1967 Blues for the Browns

Saban1
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:14 pm

Re: 1967 Blues for the Browns

Post by Saban1 »

I guess that the "new browns" suck even when compared with the 1967 Browns.

Back to 1967: The two most important wins for Cleveland as far as their Century Division race was concerned was their two wins over the Cardinals that year. When looking at the game stats, it is hard to see HOW Cleveland won those games. The Browns appear to have been outplayed in both games. The Cards gained 349 yards compared to 223 yards for Cleveland in their first game and 295 yards compared the Browns 131 yards in their second contest. The difference appears to have been turnovers. The Cardinals had 5 in their first game including three interceptions and Jim Houston had a pick 6 in the second.

Jim Hart was the St. Louis quarterback in 1967 because usual quarterback Charley Johnson was drafted into the army. Hart was a second year man who saw very little action the previous year. Jim Hart eventually became a fine quarterback in the NFL, but his lack of experience was probably the key factor in both of the Browns/Cardinals games in 1967. Johnson going into the army was likely the biggest break for the Browns that year. Cleveland won both of those games by the score of 20 to 16.
JWL
Posts: 1188
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:35 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: 1967 Blues for the Browns

Post by JWL »

rhickok1109 wrote:
MarbleEye wrote:The 1967 Browns are good measure of both how good the original franchise was (In that a 9-5 record, and a playoff appearance is deemed a bad or struggling team with a lot of flaws compared to the other editions right around that same time) and how pathetic that the "New Browns" are (only 2 winning seasons, only 1 playoff appearance and NO season with a winning percentage as high as 9-5 produces, which is .643 when rounded. [10-6 is .625] )

I will always wish they had "retired" the original Browns name and colors (like they did for the Oilers) and treated the new team as exactly what it really was, a brand new team and an expansion team. It's horrendous to me that this terrible organization has been allowed to drag the proud name and reputation of the original Browns through the mud with it's ineptitude.
I'm in total agreement. Pretending that the Ravens were an expansion franchise and the new hapless Browns were a continuation of a very proud franchise was and is simultaneously farcical and sad.

I agree. Yeah, the current Browns have nothing to do with the original Browns.
Saban1
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:14 pm

Re: 1967 Blues for the Browns

Post by Saban1 »

There is not much doubt about it, the present day Browns really stink. No mystery there.

I might as well name the other eleven 1967 Browns starters here. They were: Safeties Ross Fichtner and Ernie Kellerman, Linebackers John Brewer and Dale Lindsay, Cornerback Mike Howell, Defensive Tackles Jim Kanicki and Walter Johnson, Center Fred Hoaglin, Tackle Monte Clark, Quarterback Frank Ryan, and Tight End Ralph "Catfish" Smith. Not such a bad group of players. Only Lindsay, Hoaglin, and Smith were new starters in 1967 and Catfish Smith was filling in for Milt Morin, who missed most of the season due to an injury.

Lack of talent was not the problem for the 1967 Cleveland Browns.
Saban1
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:14 pm

Re: 1967 Blues for the Browns

Post by Saban1 »

Here is something else. The Cleveland Browns put out a film called "A Winning Tradition," which covered the seasons 1964 through 1969, except that the 1966 season was left out, I guess because they did not make the playoffs that year. The 1966 edition was much better than the 1967 team, but missed the playoffs due to bad luck, a bad schedule which gave them a disadvantage over their eastern rivals, and the sudden rise of the Dallas Cowboys.

In 1967, the NFL divided the Eastern and Western Conferences both into two divisions, and Cleveland's main competition, Dallas, was placed into something called the Capitol Division, with Cleveland in the Century Division with three other teams, none of whom had winning records in 1967. Cleveland ended up with a 9 and 5 record and only played in three games against teams with winning records out of 14 games. As a result, they did get into a playoff game with Capitol Division winner Dallas only to get killed by the score of 52 to 14.

I believe that if the conferences were split in 1966 as they were in 1967, then Cleveland not only would have made the playoffs that year, but would have had a good chance to defeat the Cowboys in the playoffs, especially if the playoff game was in Cleveland.

