Manufactured Propaganda

Manufactured Propaganda

"Manufactured Propaganda" is a personal study concerning the hypocrisy NFL Films perpetuates upon its viewers, and the media culture they developed during the modern era of professional football. NFL Films motto (via the NFL) and the media that eventually evolved around the NFL's code of conduct is; to ignore any controversy that may result from an officially decided game. But even more important than that is; to ensure that NFL Films bring to life any changes in the script concerning whatever agenda the NFL is pursuing. Such as forced "parity" i.e.; the manufacturing of a losing football team into a winner overnight to ensure that fan interest is maintained.

The Absent Whistle;

Pete Rose once said that he hated playing at Wrigley Field because the visitors clubhouse always smelled like urine. Whatever the case may be, there was obviously some sort of stench lingering from the "miracle collapse" of the '69 Chicago Cubs that carried over to the Chicago Bears. I've said this before in the face of laughter, but I still believe that the '69 Chicago Bears were the greatest 1-13 team in the history of the NFL. Six of Chicago's thirteen loses were decided by 6 points or less. Meaning; they were a touchdown or a field goal away from finishing 7-7. Because of scheduling conflicts with MLB, the Bears were usually forced to play the first few games of the season on the road. 1969 would be no exception and two games into the season the Bears travel to St. Louis where bad officiating not only dictated the outcome of a game, but set the tone for the entire season. The Cardinals turn a Sayers fumble into an early 7-0 lead. On Chicago's very next series Larry Stallings picks up an alleged fumble and rumbles 62 yards for a touchdown and a 13-0 lead. However, upon a frame by frame review, Jack Concannon of the Chicago Bears clearly signals timeout before the ball is snapped even with the head official looking directly at the line before the play unfolded. Even though the Bears came back and actually took a 17-13 lead into the 4th quarter, bad luck soon engulfed Chicago again. This, like many other games was typical of what the Bears often encountered during the '69 campaign. In the aftermath of Chicago's dreadful season fans often bemoaned the fact that if Chicago had lost to Pittsburgh (their only win of the '69 season), there would have been no need for a "coin flip" to secure the draft rights of Terry Bradshaw. The problem with that argument is, Chicago would have gone 0-14 and would have still been no better off with Bradshaw (a proto-type of Bobby Douglass) at the helm.

Very early on I discovered that referees in professional football aren't perfect. Not even close. Take John Brockington's "alleged" 7-yard touchdown run against the Bears at Soldier Field in 1971 for example. Upon a frame by frame review via a VCL Media player, Brockington clearly loses control of the ball as a result of Joe Taylor's swat tactic at the 2-yard line just before his body crosses the plane of the goal. The ball even bounces in front of the goal line (note; see 'Kicked In The Mouth" in the "Smash Mouth Archives" of this website...and oh by the way, the line judge isn't even watching the play when he signals a touchdown). In today's world of "instant replay", that touchdown would have never stood up. What's even more pathetic is, the officials knew it was a bad call, which explains why they allowed Bobby Douglass' 1-yard plunge for a TD late in the game, despite Willie Wood's justifiable rant in protest. Even Bobby Douglass himself looked surprised that he scored. Would all of that have made a difference in the outcome of the game? If the correct calls are made, Chicago settles for a FG and maybe Dave Hampton doesn't take the ensuing kickoff 62 yards (after the disputed Douglass touchdown) and set the Packers up for a game winning FG at the end and, the Bears win 10-7 or it ends in a 10-10 tie. The point I'm trying to make here is; Unless you're the '72 Dolphins, or the '85 Bears (teams that regularly beat the snot out of their opponents regardless of who was officiating it), referees almost always dictate the outcome of a fooball game in one way or another. What motive would they poccess to do that you ask? Quite simple, the point spread in Las Vegas or, whatever agenda the NFL is pursuing, such as "parity" even as early as the 70's. Ask any die-hard Pittsbugh Steelers fan about that. Pete Rozelle clearly wanted to take the wind out of the Steelers sails to promote more scoring to give everyone a chance at winning, regardless of how horrible a team was to maintain fan interest. I know, I know...you're thinking, wait a minute here. In 1971 the 5-2 Chicago Bears were heavily favored at Soldier Field to beat the 2-4-1 Green Bay Packers. Well, think about all the money that changed hands because of the "upset" bets made in Vegas, ie; let's manufacture a "any given sunday". This particular game might not be the greatest example of the point I'm trying to make. However, as a child when I subscribed to "Pro Football Weekly", I always thought it was a bit strange that I received a "free" Las Vegas odds manual for renewing my subscription every year. Even more strange was how close Vegas was at determining the outcome of the game months before it was even played. Is gambling on professional football a positive way to maintain fan interest in the NFL? Maybe, that and fantasy football currently rule the terrain. However, the NFL clearly has their own agenda at deciding who wins, and who loses in their league. Just like the politicians in Washington and the wrestlers in the WWF.

