Did George Allen Make or Break Larry Brown's Career

[thebluefood]

 

Larry Brown is not going to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. 

 

Though he was a stand-out player in Washington - pro bowl his rookie year, two time first-team all-pro, led the league in rushing on a lack-luster 1970 team - he probably doesn't have a path to Canton before him. The primary reason: a career shortened by injury. But how much of that is really on him? Brown did what was asked of him under three coaches with conservative, run-first mentalities. He ran often, he ran tough, and played a none-too-small role in the team's return to relevance after nearly 30 years in the pro football doldrums.

But his career was mostly spent under someone who cranked that philosophy up to 11: George Allen. Brown had his best individual season under Allen in 1972 but the sheer volume of carries he'd accumulated by then had already taken its toll on him. Allen helped turn the team around and gave Brown ample opportunity to show off his talent but maybe it was too much of a good thing. Brown missed two games that season due to injuries and watching his highlight reels can be downright unpleasant because of all the shots he took to the legs.

 

Plus, unlike his Hall of Fame contemporaries Franco Harris and Larry Csonka, Brown didn't have someone who could help him shoulder the load. Frenchy Fuqua had almost as many carries as Harris and the Dolphins had two 1,000 rushers in Csonka and Mercury Morris (along with a goal-line threat in Jim Kiick). Allen was coach/GM in D.C. but couldn't seem to acquire (through the draft or free agency) someone who could be that guy for Brown (unless guys like Charlie Harraway or Herb Mul-key were under-utilized, in which case, Allen would look even worse).

 

All that was on top of his role as a receiver in Allen's system back when you could do whatever you wanted to receivers - especially if they were coming over the middle. Even O.J. Simpson wasn't used as much in that capacity and he, more or less, was the Bills offense during his career. 

 

All that to say: Larry Brown got the **** kicked out of him at an even higher rate than other pro football running backs of his day. How much of that was due to Allen's system and by extension, how much does that factor into Brown not having the years and numbers to make it into the Hall of Fame? Did Allen make or break Brown's career by using him as much as he did? 

[SkinsGuy]

You ask most RBs they will tell you "Just give me the damn ball".

 

I think if you ask  Mr. Brown, he wouldn't blame Coach George Allen for his shortened career because he wanted to tote that "damn ball" as much as he could.

 

Could Coach Allen have gotten an alternate RB to spell Brown? Probably, but I don't really know how the game was coached in the early 70s  (I was very young then).

 

Out of curiosity, though, what is the point of this thread? It isn't a "round the elbow" way of going after George's son Bruce, is it?  

 

 

[Spearfeather]

Tough to say. I see where he only averaged more than 20 carries a game just once ( 1972 ).

 

One thing's for sure, Lombardi absolutely helped make him. Brown was deaf in his left ear, and Lombardi got a rule waived so that Brown could have a transmitter in his helmet, after noticing early on that Brown was always a split second late getting off the snap.

 

Need a highlight reel to truly appreciate his running.

 

 

[thebluefood]

21 minutes ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

 

Out of curiosity, though, what is the point of this thread? It isn't a "round the elbow" way of going after George's son Bruce, is it?  

 

 

That would be a new level of passive aggressiveness even beyond my Episcopalian sensibilities.  

 

But in all seriousness: it's the off season stuff like the draft and FA aren't my cup of tea so these history threads are really the only way I contribute to The Stadium. The team's been around for almost 90 years - they've got plenty to analyze without indulging in hard core nostalgia. 

 

24 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

One thing's for sure, Lombardi absolutely helped make him. Brown was deaf in his left ear, and Lombardi got a rule waived so that Brown could have a transmitter in his helmet, after noticing early on that Brown was always a split second late getting off the snap.

 

 

 

Another reason to lament Lombardi's untimely and unnecessary demise. He was able to work with Brown's partial deafness - who knows how else he could have helped Brown reach his full potential? He knew how important it was to have running back tandems to share the responsibilities from his Green Bay days (along with Lombardi working with Sonny Jurgensen instead of trying to make him fit in a box that didn't suit him). 

[SkinsGuy]

3 minutes ago, thebluefood said:

But in all seriousness: it's the off season stuff like the draft and FA aren't my cup of tea so these history threads are really the only way I contribute to The Stadium. The team's been around for almost 90 years - they've got plenty to analyze without indulging in hard core nostalgia. 

 

I know. I was just messing with ya.  