BTW, Cleveland flanker Gary Collins called the 1966 team the best that he ever played on, even better than the 1964 team that won the NFL Championship.
Saban1
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:14 pm

Re: 1967 Blues for the Browns

Post by Saban1 »

The big game for the Browns during the 1967 regular season turned out to be their second game with the New York Giants, even though the Giants were the worst team in the NFL in 1966 with a record of 1-12-1 and a defense that was record shattering. The Giants were much improved in 1967 mostly due to the addition of quarterback Fran Tarkenton, but also helped by newcomers like middle linebacker Vince Costello and some rookies named Lurtsema, Eaton, and Avery. Joe Morrison and Ernie Koy both had great years as did star receivers Homer Jones and Aaron Thomas and safety Spider Lockhart.

Despite the improvement, the Giants still should not have been a serious threat to Cleveland in the Century Division, IMO. The Giants did upset the Browns, 38 to 34 in their first game in New York, and if they could do the same in Cleveland, then the Browns would have been in danger of settling for second place to New York in the Century Division. I was expecting the Browns to really trounce the Giants in that second game in Cleveland, but they really didn't, though they did win 24 to 14.

I must admit, Cleveland's defense did a good job of containing Fran Tarkenton that day, and Cleveland's running duo of Leroy Kelly and Ernie Green did very well, but other than an early TD pass to Gary Collins, The Browns passing did not do much with a net 32 yards after the yardage from sacks was deducted from the passing yards. So, Cleveland was really carried by their defense and their running that day. Linebacker Jim Houston got a 79 yard pick six in the 4th quarter, and it wasn't until then that the game was nearly wrapped up for Cleveland. It was a good thing for the Browns that Tarkenton was contained as well as he was, or Cleveland may have been spared their playoff humiliation at the hands of the Dallas Cowboys.
Saban1
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:14 pm

Re: 1967 Blues for the Browns

Post by Saban1 »

During the late 60's, the Cleveland Browns would usually get really up for one or two games a year. In 1966 they got up for their first game with Dallas, sacking Cowboys quarterbacks (mostly Don Meredith) 5 times and pressuring them into 4 interceptions as Cleveland won 30 to 21. They must have been up for the champion Green Bay Packers that year in their second game of the season as they led almost the entire game only to lose 21 to 20 in the final moments of the game as Jim Taylor scored on a 9 yard screen pass on a 4th and goal situation. Even though the loss was only by 1 point, it badly hurt the Browns chances for another Eastern Conference title as the Browns, down from letting the Green Bay game slip away (easy to do in those days), lost the following week to the Cardinals 34 to 28 (Lou Groza missed 3 field goals in that game). The Browns never could catch up to Dallas after those two losses. Cleveland was the only team in the east to have the dubious honor of playing Green Bay that year.

In 1968, the Browns got up for Baltimore giving the Colts their only loss during the regular season. Cleveland also was up for Dallas in the Eastern Conference playoff game winning 31 to 20.

In 1969, Cleveland got up for both games with the Cowboys, including their playoff game, winning both games big, 42 to 10 and 38 to 14.

That leaves 1967. It came down to their second game with the New York Giants that Cleveland had to get up for. The Giants had been the worst team in the NFL the previous year winning only one game and setting a record by giving up over 500 points, a record until sometime after the NFL went to a 16 game season. The Giants were improved in 1967 mostly due to their new quarterback named Fran Tarkenton, which seemed to leapfrog them over teams like Washington, Philadelphia, new franchise New Orleans, and the Pittsburgh Steelers. It was Cleveland's second game with the Giants that the Browns needed to win the new Century Division and thus get into the playoffs,

Cleveland did a good job of handling Tarkenton and the Giants, but it seems like quite a difference having their big game being the New York Giants in 1967 compared to teams like Green Bay, Baltimore, and Dallas in the surrounding seasons.

Jerry Kramer related in his book "Instant Replay" that the Green Bay players and coaches were watching the Cleveland/Dallas playoff game in 1967 to see who they would be playing the next week in Green Bay for the NFL title. Vince Lombardi had guessed that Dallas would win. After a short time of only a few minutes, Vince Lombardi said, "OK, it's Dallas," and then left the room with the other coaches to prepare for their next game with the Dallas Cowboys. Vince was right as Dallas won 52 to 14.
User avatar
Bryan
Posts: 2509
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:37 am

Re: 1967 Blues for the Browns

Post by Bryan »

Saban wrote:During the late 60's, the Cleveland Browns would usually get really up for one or two games a year.
I always thought it was interesting how those late-60's Browns were a joker team, capable of big upsets or huge losses. I'm not sure if it was due to their roster composition...great skill position players with Kelly/Warfield/Collins, a great OL, but a defense without much talent and no elite QB. Giving up 50+ points to GB, Dallas, Minnesota, blowout postseason losses, but also eliminating Dallas, keeping the 68 Colts from going undefeated.
Saban1
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:14 pm

Re: 1967 Blues for the Browns

Post by Saban1 »

Bryan wrote:
Saban wrote:During the late 60's, the Cleveland Browns would usually get really up for one or two games a year.
I always thought it was interesting how those late-60's Browns were a joker team, capable of big upsets or huge losses. I'm not sure if it was due to their roster composition...great skill position players with Kelly/Warfield/Collins, a great OL, but a defense without much talent and no elite QB. Giving up 50+ points to GB, Dallas, Minnesota, blowout postseason losses, but also eliminating Dallas, keeping the 68 Colts from going undefeated.