So, what's the real underlying issue here? Well, considering the controversey of Brockington's touchdown and the confused look on Bobby Douglass' face after he knew he didn't score but the points were allowed anyways. Was this the referees subtle way of acknowleging that we blew the call on Brockington's fumble, but we'll give him the touchdown anyways because we already signaled "TD" and we don't want to look stupid call? Even as a child, I thought it was quite suspicious (concerning Brockington's fumble) that not a word of it was mentioned in the Chicago Tribune, the NFL's propoganda machine known as "NFL Films" (more about that later), or even the Chicago Bears 1971 highlight reel narrated by none other than (WGN's caretaker of those lovable losers from the north known as the Flubs, err Cubs) Jack Brickhouse himself. And why would NFL Films crop one version of Brockington's fumble as opposed to the original uncropped version? I'm not saying there should be an asterisk next to this game in the media guide (like Green Bay's infamous "instant replay" win of 1989). However, this was an important game to the Bears and their fans, and I"m not entirely sure what the difference is between this game and Chicago's "officially decided" game against the Rams in 1968. Pete Rozelle actually took the liberty of rendering fines against the officiating crew for basically cheating Los Angeles out of a down on their last drive in a 17-16 loss to the Bears. Which not only cost the Rams a chance to win the game, but a division title as well. Momentum in a football game is huge. It can change the outcome in a second. So, if the correct call is made, Brockington fumbles the ball, Butkus recoveres it, and it's still 7-0 in favor of Green Bay. Meaning; Douglass doesn't score the tying touchdown, that already occurred when he hit George Farmer earlier in the 4th quarter of the game. Quite furthermore, Dave Hampton doesn't return the ensuing kickoff (after the disputed Douglass TD) 62-yards to set up Green Bay's game winning field goal. So, for the sake of argument, lets say the Bears somehow win this game and carry a 7-2 (or, at the very least...a 6-2-1) record into week 10 against the Lions at Soldier Field. Even if the Bears still lose to the Lions and Dolphins (which they did), they're still in second place, one game behind Minnesota by week 12, or a game & a half...(and still maintain the "wild card" edge over Washington by virture of week 9's contest) if the Douglass TD stands against the Denver Broncos...oh heck, should've, could've, would've. The point I'm trying to make concerning all this endless rambling on my behalf is; I would for once like to watch a professional football game that is decided by the players on the field...without referee manipulation influenced by Las Vegas, NFL Films and the National Football League itself.

Concerning the propagandize of this particular rivalry as a Bears fan, it's way overrated. To this day, NFL Films still exploits the small town hicks from the north beating down the big city boys from the south. Its not enough that we're (as Bears fans) subjected to the same boring ritual year after stinking year about what a great rivalry and history these two teams share on the gridiron via whatever network is covering the game. And if that weren't enough, go purchase the so-called "Complete History Of The Chicago Bears" double DVD 2005 release from NFL Films and the NFL Network. An absolute slap in the face for Bears fans. If you didn't read my review of it on the front page of this website, I'll post an excerpt of it here; "Even more disturbing was the "Bears/Packers Rivalry" segment. Packer fans will find this more engaging than Bear fans, considering the infamous "asterisk" game of 1989 (Green Bay's 14-13 instant replay victory) along with Jim McMahon's 1986 pounding into the Soldier Field astro turf are covered with a fair amount of detail. Although...I'm still trying to figure out why those moments would be more memorable than Chicago's 61-7 slaughter of the Bart Starr coached Packers of 1980 (which by the way wasn't mentioned at all here). Instead we're shown (Ditka's continuing "fullback" saga) William Perry's 1985 Monday Night touchdown as though that were the only memorable moment of the Bear/Packer rivalry concerning Bear fans. I mean...who's highlight reel is this? For a more comprehensive view of this rivalry, pick up Gary D'Amato's "Mudbaths and Bloodbaths" book. Although a bit pro-Packer in places, a good read never-the-less. And after all, at this point in the DVD...anythings better than watching Green Bay's Don Majkowski spike the ball after scoring a TD (against the Bears mind you), on a Bears highlight film no less. Considering how pro-Packer this segment was, I was quite surprised they didn't include Vince Lombardi's infamous quote in response to a sideline tackle made by Doug Buffone in front of the Packer bench. "Buffone?...whats that? Italian for buffoon?". Get my point?

