronimo Allison's 13-yard reception in the second quarter
was the Packers' longest play from scrimmage in the first half
of its 26-11 loss to the Chargers.

How bad were the Packers in Carson, California?

Bad enough to have served as both punch line and joke.

How awful was Green Bay in the first 30 minutes against the Chargers?

One has to travel back nearly three-quarters of a century in order to find another instance of such ineptitude across five statistical markers.

Instead of putting an additional game between themselves and the rest of the NFC North (the Vikings, Lions and Bears all lost Sunday), Green Bay phoned in a performance worthy of “America’s Funniest Home Videos.” The Packers had breakdowns in all three phases of the game and trailed for most of the afternoon as they dropped a 26-11 decision.

How dominant were the Chargers? One play in the latter stages says it all.

Michael Badgley tapped home a 19-yard field goal early in the fourth quarter to give Los Angeles a 22-3 lead. Packers cornerback Tony Brown was offside at the snap.

Instead of declining the penalty – accepting it would keep the down and distance the same since the infraction occurred at the 1-yard line on fourth down – the Chargers accepted the call and took points off the board. Melvin Gordon III easily followed up with at touchdown, and Los Angeles was up 26-3 with 10 minutes, 32 seconds remaining.

Nothing like treating the Packers with dignity and respect at Dignity Health Sports Park.

As bad as the game got the further it dragged on, we’ll take a quick look at the first half. Feel free to leave the room if you can’t stomach some of what follows.

The Packers were held scoreless in the first half. The team is 53-143-18 (.290) since 1921 when that happens.

This inability to score is more problematic now than it may have been in the earlier days of professional football. The team is just 12-67-0 (.152) since the 1970 merger when it fails to score in both the first and second quarters.

Green Bay ran a scant 18 plays in the first half. Since 1954, the team is 10-17 (.370) when running fewer than 20 plays in the opening 30 minutes.

Davante Adams (8-yard reception) and Aaron Jones (3-yard run) provided two of the Packers’ 3 first-half first downs. The other occurred when Chargers safety Rayshawn Jenkins was flagged for unnecessary roughness against Packers receiver Geronimo Allison in the second quarter.

That play, a 13-yard catch by Allison, was Green Bay’s longest from scrimmage in the first half. In all but one other game since 2008 – the year in which Rodgers became a starter – the team has mustered at least one gain of 15 or more yards in the opening half.

Finally, the Packers produced a paltry 50 first-half yards on the West Coast. Rodgers has done worse only once before in 167 career starts, that a meager 47-yards in a 38-26 loss to the Vikings in 2009.

Put it all together. When was the last time the Green and Gold failed to score, ran fewer than 20 plays, had fewer than five first downs, failed to gain a minimum of 15 yards on at least one play and managed no more than 50 yards all in the same first half?

Harken back to the 1946 opener in which the Bears outslugged Green Bay 30-7. The Packers had zero first downs and, unofficially, zero yards on a dozen plays.

When confronted in the locker room following the debacle, head coach Curly Lambeau’s entire post-game statement consisted of five terse words: “I have nothing to say.”

Lambeau wasn’t in a laughing mood then. Seventy-three years later, Packers fans know the feeling all too well.

NFL Officials—Just Make It Fair

PERSPECTIVE
By John Turney

No one expects NFL referees to be perfect. Mistakes by coaches, owners, players, and refs are part pf the game.

But, in an effort to make the game more offensive (see what we did there) the rules have been changed to favor the offense. And also, for player safety, which we are in favor of. All that is understandable and commendable.

However, beginning in the early 1990s, it is our memory that offensive players got to push off, at least far more than defensive players. In other words, offensive pass interference was rarely being called and there were players who made a living off of that, even made the Hall of Fame.

We think that has continued.

Is it unconscious by the official? Is it cognitive dissonance to the rules? We don't know. We do know that the game has to be fair. And that defenders should not be called for something and the offensive player not called for the same thing or worse. We think that happens. A lot.

We will show one example.

Zach Ertz did this and was not called—

Sunday night Jason McCourty did this and was flagged—

We get it. Different games, different crews. So skip all that.

Just get it right. McCourty did go to the face and the call was illegal use of hands. Fine. he did brush the face of the receiver.

