SI Vault
October 03, 1966
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font
October 03, 1966


View CoverRead All Articles View This Issue
1 2 3 4

Here, in part, is what a few of the coaches had to say:

Norb Hecker, Atlanta: "It's great for the spectators, but not for the coaches."

Joe Kuharich, Philadelphia: "It's worthless. It puts a team in an awful spot. Say you're winning 7-0 and they score. Now you give away a chance for winning or losing on one play."

Charley Winner, St. Louis: "It leads to too much second-guessing."

Vince Lombardi, Green Ray: "I like it the way it is. That's the way we've always done it. I'm not against it because it makes it tougher on the coaches. What's so tough about it? When you're behind you always go for two points, and when you're ahead you don't."

Harry Gilmer, Detroit: "I don't like it. The AFL has used it less and less. Statistics show that when they kick they make 98%, but when they try for two they make only 46%. Wouldn't you hate to wind up getting beat by one point when they scored a touchdown and you scored a touchdown and you scored yours last? You're forced to try to do something to win, yet percentagewise it's against you, and you wind up getting beat."

Tom Landry, Dallas: "I don't have much opinion one way or the other."

Allie Sherman, New York: "This is the farthest thing from my mind. One point, two points.... I'm too concerned over this season to comment."

And, in lonely dissent, Otto Graham, Washington: "While it may give you more ulcers, a two-point conversion would be very exciting. Of course, if you missed the one-point conversion, that would be exciting, too."


Continue Story
1 2 3 4