Cropped vs Semi-uncropped?;

Upon even further review; the "cropped" version on the left (from NFL Films 1971 week 8 broadcast of "This week In Pro Football") appears to be cropped at the left and bottom of the still frame. Note; you can see John Spilis' face in this version (number 85 of the Green Bay Packers). However, the "uncropped" version on the right (from the Chicago Bears 1971 yearbook) appears to be cropped as well at the top of the still frame as you cannot see John Spilis' face. Even though both versions are obviously cropped, you can clearly see Brockington's fumble in the "yearbook" version (or the "uncropped" version, which is actually cropped at the top of the frame) as opposed to the "TWIPF" version (which is cropped at the left and bottom of the frame). ...and I'm not sure why NFL Films would crop the left and bottom of a particular highlight reel for their weekly broadcast of This Week In Pro Football, and only crop the top of the same footage for a team yearbook. At this point, I'm not real sure what to make of NFL Films' editing practices. However, one thing is certain, Joe Taylor of the Bears jars the football loose at or close to the 1 yard marker (maybe even the 2 yard line), it grazes Brockington's right thigh as he's diving into the end zone, it bounces in front of the goal line and lands in the end zone where Dick Butkus recovers it. Meaning; Brockington may have crossed the plane of the goal, but not with a ball in his hands. It landed in front of the goal line and bounced into the end zone.

Extreme Edited Propaganda;

This is what I would like to remember back in '72 as a "die-hard" Bears fan; following "The Rookies", the Chicago Bears play their first ("primetime") nationally televised game at Soldier Field against the Minnesota Vikings. Hearing that familiar voice at the top of the hour announce; "hello everyone this is Howard Cossell live from Soldier Field Chicago Illinios, welcome to ABC's Monday Night Football" must have brought goose bumps to the arms of every Bears fan nationwide. And what a night it was. A classic black & blue smash mouth battle against Fran Tarkenton & the "Purple People Eaters". After Tarkenton hit John Gilliam for an early 7-0 lead, the Bears offense uncharacteristically drain 25 minutes off the clock in the first half as Jim Harrison slams into the Berserkers time and time again. Harrison would eventually catch a TD pass from Bobby Douglass to close out the first half for a 10-7 Bears lead. Fred Cox evened the score in the 3rd, setting the stage for an epic 4th quarter struggle. Up and down, back & forth, sacks, interceptions and countless fumbles. It all seemed so surreal with the glow of the Soldier Field pillars in the background looking like a Roman Coliseum where gladiators battle. Men grunting and groaning with the sound of their helmets cracking against one another and of course, Dick Butkus in the middle of all that chaos. After Mac Percival splits the uprights for a 13-10 lead, Fran Tarkenton drives Minnesota one last time down the field in classic clock manipulation to put the Vikings in position to win or at the very least, tie it up. Feeling the blood pulsating through the top of my head, my heart pounding in my chest. I couldn't bare to witness what was about to happen. As I look away from the impending doom, I hear my Grandpa shout; "oh my God I don't believe it!"...I look up and to my amazement the Bears are carrying Abe Gibron off the field like they just won the Super Bowl. The next day the Chicago Tribune confirms it with; "Cox FG Try Fails at :07".

Chicago Tribune: October 24, 1972;
Bears Hold Off Vikings' Bid
Cox FG Try Fails at :07, Bears Defeat Vikings 13-10
"We just played football," Abe Gibron said last night in a remarkably soft voice before a national television audience".

