New York Giants Fans: Cowboys-Giants Rivalry

Source:The Daily Review

The NFC East division is the best division in the NFL, because every team hates everyone else. Maybe only the AFC North can say that about their division. You got Giants-Eagles, Redskins-Cowboys, Redskins-Giants, Eagles-Cowboys, these are all great rivalries. The Redskins-Eagles rivalry has been very good over the years especially the last thirty years or so. But the Giants-Cowboys even though it is a rivalry and both teams respect and get up for each other, might be the last rivalry in the NFC East. Both teams are separated by about 2000 miles. Other than this century both teams haven't been good at the same time for the most part. The Cowboys were great in the 1970s, the Giants perhaps the worst franchise of the 1970s. The Giants were good in the mid and late 1980s as the Cowboys were in decline. The Cowboys were the team of the 1990s, while the Giants were struggling to make the NFC Playoffs for the most part.

The Giants, might have a bigger rivalry with the Chicago Bears and San Francisco 49ers over the years, if you look at all the great games they've had with both franchises. Especially the 49ers which goes back to 1981 and where they seemed to be playing each other on Monday Night Football every year in the 1980s, or in the playoffs. As you see in this video most of the great games that the Giants and Cowboys have played against each other has been in the last 5-10 years or so. So you might be able to say that the Giants-Cowboys rivalry has been great during this period, or is one of the best rivalries in the NFL right now. Similar to the Ravens and Pittsburgh Steelers, or the Ravens and Cincinnati Bengals. But historically the Giants main rivals have been the Eagles and Redskins and then after that the 49ers and Bears, as far as the big games that they've played. With the Cowboys it has been the Redskins and Eagles and then the 49ers as well.

To me at least great NFL rivalries are historic. They survive through the years with people being able to say, "remember that great game against them thirty years ago when we beat them for the division? Reminds me of that game last year when they beat us for the division." Just because a rivalry is hot, or sexy, or however you want to phrase it, doesn't make it a great rivalry if no one cares about it 3-5 years from now. Because both teams have moved on, or perhaps are struggling now, or just one team is struggling with other getting the better of their games. And yes since both the Cowboys and Giants have been regular playoff contenders the last ten years or so and generally have both been in the NFC East race, they've played a lot of big games against each other and have done that in prime-time. But that doesn't put it in the same class as the Redskins-Cowboys, Giants-Eagles, Redskins-Giants, who go back forever against each other and have played a lot of great games against each other going back fifty-years. The Cowboys first big rival was the Redskins. Then the Eagles and then the Giants.

Jim Files: NY Giants Chronicles- The 1960s and 1970s

Source:Jim Files- The 1960s New York Giants. 

Source:The Daily Review 

"1970 New York Giants Highlight Video"

From Jim Files

I believe Bob Papa had the best line when he said that the New York Giants by 1964 were in transition. The great teams and success that they had in the 1950s and early 1960s was gone by 1964. 

Giants running back Alex Webster (not Barney Rubble) had a great line as well when he said in 64 that the Giants had a bunch of players who played a year too long. They were an aging team that was carrying a lot of aging veterans who were past their primes and should’ve retired after the 62 or 63 seasons and simply no longer had it in 64 and the Giants collapsed and finished in last place in 64. And guys like Y.A. Tittle, Frank Gifford and Alex Webster, all retire after the 64 season. Leaving the Giants being forced to start rebuilding in 65.

To give you an idea of how good the Giants were from 1964-80: they never made the playoffs and had I believe had two winning seasons. The worst team in the NFC East in the 1970s. Again, one winning season and year after year competing with their arch-rival the Philadelphia Eagles for last place in the NFC East. Two of the biggest markets and cities in the country and two of the most storied franchises in the NFL and yet they were consistently competing for last place in the NFC East. 

I think the problem with the Giants of this era was that they fired Allie Sherman too soon after the 68 season and then not finding a good head coach for them until Ray Perkins in 1979. They had several different head coaches during this period that all had one thing in common: losing season after losing season.

As great as Wellington Mara was for the New York Giants franchise he made a lot of mistakes in the 1960s and 70s. Not having the right general manager and head coach in the 1970s and poor drafting set this franchise way back. 