 

I will say though that I don't believe that Brown's lack of HoF classification is solely because of a shortened career. Even Joe Jacoby, who had a long, very prosperous career, can't get in. Great players like Gary Clark can't even get looked at.

 

I think it has just as much to do with personal biases and agendas among the voters as anything. Not to mention the glut of players trying to get in (with new ones becoming eligible every year).

 

It's why I don't use the HoF to judge these player's greatness. 

[Darth Tater]

Split load backfields was common in the 1970s.  Harraway most definitely did get a lot of carries and it was only in his last season with the Redskins that he wasn't a real threat, our running game suffered because we really didn't have a dual threat in the backfield until Mike Thomas and John Riggins were paired in 1976. I wonder if the WFL had not come up if Harraway plays 2 more years and gets us to 1976. It is (was?) about the total number of snaps since as a running back, especially one who was a good blocker and one of the top receiving threats in the NFL, he got hit hard just about every snap.  Also, significant injury is much more about bad luck than we wish to believe. Finally, Larry Brown probably was not as talented as Franco Harris (also Harris was not nearly as good a blocker) and was not the smash mouth runner that Csonka was (Brown was more of a slasher and a lot smaller) so he had to go all out all the time to be in that class. A key to a long career in the NFL is knowing when to half-ass it (and the great ones going at half-ass are still usually head-and-shoulders better than the average ones going full-out).

 

Don't think he would have been necessarily better with Lombardi.  George Allen was directly responsible for several of the key guys on teams as late as the 87 team (10 years after he left) including Joe Theismann, Riggo, Starke, and Butz and arguably had a major effect on how we played until 1993. Probably the only way to extend Larry Brown's career would have been to leave him on the field for fewer snaps.

[thebluefood]

1 minute ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

I will say though that I don't believe that Brown's lack of HoF classification is solely because of a shortened career. Even Joe Jacoby, who had a long, very prosperous career, can't get in. Great players like Gary Clark can't even get looked at.

 

I think it has just as much to do with personal biases and agendas among the voters as anything. Not to mention the glut of players trying to get in (with new ones becoming eligible every year).

 

 

I'm inclined to agree with you there because other "shooting stars" who had brilliant but short careers - like Gale Sayers, Earl Campbell, and Terrell Davis - are in the HOF.

 

Now, it could be argued that Brown didn't have the numbers those three did nor did he have the "iconic plays" the voters always talk about. Outside of 'Skins fans circles, I think the play in Super Bowl VII where he got rocked so hard he lost his helmet is the one he's known for. With the other three, you have an excess of choices. 

 

But maybe a little bit of that bias played against him, too. George Allen wasn't exactly the friendliest coach to the press (local reporters called him "Nixon with a Whistle"). 

[LightningBuggs]

While I don't have an opinion on the actual topic, I just want to add that Larry Brown is the reason I became a Redskin fan and I had the pleasure of telling him that to his face a few years ago.  We ended up having a nice conversation about his playing days.  Larry is definitely one of the nicest guys around.

[thebluefood]

7 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

Split load backfields was common in the 1970s.  Harraway most definitely did get a lot of carries and it was only in his last season with the Redskins that he wasn't a real threat, our running game suffered because we really didn't have a dual threat in the backfield until Mike Thomas and John Riggins were paired in 1976. I wonder if the WFL had not come up if Harraway plays 2 more years and gets us to 1976. It is (was?) about the total number of snaps since as a running back, especially one who was a good blocker and one of the top receiving threats in the NFL, he got hit hard just about every snap.  Also, significant injury is much more about bad luck than we wish to believe. Finally, Larry Brown probably was not as talented as Franco Harris (also Harris was not nearly as good a blocker) and was not the smash mouth runner that Csonka was (Brown was more of a slasher and a lot smaller) so he had to go all out all the time to be in that class. A key to a long career in the NFL is knowing when to half-ass it (and the great ones going at half-ass are still usually head-and-shoulders better than the average ones going full-out).

 

Don't think he would have been necessarily better with Lombardi.  George Allen was directly responsible for several of the key guys on teams as late as the 87 team (10 years after he left) including Joe Theismann, Riggo, Starke, and Butz and arguably had a major effect on how we played until 1993. Probably the only way to extend Larry Brown's career would have been to leave him on the field for fewer snaps.

Thank you for your input here. I'm depending on box scores and highlight reels for topics like this which is why I wanted to open it up to you all who saw Brown and his contemporary's careers unfold. 