What the above video doesn't show is the drama that unfolded after Mac Percival's "game winning" field goal. Summoning my best Paul Harvey impersonation, "here is the rest of the story"; Minnesota's Charlie West returned the ensuing kickoff 21 yards to the Vikings 28. About five and a half minutes remained when Fran Tarkenton ignored the Bud Grant doctrine and returned to his frantic scrambling ways. Rapidly moving the Vikings downfield past the 50-yard marker deep into Bears territory with passes of 25 yards to John Gilliam and 28 yards to John Henderson. At the two-minute warning, after a 6-yard pass over the middle to John Beasley, the Vikings were in firm control with the ball resting at Chicago's 15 yard line. A five yard completion to Ed Marinaro put the ball at the 10. Chicago's chances of winning were dwindling quite significatley when Tarkenton lobbed a toss to Beasley, whom immediately lateraled the ball to Vikings' guard Ed White who trudged to the Bears 5. Two plays later on third down and still at the Bears 5, Tarkenton, under heavy pressure scrambled to his left and fired a shot to Beasley in the end zone. Less than a split second later a line judge signals touchdown, game over...right? Wrong. Suddenly a yellow flag flies out and Ed White is ruled in violation of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. No touchdown, White (an offensive guard) is flagged for being "illegally downfield" of the 15 yard variety shoving Minnesota back to Chicago's 20 yard line. As the officials try to calm a livid Bud Grant, Minnesota faces third down all over again. Tarkenton accepts the snap and scrambles to his left and without notice, changes direction and roles to his right and fires a shot intended for Gene Washington. Only this time, big play expert Ron Smith breaks up the pass. On fourth down with 7 seconds to go, Fed Cox' FG attempt to tie the game up is wide to the left. Even though the Bears notch a pulse-pounding victory, the question begs to be asked. At what point was Ed White "illegally downfield"? When White became known as an "ineligable receiver", was he in the end zone to celebrate Beasley's touchdown catch? Or was it due to the flow of blocking downfield...after all, Tarkenton was scrambling, was he not? At any rate, this is a judgment call determined by an official who overruled a line judge who signaled it a touchdown, hence; officially decided. ..."and that was the rest of the story...good day".

Chicago Tribune: October 24, 1972;
Grant Angry at Ref's Call
Bud Grant, the always cool, unemotional coach of the Minnesota Vikings, finally was brought to a mild simmer last night in Soldier Field by an official's call that cost his Vikings a game-winning touchdown in the final seconds.

The Original "Tuck Rule" Game; or "The Inadvertent Whistle"

Having seen every second of this particular contest live as it unfolded, watching the highlight reel still amazes me after all these years. With film editing and a misleading narration, this is a completely different game than what I remember it being. Although the "tuck rule" wasn't used as an excuse, the parallels still exist. First, Chuck Heberling ruled Kenny Stabler's fumble an "incomplete pass". Sending a disgusted 50,000 plus fans at Soldier Field into a hysterical fit. Within seconds, a visibly flustered Heberling changes the ruling to, "the quarterback was down by contact". Thus wiping out Roger Stillwell's touchdown and a chance for the Bears to go up 34-21 midway through the 4th quarter. Underneath the Chicago Tribune headline of; "Ref admits he blew call: Did it cost Bears win?" reporter Don Pierson stated; "Referee Chuck Heberling, an NFL official for 12 years, admitted he blew the whistle inadvertently and nullified a Bears touchdown in Soldier Field Sunday that probably made the difference in Chicago's 28-27 loss to Oakland". ..."that probably made the difference"?...ya think? Even more hysterical is; how do you go from an "incomplete pass" to "the quarterback was down by contact" to a "I blew the whistle inadvertently" in less than 24 hours? In the wake of all this, where was Pete Rozelle at to render Heberling a fine? I know I know, there's the other half of the Tribune's headline ("Did it cost Bears win?") to contend with. Meaning; Chicago had plenty of opportunities to put Oakland away. Several dropped interceptions, a botched extra point attempt and 2 missed field goals also played a role in Chicago's demise. However, if Heberling makes the correct call, the Bears win this game.

Chicago Tribune: November 8, 1976;
Referee's whistle blows Bears dead
"WE OUGHTA hang him!" a voice cried out in the Bear dressing room.

Here is an alternative version of Chuck Heberling's "inadvertent whistle" . What's absolutely amazing here is, NFL Films "Game Of The Week" actually acknowledges the fact that Heberling blew the call and even show a reverse angle of the play.