Also, not finding a replacement for Yankee Stadium which was really a baseball park that the Giants shared. (With the guess who) All of these things that contributed to the Giants essentially being asleep as a franchise especially in the 1970s. Even the Chicago Bears who were pretty bad in this period as well-managed a couple of winning seasons and made the playoffs in the 1970s. 

The Giants did make a few good draft picks in the mid and late 1970s like Harry Carson, George Martin and Phil Simms that set them up well for the 1980s. But by in-large the 1970s was a bad decade for the New York Giants.

The New York Times: Jason Tubrow: Colorful History of Kezar Stadium

Source:The New Democrat

I guess from the outside looking in, Kezar Stadium was a very attractive football stadium. With pretty sight lines, in a great part of San Francisco, with a pretty field. Not much different from lets say L.A. Memorial Coliseum, or perhaps Rose Bowl Stadium, but a little more than half the size of both of those historic stadiums. But RFK Stadium in Washington, has a great field, fans are on top of the action, with good sight lines, at least for football, but it looks like underground parking lot, once you go back to the concession stands and move away from the field. Kezar Stadium, not football palace, but certainly a stadium with a lot of character.

In the 1950s, the 49ers became winners and contenders at Kezar. Y.A. Tittle, perhaps one of the top ten quarterbacks of all-time, whose in the Hall of Fame, played for the 49ers at Kezar, not Candlestick Park. He was part of the 49ers Million Dollar Backfield. Tittle, along with running backs Joe Perry, Hugh McElhenny, and John Johnson. And RC Owens, great 49ers receiver, was also part of these very good 49er teams. That never seemed to be able to top the Chicago Bears, or Colts in the Western Conference to get to the NFL Championship. Dirty Harry, with Clint Eastwood, did a scene at Kezar.

Kezar Stadium, certainly not a football palace and the 49ers in the early 1970s certainly needed a better football stadium. To have the resources to contend in the NFL in the 1970s and beyond. Kezar, was certainly not Chicago’s Soldier Field, or Green Bay’s Lambeau Field, or even Los Angeles’s Memorial Coliseum, but it was a stadium with a lot of character. It was a true football stadium and not a cookie cutter that was made for both football and baseball in the 1970s. And had San Francisco and the 49ers bothered to renovate the stadium and invest in it, maybe the 49ers are still playing there today. And the Giants, are still playing at Candlestick Park when it was beautiful.

MSG: New York Giants Chronicles- QB Phil Simms

Source: Scoop Nest- The New York Giants, vs. the Los Angeles Rams.

Source:The New Democrat 

My thoughts about Phil Simms as a football player and now as an NFL analyst for CBS Sports, are quite frankly mixed. I should separate how I feel about him both as a player and analyst. But my thoughts about him as a player are mixed, because I'm a Redskins fan and I hate the New York Giants obviously because of the great Redskins-Giants rivalry. But sports hate and personal hate are two different things. And if you are familiar with the NFC East division, you know that the fans in the division hate every other team in their division, but they respect the good teams, especially the players.

My best memory of Phil Simms as a fan, is a 1989 game against the Redskins and perhaps I should save this for a post I write about Dexter Manley. But Dexter sacks Simms five times in that game and I still have that memory in my head of Simms looking like he just got struck by a machine gun every time that Dexter nailed him in that game. The Giants won that game, but I still have those five plays of Dexter nailing Simms as some of my greatest memories as a Redskins fan. Now to get to the good moments of Phil Simms career.

The one thing that I can't get out my head about Phil Simms career is that he gets almost no consideration and talk about the NFL Hall of Fame. Even though he was definitely one of the best quarterbacks of his era especially the 1980s. I know he officially only gets credit for winning one Super Bowl as a starting quarterback in 1986, but the Giants don't get that far without Simms in 1990 and until he got hurt late in the 1990 season and missed the 1990 NFC Playoffs. If Simms plays Super Bowl 25 against the Buffalo Bills, the Giants win that game by 10-14 points because they would've had the whole playbook especially in the passing game.