 

Harraway did have plenty of carries but judging by the numbers (which, once again, I know is an incomplete metric): it wasn't nearly as balanced as the Fuqua/Blier and Harris backfields were in Pittsburgh or the Csonka-Kiick-Morris backfields were in Miami (Though they were exceptional cases).

 

Also, Brown was a pretty prolific receiver for a running back and even averaged more yards per reception than Harris did. 

 

But you make a great point about knowing when to go all out and knowing when to hold back. Maybe that's why guys like Brown, Campbell, and Davis had the careers they did.

[Darth Tater]

42 minutes ago, thebluefood said:

 

I'm inclined to agree with you there because other "shooting stars" who had brilliant but short careers - like Gale Sayers, Earl Campbell, and Terrell Davis - are in the HOF.

 

Now, it could be argued that Brown didn't have the numbers those three did nor did he have the "iconic plays" the voters always talk about. Outside of 'Skins fans circles, I think the play in Super Bowl VII where he got rocked so hard he lost his helmet is the one he's known for. With the other three, you have an excess of choices. 

 

But maybe a little bit of that bias played against him, too. George Allen wasn't exactly the friendliest coach to the press (local reporters called him "Nixon with a Whistle"). 

Larry Brown was not a big play guy, he only had three runs over 40 yards and 3 receptions over 50. To those who didn't get to see Larry Brown play, think of what Alfred Morris would be for us if he was also one of the deadliest receivers out of the backfield. Gale Sayers (who was identified by George Allen, BTW) had quite a few hi-light plays in his very brief career.  Campbell probably would have started his career with 6 straight 1000+ seasons if season 5 was not shortened by the strike, was actually playing at a pretty high level as late as 28 and was second only to OJ Simpson in yards gained in a single season for several years. Davis was much more fresh in the minds of the voters, had one of the best seasons ever (among 4 straight 1000+ yard seasons) and played on a team that won two SB.

 

Riggo is pretty much in the HoF because of the 1982 run and being the one of the oldest RBs to break the 1000 yard barrier.  Had George Allen's Redskins won the SB and Charley Taylor doesn't break his leg in 1971, I think Larry Brown would probably be in the HoF.  Before Taylor broke his leg, Brown was actually the leading RB in the whole NFL.  After Taylor went down, Brown was pretty much our only consistent threat.

[50yrSKINSfan]

Hi all. From a guy who was around and I am not playing favorites at all, but I think Larry Brown, Jerry Smith and Pat Fischer should be in the HOF.  I think if you look at just stats you could find half backs with less yards in the hall, pos Sayers, and yes there may be some guys who were supposed to be better than Larry but IMO there were no backs around in that era, that were more important to their team than Larry was to the eternally loosing Redskins. Another thing, Larry never had the O line that Riggo, Zonka, or Franco or OJ had. In fact when D. Thomas got here from Dallas he called our Oline a joke. IMO Larry made everyone around him better. Smith has better numbers than Ditka and Fischer played a million years. 

[pjfootballer]

On 4/2/2018 at 12:27 PM, Darth Tater said:

 Finally, Larry Brown probably was not as talented as Franco Harris (also Harris was not nearly as good a blocker) and was not the smash mouth runner that Csonka was (Brown was more of a slasher and a lot smaller) so he had to go all out all the time to be in that class. A key to a long career in the NFL is knowing when to half-ass it (and the great ones going at half-ass are still usually head-and-shoulders better than the average ones going full-out).

 

In in my opinion, Franco Harris is one of the biggest ****** in the history of the NFL. Not a tough between the tackles runner; avoided hits like the plague; one of the most overrated “big” backs of  all time. The Raiders used to call Lynn Swann soft, but Harris was the real marshmallow.  Larry Brown would truck his ass.

[SWFLSkins]

Awesome thread @thebluefood, I have an autographed pic of Brown and always loved his running style. I don't know if Allen is too blame as much as the era from which he came. It was what rued the day. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

During his workhorse years under Allen from '71-'74 Brown carried the ball 19 times a game with another 2.45 receptions. In Dallas for 14 years Emmitt averaged over 20 carries with about the same number of receptions.  I'm sure if we looked up AP, LT and all the other top backs we would see similar figures.

 

Allen got a bad rap.  He didn't do anything different every coach with a great back did, he took advantage of having a player like that. 

 

 

[thebluefood]

11 hours ago, SWFLSkins said:

Awesome thread @thebluefood, I have an autographed pic of Brown and always loved his running style. I don't know if Allen is too blame as much as the era from which he came. It was what rued the day. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

During his workhorse years under Allen from '71-'74 Brown carried the ball 19 times a game with another 2.45 receptions. In Dallas for 14 years Emmitt averaged over 20 carries with about the same number of receptions.  I'm sure if we looked up AP, LT and all the other top backs we would see similar figures.