The Eagle Has Landed; a.k.a. "The Santa Claus Game"

Long before the 1979 NFC Playoffs between the Chicago Bears and the Philadelphia Eagles, the 1968 Eagles also played an inadvertent role in eliminating the Bears from post-season activity as well. Yes it's true, the Bears were in control of their own destiny and choked on the final Sunday at Wrigley Field against the Packers. However, if the Minnesota Vikings lose to the Philadelphia Eagles at Franklin Field, the Bears win the division by virtue of beating the Vikings twice during the regular season. Even though the game will be forever rememered for Santa Claus (Frank Olivio) being pelted with snowballs during the halftime show, Bears fans will forever remember how "Gene Washington faked a square out and clearly beat Albert Haymond" according to Pat Summerall's narration during 1968's week 14 episode of "This Week In The NFL". Yes, "Gene Washington faked a square out" alright, and for his effort he was awarded a fake touchdown. Vikings win the game 24-17, and the division title as well. Considering the fact that CBS television had already introduced slow-motion instant replay as far back as 1963, how did a play like this avoid controversey? Especially when you consider the huge playoff implications involved between the Chicago Bears and the Minnesota Vikings...I mean a division title was at stake for God's sake! Gene Washington's right foot is clearly out of bounds with his left foot landing about two feet beyond the back of the end zone and never fully maintains possession of the ball until some five feet beyond the end zone. Meaning; he juggled the ball before he fell down out of the end zone. Pat Summerall even did the color-commentary for this particular CBS telecast and not a word of it is mentioned during the game, the NFL's weekly highlight show or even in the press for that matter. How on earth do you miss a play like that? Was Albert Haymond the only one who saw Gene Washington's touchdown for what it wasn't? Quite obviously he was, and was awarded an "unsportsmanship" conduct penalty for protesting the call. But the question still begs to be asked; why was this play so blatantly ignored?

Back in the 80's (while in the United States Navy) I flew in from Marseille France in transit to Chicago for a 2 week vacation in Muskegon. But before I could reach my destination, I was forced to hang out in a Philadelphia airport lounge while waiting for my flight to O'Hare. I sat down next to some guy wearing a Philadelphia Eagles hat and struck up a conversation about this particular game. As ususal, like so many other professional football fans, he seemed to remember Santa Claus being snowballed more than anything else. However, he did state for the record that there was an obvious conspiracy to intentionally lose the game to secure the draft rights for USC's O.J. Simpson. Which in retrospect is simply not true considering Buffalo had already done that a week earlier when they ended their season in the AFL with a 1-12-1 record. Also, Philadephia had already foiled their attempts at aquiring Simpson when they defeated the Detroit Lions at Tiger Stadium on Thanksgiving day. Meaning; no matter what happened against the Vikings, the Eagles could do no worse than a 2-12 record. Hence; no Simpson conspiracy. So again, why was this contoversial touchdown so blantantly ignored? Was this Pete Rozelle's way of apoligizing to George Allen when the Bears defeated the Rams because of an official's blunder a week earlier? Was Jim Dooley's comments to the press a little too close to the fire when he stated that; "it would take 17 points to defeat the Rams" a day or two before Chicago's tilt with Los Angeles?...and you guessed it, the Bears scored 17 points. All I could think was, professional football is starting to smell alot like professional wrestling. ...and yet again, another example of an "officially" decided game. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Vikings didn't deserve the 1968 NFC Central Division Crown. However, I find it rather pathetic that the NFL and NFL Films would attempt to force you to beleive that the only controversey that excisted during this game was Santa Claus being bombarded with snowballs during the halftime show rather than Gene Washington's fake touchdown. Which oh by the way, might have changed the outcome of this game if the correct call is made.

Stink, Stank, Stunk...Drunk!;

Often described as "hapless" and the punchline to virtually any manufactured joke rendered by the National Football League's propaganda machine known as "NFL Films". The Philadelphia Eagles went fom laughing stock (from the late 60's through the early to mid 70's) to "serious contenders" over night. Meaning; all of the sudden NFL Films changed their rhetoric about the Eagles even though the end results were the same on the field. It was as if the NFL (via NFL Films) were trying to convince the viewing audience and the 65,000 fans who attended the games at Veterans Stadium that; this wasn't the same team they were accustomed to at Franklin Field. Only in reality, it was. One of the things that Pete Rozelle hated even more than Al Davis, was when the television cameras revealed all the empty seats at one of their new cookie-cutter facilities. Already embroiled with Eagles owner Leonard Tose over his "Playboy" image influenced by his drinking and gambling addictions. Something had to be done to reinvigorate fan interest in one of the NFL's largest income generating markets. Meaning; a prospective buyer in the hopefully near future had to be convinced that Philadelphia was a stable enviornment to purchase a professional football team when it became nessessary to remove Tose from the league. In Rozelle's mind, Tose was obviously painting a negative image on the league with his extracurricular activities, and the empty seats at Veterans Stadium revealed his disinterest in the team. Below is just one of many examples of the type of fooball the Philadelphia faithful were subjected to on a weekly basis. And of course, NFL Films weekly broadcast of "This Week In Pro Football" were only too happy to exploit it.