But Ertz grabbed the mask, pushed to the point the defender's neck was arched. It could have been offensive pass interference, facemask or illegal use of hands, hands to the face.

Unless, that is, receivers are exempt from those calls. If they are, then we stand corrected.

Get it right NFL. That's all your fanbase asks.

That Time When Rich Saul Wore Two Uniform Numbers in the Same Game

LOOKING BACK
By John Turney

Saul, with his name on the back, wearing #87

A couple of years ago we posted the oddity that Rams running back Les Josephson wore two numbers in the same 1967 game versus the Cowboys. Today, it's Rams offensive linemen Rich Saul that we will post about.

 Saul was drafted as a linebacker by the Rams in 1970 (he played that position at Michigan State) and was one of the best-ever special teams players in our view and was an excellent center once he locked down the starting job in 1975 going to six Pro Bowls.

Red arrows indicate Saul—

He also had a nickname of  "Supe" which was short for "super-sub" because he filled in at a lot of positions in his early years with the Rams. He converted to center, but also worked out at guard, tackle, tight end and linebacker, though he spent most of that time as a long snapper and backing up Ken Iman, even splitting time in 1973-74.

 In 1972, In Week 5 against the Eagles, Saul wore number 87 when he was playing tight end and also weakside offensive guard. Later in the game, he wore his usual 61 when playing weakside guard.

As L1 on the kickoff team in first half wearing #87

As L1 on the kickoff team in 3rd quarter, wearing #61

As a 'weakside' guard  He is the guard away from the tight end. In 1971 and 1972 the Rams flopped their offensive line with Joe Scibelli and Harry Schuh on the tight end side and Tom Mack and Charlie Cowan alway away from the tight end. As such on any given play you might find, say Tom mack, as a left guard or a right guard depending on where the tight end was.

The flopping of the guards was unusual, we are not aware of any modern NFL team doing it, other than the 1971-72 Rams. It was something Rams Head Coach Prothro brought with him from college football, where was common at the time.

On this day Mack was nicked and didn't start with Mike LaHood taking his spot at weakside guard and in the course of the game Joe Scibelli was also nicked and then Mike LaHood filled in for Scibelli on the strong side and Saul for Mack on the weak side.

The red arrows point to Saul and his #87.

Here Saul late in the game, playing weak guard wearing number 61.

Why? Backup tight end Pat Curran didn't play in the game and Saul (Supe) was essentially the third tight end. Since he'd be in the game more than usual (being the second tight end rather than the third) it was likely smarter to have an eligible number. 

Here is Saul in goal line early in the game as a tight end—

When Scibelli got hurt the Rams had to put Saul in at guard right away so he played guard with #87 and then early in the third quarter he switched jerseys to his usual #61. When he played guard with that number it was late in the game and the Rams had a big lead and if Saul were to go back to tight in short-yardage, he could just signal himself eligible. That is our surmise anyway.

If we find out more (such as if this happened in other games where Curran was out), we will update this post. 

Pro Football Talk Reports Change in 2020 Hall of Fame Centennial Class Process

OPINION
By John Turney

Yesterday, Pro Football Talk's Mike Florio reported that "The Hall of Fame selection committee will not vote on the 15-person centennial mega-class."

Apparently, according to Florio who obtained a document that states that rather than the full 448-member Hall of Fame selection committee voting up or down on the 15 person Centennial Class, once the 15 people are selected they are in the Hall of Fame, with no approval of the Hall of Fame Selection Committee.

Wrote Florio, "(A) so-called “blue-ribbon panel” will choose 10 senior candidates, three contributor candidates, and two coaching candidates — and the choices of the blue-ribbon panel will be final, with no vote at all by the selection committee.

Okay, so, is this good or bad?

Unknown.

Florio raises valid questions. There have been rumors that one of the reasons that there are three contributor candidates is so that there would be room for former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue. Of course, there is no proof of that, but Florio mentions it and I have heard it as well. If true, it's not surprising. On the Hall of Fame Board of Trustees sits Roger Goodell and a few NFL owners so looking out for one of their own makes sense.