Phil Simms is one of the best clutch quarterbacks of his era, if not all-time and had a 95-64 record in the regular season and was 6-4 in the playoffs. I know he doesn't have the stats of Dan Marino, Joe Montana, John Elway and even Jim Kelly. But those guys played in mostly passing offenses and didn't play at least eight games every year at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. One of the coldest and windiest stadiums in the NFL. And no one was as good or better than Simms under those conditions and in the clutch as Phil Simms. Great quarterback in the clutch with a great proven record and that alone should at least get him consideration for the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

NFL Films: The Chicago Bears 46 Defense

Source:The New Democrat 

I wouldn't call former Bears defensive coordinator Buddy Ryan the father of the 46 Defense, but he certainly was one of the fathers. You could make a case that what former Atlanta Falcons defensive coordinator Jerry Glanville is the father of the 46 Defense. They just didn't call it that in Atlanta in the mid and late 1970s and even into the 1980s when Glanville was still coaching the Falcons defense before he moved on to Houston. In Atlanta this defense was called the Grits Blitz.

But what is the 46 Defense and why is it called that when the Bears didn't even line up four men up front and six right behind the defensive line. The Bears would line up four DL generally, two defensive ends and two defensive tackles. With Otis Wilson and Wilbur Marshal who were normally linebackers would line up next to either defensive end Dan Hampton or Richard Dent. With middle linebacker Mike Singletary covering the middle of the field almost by himself.

The 46 Defense to paraphrase Buddy Ryan was based off of a simple mathematic proposition. That if the offense lines seven up front and we line eight up front, at least one defender will always go unblocked and free to either rush the QB or stuff the runner. Which meant the Bears on defense would generally have eight guys lined up in the box. Not all of them on the line of scrimmage. Four down front, two linebackers again right next to one of the DE's, Mike Singletary right behind the DT's and a safety right near the line of scrimmage as well.

What also made the Bears 46 special was just because they generally lined up eight guys in the box, that didn't mean eight guys were always rushing the line of scrimmage. They wanted the offense to always believe that was a possibility and have to prepare for that. Most offenses fell for that trap and played the Bears 46 conservatively and tried to keep more guys in for protection and run blocking. Leaving fewer people in the play that the QB can throw the ball to and also making it harder to run the ball. Because instead spreading the 46 out, you leave everybody in making things very crowded.

The opposite is true in how you attack the 46. You don't go conservative especially if you are a good offensive team with a good QB and passing game. You bring in extra WR's and spread the defense out, which gives you more room to operate on offense. And once you establish the passing game and can even hit a few passes deep, now you got the Bears thinking about the passing game. Which gives you room to run the football.

As I mentioned last night, the Dolphins were the only team that figured out how to attack the Bears 46 in 1985 and have the personal to do it on offense. The Redskins studied that and used their own variation of that in 86 and 87. By using maximum protection, but not to run the football, but to hit big passes down the field. And spread the Bears out as well to throw short and that is how they beat the Bears in 86 and 87 in the NFC Playoffs. As well as being good enough on defense to stop the Bears.

NFL Network: NFL 1985: The Dominance of the 85 Chicago Bears 46 Defense

Source:The New Democrat

The reason why the Bears 46 Defense isn't ranked as high at least by a lot of NFL historians as lets say the Steel Curtain Pittsburgh Steelers of the 1970s or even the Ravens of the last decade or so, is because the Steelers and Ravens were great on defense for a decade and not just one season or a few seasons. After the the Bears lost to the Redskins at home in the 1986 Divisional Playoff, the dominance and fear of the Bears I wouldn't say was gone, but teams knew how to beat them now. Which is what I'm going to get into.

I have a friend on Facebook who I met on YouTube who actually who disagrees with this. But Don Shula and the Miami Dolphins figured out how to beat the Bears defense in 1985 and not just figured it out, but had the offensive personal to get it done. And the Dolphins were the only team that beat the Bears in the 1985 season. Most NFL teams believed the way you beat the Bears was establishing the run so they can't kill you with the blitz. Well there are a couple of problems with that. The Bears were excellent against the run. Second with always having seven guys if not eight in the box, it makes it very difficult to run against that formation especially with the size and strength the Bears had on defense.