Yes folks, they call this "professional football". On December 10, 1972 Philadelphia's John Reaves, Rick Arrington and Pete Liske combine for 16 completions on 40 attempts with 3 interceptions. One for each quarterback, oh...and one drunken end zone celebration. Although Chicago's Bobby Douglass (1 completion on 9 attempts with 1 interception for the day) doesn't fair any better than the Philadephia trio mentioned above. He does however rush for a couple of touchdowns as the Bears manage to win a turnover filled, penalty marred side-splitter at Veterans Stadium 21-12.

Chicago Tribune: December 11, 1972;

Bears Top Eagles In "Laugher" 21-12

"Even Bobby Douglass noticed"

The Future Is Now;

In one bold swift move, the 1972 Philadelphia Eagles went from being a parody of itself to serious contenders overnight. With Roman Gabriel's arrival, all negative rhetoric concerning the Philadelphia Eagles on NFL Films weekly broadcast of "This Week In Pro Football" will suddenly become positive. No exceptions. However, the 1973 Philadelphia Eagles never "really" improved beyond that season even with Roman Gabriel at the helm. In fact, it just got worse all over again in terms of the reality of it all. NFL Films carried on as if the Eagles were always the most improved team in the league for years to follow. In retrospect; the 1974 season had to be an awful bitter pill for NFL Films to swallow. With the Eagles starting the season with a 4-1 record, NFL Films actually started to sound like they knew what they were talking about. That is until the real Eagles slipped into a 6 game losing streak. However, according to NFL Films, there was still "hope on the horizon" as the Eagles ended the '74 campaign on a positive note by winning the remaining 3 games and finishing the season with a 7-7 record. In reality, even though the '73 Eagles defeated the Dallas Cowboys before a frenzied crowd at Veterans Stadium 30-16, and again the following year, they never lived up to the expectations placed upon them beyond the '74 season, even though NFL Films would attempt to make you believe otherwise. With back to back 4-10 seasons to follow and the hiring and firing of Mike McCormick and Dick Vermeil in between, the 1977 Eagles look no different, even with a slightly improved 5-9 record, than the '76 version. However, it is that slight improvement of the '77 campaign that NFL Films uses as the script for the 1978 season. But I'm getting ahead of myself here because, before we explore Philadelphia's sudden rise to playoff contention. I think its necessary to travel back in time to NFL Films 1968 week 6 broadcast of "This Week In The NFL".

1968's week 6 episode is a study in contrast to be sure concerning the hypocrisy of NFL Film's propaganda. Keep in mind that; at this point in the season the Eagles are 0-5, and at home against a Chicago Bears team that wasn't much better coming into the game with a 1-4 record. Pat Summerall describes the Eagles as "hapless" in the wake of their 29-16 loss to the Chicago Bears at Franklin Field. So now the Eagles are 0-6 and "hapless". Were they hapless because they lost to a 2-4 Bears team? I mean, someone, anyone correct me if I'm wrong here but, wouldn't the mindset of an Eagles fan sitting (at that point in the season) in Franklin Field be; maybe we can finally beat someone today? And if that doesn't happen, isn't the fan whom purchased the ticket, have a right to voice their disgust if the team they're supporting is now 0-6 with the future not looking any better? Because of all this, suddenly, NFL Films instructs the viewing audience to convince us to believe that the fans of Philadelphia (described as the "Franklin Field mob") don't deserve a winner? After all, how dare the fans and sportswriters criticize the Eagles after an 0-6 start that would eventually stretch to 0-11 before they finally won in the mud of Tiger Stadium on Thanksgiving day of all days. Adding insult to injury the Eagles won again the following week virtually dissolving any chance of drafting USC's O.J. Simpson in 1969. Even with a new owner (Leonard Tose) at the start of the '69 campaign and a new astro turf covered floor at Franklin Field, the negative rhetoric continued to spew forth from the NFL's propaganda machine. So, after watching this clip, what lesson have we learned here? Well for one, it's abundantly clear that only NFL Films (via the NFL) is allowed to criticize the Eagles, not the media who covers the team, or the fans that support them. The key phrase here in Summerall's closing statement is "valiant", meaning; brave or bold, which is in direct contrast to "hapless", meaning pathetic or wretched. Anyway, as the losing continued through the 1973 season, NFL Films decides to take a kinder, gentler approach in their descriptions of Philadelphia's mounting demise. And even attempt to have you believe that this is a franchise on the rise. Even though in reality, they were still losing, and continued to lose until 1978.