It happens all the time in the normal process. Teams write letters to the voters pushing for someone from their team or a coach will push hard for someone he coached, or a NFL general manager will push hard for someone he drafted. It's been part of the process since I have been following it, some 25 years now.

When the process was first announced the Hall painted itself in a corner by initially announcing that the entire 15-person blue-ribbon panel nomination class would be voted on, yes or no, as a bloc, rather than individually. This, too, was rumored as a way of not having Tagliabue voted down individually by the full committee when the other 14 perhaps were voted in. Again, a rumor, not a fact.

So, with that said, the Hall seemingly rethought the process and made a big change. And there Florio kind of crushes the Hall, quite honestly. Changing a process midstream is a tough thing to defend. Really tough.

Now, to be fair, we can see this point. If the blue-ribbon panel, with major names such as Bill Belichick, Gil Brandt, Dick LeBeau, John Madden, Ozzie Newsome, Carl Peterson, Bill Polian, and Ron Wolf, work hard and cut down a list of hundreds of players, coaches, and contributors to fifteen and then it is voted down as a bloc because enough of the 48 regular Hall of Fame committee think one or two of the fifteen are unworthy it would be an insult to the big names the Hall recruited for the panel.

Why would they waster their time only to be shown up by the full committee? Just a guess they'd be none too pleased.

It would also be a major public relations disaster. Epic in proportion.

It would also be a disservice to 13- or 14 worthy nominees. How would it be if Duke Slater or a dozen or more worthy players lost their only chance for election because of a political beef purportedly with Tagliabue?

It would kind of stink.

My personal view is the Hall of Fame can do what it wants with its processes. I think it's extraordinarily odd to make a change this significant this late in the process (we expect some sort of cutdown soon, not to 15 but to maybe 20-25 or so). My wish is that the process was not so political, but it's always been that way, however, in my view much less so now than in the 1990s when I looked at the process and followed it closely.

The full committee rejecting 13 or 14 worthy players because the Hall, perhaps on the bidding of some of its trustees like Goodell or Jerry Jones or others, tried to fix the system so as to give "their guy" an inside track that would also stink, but if the voters did it, the principle they would be defending would be worthy. No one should get preferential treatment.

However, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Hall and the trustees would vehemently deny anyone is getting a system rigged in his favor. Again, it is only rumored that the NFL and the Hall want Tagliabue in my any means necessary. We have to go by the word of people who say they have gotten phone calls promoting the former commissioner.

The logical question to ask is does the blue-ribbon committee seem to be more pro-Tagliabue than the 48-member full committee?

Good question.

Florio points out some work or worked for the NFL but to me, that does not automatically mean any bias at all. And yes, in the last 20 years or so the NFL has poured tons of money into the Hall of Fame but that does not automatically mean there is a conflict but it's one data point to consider.

Clearly, there is a ton of football knowledge on the blue-ribbon committee which does include members of the full committee. So the chances of the "fix being in" are tiny in my opinion. These are good men and women who've been tasked to do a job.

I'd be more concerned about parochial interests than anything, the kind of thing written about earlier in this post—people pushing for players they coached or played with or drafted. Sometimes, in that situation revisionist history an set in, making a player better now than when the All-Pro voters or Hall of Fame voters passed them by on the All-Pro teams or All-Decade teams, just as an example.

When you guy was All-Pro a bunch or All-Decade or a Player of the Year you lead with it. If he didn't have those you pooh-pooh it, that those things are "popularity contests" and whatnot. That game is familiar.

Honestly, this is more an interesting story than some sort of calamity.

I have every confidence that all 15 players the Blue Ribbon Committee will be worthy. Perhaps I might squabble about one or two taking the place of another one or two I think is more worthy, but that's just opinion.

If the blue-ribbon committee does screw the pooch, I will give my opinion of it then. As of now, I am content to wait and see what happens and no prejudge the work.

Again, making a change in the process is not wise. But it's not a deadly sin either. Making the process include an all-or-nothing process, to begin with, was not wise, in my opinion either. But hey, it's not my decision to make. I am just calling it as I see it.

In any event, I respect the voters on both the 48-person committee and the Blue Ribbon Committee. Let the process work itself out and then we will see if my faith is misplaced.

As always, I could be wrong.