RATING AND RANTING
In what bar did Tex Maule and Edwin Shrake rate the teams in the NFL and AFL (Pro Football 1967, Sept. 18)? In the first place, they rate teams with zeros. How can a team be given a rating of nothing? They tell us that Quarterback John Stofa of Miami is "poised, intelligent and a good deep passer." But he is rated zero in the charts.
Second, the "great" Green Bay Packers are rated 83 points, but the Buffalo Bills are rated 84 points. Does this mean that your magazine is picking Buffalo to defeat Green Bay in the next Super Bowl?
R. W. REYMAN
I have been a subscriber for almost a year now, and I have been very pleased with SI. But I am afraid that in the September 18 issue you made a terrible mistake. While you were rating the pros, you gave the Buffalo Bills 84 points. I think this is fine, but when you rated them ahead of the Green Bay Packers you made an unforgettable mistake. As everyone is well aware, should the Packers play the Bills, Green Bay would win.
?As we stated, each team was rated only in terms of its own division.—ED.
Good idea, this one about rating pro football teams, although I believe that the rating system needs some revision. Why should the offensive line be rated less than the defensive line? And why do running backs rate only half as much as receivers? And since when arc linebackers twice as important as defensive backs? But Edwin Shrake's real problem in the ratings seems to be connected with his home state. Somehow he seems to think Houston (25 points) is five times as good a football team as the Miami Dolphins (five points).
DAVE HEEREN Fort
I want to compliment you on your great magazine. It is the finest sport publication ever. I even enjoy the articles on subjects on the fringe of sports. But those Texans, Maule and Shrake, are wonders!
How in perdition you can rate the Giant and Viking quarterback situation as equal is beyond me. But that is forgotten when you actually state, in print, that Pittsburgh can win in the Century Division over Cleveland and St. Louis.
Your attitude toward the AFL is made even' more obvious by your ridiculous charts. You give Kansas City, which no longer has Mike Mercer, a four in kicking while giving Boston, with Gino Cappelletti. a two. Then you knock the New York Jets and the AFL, in that order, as you progress into the Eastern Division. How does SI rate Joe Namath? As a one-and-a-half-legged quarterback whose presence doesn't make much difference! The Jet front four is one of the best in the league. Just ask Ron Mix, Jim Otto or anybody else unlucky enough to play against them.
I was outraged and rather surprised when I saw Atlanta's supposed future ratings in your fine magazine. The Falcons almost defeated the Colts in their first game on Sunday the 17th. I suggest you watch Atlanta this year because they will be anywhere but last.
I was happy to read your glowing report about the Los Angeles Rams ( Rams' Year in Coastal, Sept. 18). If your ratings hold true throughout all four NFL divisions, then it seems the Rams haven't too much to worry about.