Cleveland did have their peaks and valleys in those days. In the case of Dallas, the Browns would get way up and come crashing down the next week (like winning 42 to 10 over the Cowboys in 1969 and then losing 51 to 3 to Minnesota in their next game, or beating Dallas in the 1968 playoffs and losing 34 to 0 to the Colts in the NFL title game).

In 1967, it was different. Cleveland just wasn't a very good road team that year, especially on the tail end of 3 game road trips. Of course, they may have suffered a let down after their opening game with Dallas, even though the Browns lost that game. Cleveland lost their next game to Detroit 31 to 14 after leading 14 to 3.

They say that football is a game of inches. There were a lot of inches in 1967, and they added up to a lot I guess.
Saban1
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:14 pm

Re: 1967 Blues for the Browns

Post by Saban1 »

Regarding the 38 to 34 loss to the Giants in 1967. Pretty much the same thing happened in Dallas the next year.

Cleveland had beaten the Giants 6 straight times starting in 1964 when they played the Giants in New York in 1967. The Giants were a rival of Cleveland's in the Century Division that year. Cleveland had 4 turnovers plus a blocked punt in their loss to the Giants.

In 1968, the Giants were moved to the Capitol Division with Dallas and a couple of other teams (Philadelphia and Washington). When the Giants played the Cowboys that year, Dallas had beaten the Giants 6 straight times. In that game, Dallas had 5 turnovers as the Giants upset them 27 to 21.

The loss didn't really hurt the Cowboys very much as they finished the season with a 12 and 2 record and 5 games ahead of the New York Giants, but those games show that a highly motivated team (up for a game) can often beat a much better team that isn't particularly up for the game.

Cleveland's loss to the Giants in 1967 did not end up hurting them as far as the Century Division race went as the Browns won that division by a couple of games, but it may have hurt them as far as the Green Bay game went that year. After losing to the Giants, the Browns felt that they could not afford to lose their next game to the Steelers, and probably played a little harder to try to make sure of a win. The next week the Browns played the Packers and may have felt pretty satisfied with their big 34 to 14 win over Pittsburgh. They may have lost some of their edge against Green Bay, or they may have gotten slaughtered anyway.
Saban1
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:14 pm

Re: 1967 Blues for the Browns

Post by Saban1 »

More stuff about Cleveland's loss to Detroit in 1967 (31 to 14 after Browns were leading 14 to 3). Detroit was kind of on a roll after getting a tie with defending champion Green Bay in the opener right on the Packs home field (Bart Starr threw 4 interceptions which was more than he threw the entire previous regular season). The Lions probably had championship thoughts which may have ended when they lost their next two games to the Cardinals and then with a Zeke Bratkowski led Packers (Starr was injured).

I still believe that Cleveland had their usual post Dallas game letdown which was evidenced by Detroit running for first down after first down (29 first downs total) and scoring 28 unanswered points. From 1967 through 1969, Cleveland lost the following game after their Dallas games 6 straight times, sometimes by big scores, starting with the Detroit game. In 1966, the Browns lost their second game after their Dallas games, but played the two worst teams in the NFL following their two big games with the Cowboys, the new franchise Atlanta Falcons and the 1-12-1 New York Giants.

Here are a couple more excuses for the Detroit loss:

(1) Leroy Kelly was headed for a TD which would have made the score 21 to 3 in favor of Cleveland, but fumbled and Detroit recovered. Maybe that would have made a difference as Cleveland might have kept their momentum.

(2) Gary Collins was injured leaving the Browns with only one of their regular main receivers in Paul Warfield. Rookie Eppie Barney replaced Collins in that game and Ralph "Catfish" Smith replaced tight end Milt Morin as he did for most of the 1967 season. Another receiver, Clifton McNeil was also injured, or he probably would have replaced Collins in that game.
Post Reply