Malice In The Meadowlands;

Even though Giants offensive coordinator Bob Gibson was made the fall guy, and Joe Pisarcik was turned into some kind of cult hero in Philadelphia (and in a bizarre twist of fate, eventually played for the Eagles). However, what's never discussed in all the mini-documentaries is; what really happened on the field. Sure, there often slick and polished edited gems with some insightful knowledge of the events that led up to Pisarcik's alleged fumble. NFL Films has gone to great lengths to convince us beyond a shadow of a doubt that, even though the narrative concerning this game the day after it occurred is much different that what was translated in "This Week In Pro Football" a week later, this really is a definitive look at what really happened. I didn't believe it when I saw it on the evening news, and still find it incomprehensible that so many others accept what's spoon fed them via NFL Films. Sure Bob Gibson sent in a run play up the gut to punish the Eagles in retaliation of the extracurricular activities that occurred from the previous play, I get all that. All he had to do was have Pisarcik take a knee again...yeah, I get that to. And of course Pisarcik didn't want to go against the grain as he was already in Gibson's "doghouse" as a result of his improvisational behavior in the past. So he ran the play he was instructed to, which resulted in an alleged "botched snap". That's what happened in the game, what you saw on film, and what NFL Films hammers home year after year. On first down Pisarcik kneels down, on second down a run play is called, on third down the same run play is called. Only, Pisarcik fumbles, Herman Edwards picks up the football and scores the winning touchdown that eventually results in the Eagles returning to the post-season for the first time since 1960. A legend is born, hence; "Miracle In The Meadowlands"...pretty cut and dry. Great drama! Except for one huge glaring omission, everything discussed above is what actually happened. The kneel down, two consecutive run plays, the latter of which resulted into what Giants' fans refer to as "The Fumble" and argue, justifiably so that; "those were the darkest days in Giants history". What with all the anniversary's and yearly documentaries concerning this game that have followed since, why is Larry Csonka ignored? Strange in that, Bob Gibson refuses to be interviewed, and NFL Films refuses to interview Csonka. Why? It's just a game...right? What really happened out there? Well for one, Pisarcik didn't fumble the ball. He claims that the snap was botched which caused the fumble. He also claims that (at the time), "was distracted making sure Csonka was in position", and "was unprepared for the snap". But what Joe Pisarcik and NFL Films never talk about is what Csonka not only said in the huddle, but what he said after the huddle broke while walking up to the line of scrimmage to get into formation before the "Miracle". Larry Csonka stated in the press the following day that while in the huddle; "he begged Pisarcik not to give him the ball" and also claims that, as he walked away from the huddle, he told Pisarcik "he would not take the ball if he went through with it". I said it in 1978 in the face of ridicule and laughter, and I'll say it again...Csonka clearly whiffs on the handoff from Pisarcik. Which, oh by the way, was confirmed in the Chicago Tribune, as well as the Chicago Sun-Times. But all I ever hear in response to what really happened at the Meadowlands is; "you mean to tell me an experienced veteran of 3 consecutive Super Bowls is going to refuse a handoff in the closing seconds to secure a victory for his team?...are you nuts? Well, even if you believe there is not enough visual evidence to confirm Csonka whiffed on the handoff, he clearly stated otherwise in the press. Which means; what you're seeing and what NFL Films is trying to convince you of, isn't what really happened at all. The fact of the matter is; botched snap or not, Pisarcik still maintained the football long enough to make a clockwise motion after the "botched" snap and attempt to hand the football off to a running back who refused the ball not only in the huddle when the play was being called, but reaffirmed his stance concerning the play after the huddle broke. Those are the facts. ...hardly a "miracle".

Bears vs Zebras;


				*franco AVI.* *Manufactured Propaganda*



	Home