 

Allen got a bad rap.  He didn't do anything different every coach with a great back did, he took advantage of having a player like that. 

 

 

 

Yes, Allen's style wasn't that different from what other coaches were doing at the time but it seems as if it didn't work as well for him as it did other coaches of his era. It seemed as if other coaches could implement George Allen's style of football better than George Allen could. If it wasn't his system, was it the team's personnel that kept him from reaching the summit (or at least the NFC Championship more than once)? If it is, wouldn't that be on Allen since he had, more-or-less, full control of day-to-day operations at Redskins Park (which he designed)?

 

Taking the 1972 season as a sample: Csonka and Morris basically split responsibilities down the middle (213 to 190 attempts, respectively, difference of 23 attempts). Same with Harris and Fuqua (188 to 150 attempts, respectively, difference of 38) as well as Marv Hubbard and Charlie Smith in Oakland (219 to 170 attempts, respectively, difference of 49) and Calvin Hill and Walt Garrison in Dallas (245 to 167 attempts, respectively, difference of 78).

 

In Washington Brown had 137 more attempts than Charlie Harraway. (285 to 148 attempts, respectively). And that came in a season where Brown missed two games to injury. Allen may have been a product of his time but he seemed to take those philosophies to their limits and I really have to wonder if it didn't at least play a role in Brown's short career - especially if he had guys like Harraway and Mul-key on the bench to help shoulder the load.

 

Having said that, you bring up a good point, @Darrell Green Fan about the attempts-per-game stats in comparison to other players so Brown's size and straight-up bad luck certainly played a role (maybe a bigger role than Allen's impact on the team).

[Darth Tater]

3 hours ago, thebluefood said:

Yes, Allen's style wasn't that different from what other coaches were doing at the time but it seems as if it didn't work as well for him as it did other coaches of his era. It seemed as if other coaches could implement George Allen's style of football better than George Allen could. If it wasn't his system, was it the team's personnel that kept him from reaching the summit (or at least the NFC Championship more than once)? If it is, wouldn't that be on Allen since he had, more-or-less, full control of day-to-day operations at Redskins Park (which he designed)?

The coaches of the handful of teams consistently better that George Allen's 'Skins were not implementing George Allen's style.  You are talking about the Cowboys (HoFer at QB and the coach that designed a good part of the way defense is still played), the Dolphins of the early 70s (Bob Griese and Don Shula?), the Iron Curtain (built via the draft) who also had a HoFer at QB and one of the best RBs of the era, the Tarkenton Vikings who also had Chuck Foreman.  Top QBs were very key for them, GA had (albeit by choice) Bill Kilmer and did not invest heavily on the offensive side (our 1975 offense at the X-O level was pretty much the same as our 1971 offense). You could argue the Rams, but that looks like a wash and the Raiders who have always done their own thing. By 1975, our cupboard was pretty bare and we didn't really have the resources to restock.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

5 hours ago, thebluefood said:

 

 

 

Yes, Allen's style wasn't that different from what other coaches were doing at the time but it seems as if it didn't work as well for him as it did other coaches of his era. It seemed as if other coaches could implement George Allen's style of football better than George Allen could. If it wasn't his system, was it the team's personnel that kept him from reaching the summit (or at least the NFC Championship more than once)? If it is, wouldn't that be on Allen since he had, more-or-less, full control of day-to-day operations at Redskins Park (which he designed)?

 

Taking the 1972 season as a sample: Csonka and Morris basically split responsibilities down the middle (213 to 190 attempts, respectively, difference of 23 attempts). Same with Harris and Fuqua (188 to 150 attempts, respectively, difference of 38) as well as Marv Hubbard and Charlie Smith in Oakland (219 to 170 attempts, respectively, difference of 49) and Calvin Hill and Walt Garrison in Dallas (245 to 167 attempts, respectively, difference of 78).

 

In Washington Brown had 137 more attempts than Charlie Harraway. (285 to 148 attempts, respectively). And that came in a season where Brown missed two games to injury. Allen may have been a product of his time but he seemed to take those philosophies to their limits and I really have to wonder if it didn't at least play a role in Brown's short career - especially if he had guys like Harraway and Mul-key on the bench to help shoulder the load.