The Dolphins approached the 46 differently. One for strategic reasons that they had a great QB in Dan Marino with a very quick and accurate release who got rid of the ball quickly. They also always had at least three very good wide receivers in the 1980s with Marino when you are talking about Mark Duper, Mark Clayton and Nat More. The other reason being practical for the Dolphins. Lets be real here, the Dolphins didn't have a running game other than maybe Tony Nathan. Who was better suited as a change up back and a wing back, hybrid between a halfback and wide receiver. Someone who catches a lot of screens and passes out of the backfield and runs draws.

So what the Dolphins did is what they did better than anyone else in the NFL back then except for maybe the San Francisco 49ers was throw the football and throw it a lot. And just didn't throw the football a lot, but threw it very well. They spread out the Bears and threw a lot quick short routes to the guys I've already mentioned and forced the Bears with all of their big men to play a lot of pass coverage. So their horses upfront didn't have the time to get to Marino who was getting rid of the ball on quick drops anyway. The Dolphins turned their Monday Night game against the Bears into a shootout. Thinking the Bears couldn't keep up on offense and they were right.

I'm not saying the Bears secondary was a weak link and their linebackers sure as hell weren't. At least one more of their linebackers should be in the Hall of Fame, Wilbur Marshal comes to mind real fast. But they didn't have that one strong cover corner like a Rod Woodson or a Mel Blount. And they didn't have lot of speed and range with their safety's. Which meant they played their coverages and their assignments, but when something broke down, or they had to cover one-on-one against a very good or great WR, their defense became exposed.

The Dolphins beat the Bears in 85 by spreading the 46 out and throwing a lot of quick passes. The Redskins beat them in the 86 and 87 defenses by going maximum protection and taking shots downfield against single coverage with WR's Art Monk and Gary Clark. The Bears linebackers were hitters and stuffers first, but could get exposed when it came to pass coverage because of a lack of running speed and the fact they didn't play a lot pass coverage. There job was to hit and to destroy, not cover.

Now the positive aspect of the 85 Bears. If I had to take one defense for one season as far as how dominant they were, I take the 85 Bears over everyone else. Because of how dominant they were not just in the regular season, but in the NFC Playoffs not giving a single point against two good teams in the LA Rams and New York Giants. I think the 86 Giants had better overall personal on defense especially in the secondary and that their linebackers could play pass coverage as well. But nobody was more dominant on defense for one season than the 85 Bears.

NBC Sports: Green Bay Packers and Chicago Bears: A Rivalry Through the Years

Source:The New Democrat

Similar to the Redskins-Cowboys rivalry or the Steelers-Browns rivalry or the Raiders-Broncos rivalry, the Bears-Packers rivalry is not as great as it use to be. For one thing, the Packers have dominated this rivalry really the last twenty years or so when the Packers became a regular playoff team and divisional champion, as well as Super Bowl contender and champion. The Bears have been in, well hibernation (pun intended) really since they fired Mike Ditka in 1993. And have not found that one head coach who can not only make them consistent winners again, but champions as well.

But even with the Bears lack of success on the field in the last twenty years or so, because of all the games they've won in their history, including championships and of course with all the success that they Packers have had the last twenty years and throughout their history and with all of the history between these two great franchises, you'll have a real hard time finding a better rivalry in the NFL and probably a better rivalry in pro sports in general. I mean we are talking about Michigan-Ohio State as far as all of the history, games and championships won between these two great franchises.

CBS Sports: NFL 1975- The NFL Today-Pre-Game Show For The NFC Divisional Playoffs

Source:The New Democrat

The pre-game show for one of the best NFL playoff games of all time was this 1975 NFC Divisional Playoff game between the Dallas Cowboys, led by, of course, Tom Landry and QB Roger Staubach vs. the Minnesota Vikings, led by, of course, Bud Grant and QB Fran Tarkenton. What is strange about this game is that the 1970s Vikings were famous for losing Super Bowls.  They lost three in the 1970s alone and one after the 1969 season. Actually, technically they lost four in the 1970s if you want to be real technical, since Super Bowl 4 was played in January 1970. But they actually had the better team in this game but lost on a Hail Mary touchdown pass at the end of this game.