 

Having said that, you bring up a good point, @Darrell Green Fan about the attempts-per-game stats in comparison to other players so Brown's size and straight-up bad luck certainly played a role (maybe a bigger role than Allen's impact on the team).

 

I saw Charlie Harraway play.  He was no Mercury Morris, Jim Kick or Walt Garrison. Not by a long shot. 

[MEANDWARF]

To answer the OP's question, that was just how it was during that time period. Rules were pretty liberal back them. Guys use to take advantage on plays where now they would get a penalty. Watching Spearfeather's video shows that.

Here's another one:

 

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

Larry was my favorite Skin of all time, as a kid the coaches always tried to get me to wear #32, I insisted on #43, they would say to me; OJ is #32, I would say; Larry Brown is #43 and he's my favorite!

LB took a pounding, it may not have been so much the carries, as it was the type of running he had to do, he didn't have the electric company blocking for him that's for sure... 

[Darth Tater]

1 hour ago, THE HAMMER'IN HOG said:

Larry was my favorite Skin of all time, as a kid the coaches always tried to get me to wear #32, I insisted on #43, they would say to me; OJ is #32, I would say; Larry Brown is #43 and he's my favorite!

LB took a pounding, it may not have been so much the carries, as it was the type of running he had to do, he didn't have the electric company blocking for him that's for sure... 

Larry Brown was also a top receiver out of the backfield. Of his top 5 runs from scrimmage, 4 were of the catch and run variety.  He was a good blocker.  He was small, even for the standards of his day.  If you want a type of RB who'd fit what Gruden wants perfectly, Larry Brown would hit all the marks except for size.

[thebluefood]

So do you all think size was more of a factor than anything else? Like you all have said, he played in a run-first era and received the same shots as any other running back but he was smaller than most of his contemporaries.

[Darth Tater]

3 hours ago, thebluefood said:

So do you all think size was more of a factor than anything else? Like you all have said, he played in a run-first era and received the same shots as any other running back but he was smaller than most of his contemporaries.

No, the primary factors were bad luck and playing in an era were the solution to injuries was often to just rub dirt on it. Truth is, there were a lot of 1-3 year wonders in the early 70s. His relatively small frame with a running style that matched a bigger back had more to do with why he faded so hard after injury as opposed to why he got injured.  Also, Larry Brown was not a guy who could dominate half-assing, he had to leave it all on the field. When his best became less than what an OJ at half-speed could do...

[Califan007 The Constipated]

On 4/2/2018 at 10:19 AM, SkinsGuy said:

You ask most RBs they will tell you "Just give me the damn ball".

 

 

 

Reminds me of this lol (NSFW - language of course):

 

 

[Bang]

Consideration has to be given to the lack of medical knowledge or care when it came to serious knee injuries. They didn't have the ability to repair ligaments as well as we've grown used to. (If they even tried.) They didn't have MRI to accurately diagnose ligament tears, there was no arthroscopic surgery to clean out loose things in an injury, there was no offseason conditioning, there were no fitness and strength programs like there have been since about ten years after his retiring.

 

His running style was wild.. his arms and legs were all over the place. ( and he often got hit badly because of it. )..  he wasn't a compact runner, and didn't "run behind his pads". He ran with his legs way out in front and spread wide..   it's an odd style, almost as if he has to kick his legs out in front of him to gain speed, like a gallop. (as his knees got worse, you can really see how he compensates for it with that style.)

Allen didn't give him any workload that wasn't right around the average for the top backs of the day.

Also, the rules allowed for a lot more brutality, allowed for a lot more piling on, and dirty hits that weren't recognized as dirty at the time. 

 

Brown got hurt, and it happens to a lot of players..  some have a lot of carries, some don't. Some guys can run an entire career and play healthy..  others can't. (Take KiJana Carter. At Penn State he was a badass, and became the #1 overall pick. Nowadays i see him on lists as a huge bust because he "didn't live up to it"... and none of them seem to remember he blew out his knee in the first preseason game of each of his first two years. He never recovered.)

Injuries are flukes, and they can happen to anyone. In those days, without the same knowledge we have now, guys were rushed back from serious injuries without even realizing they were doing more damage. For a guy like Brown, i have to think that is the more pressing cause as to why he had a shortened career.

 

~Bang

 

 

[thebluefood]

 

(On Brown's 9 yard TD run in the 2nd Half)

"Runs like these will undoubtedly abbreviate Brown's career. But for anyone who has every thrilled at #43's abandon and bravery, there can be no doubt his spot in the Hall of Fame is already won."