Old Head Who Dats, School me on Archie Manning

[SAINTFAN25]

Im old enough to remember his late 70s and early 80s years.
He always seemed to be good at improvising and making something out of nothing.

His sons are more tall drop back types with great mechanics, Archie was shorter, more bulky and mobile, i seen him as just a natural football player.

Really is a shame the Saints couldn't field a defense in the late 70s, because Archie had some really strong years.

[MsMSSaintsFan]

Archie never had an O-line, more like a H2O-line, defenses went thru them like they were water. Archie probably ran 100 yards every game, mostly backwards trying to elude the swarming defenses that splashed thru the front line. What was surprising was how many times he could actually make lemonade out of those lemons! he could scramble and run for it like a Vick/Tebow/Rottenburger mash up or pinpoint the ball almost as good as Brees. Too bad we had butterfingers and noodlehands as receivers most of the time. He had an incredibly strong arm, probably because he usually threw from the 5 yard line where he had been chased by defense almost every play. He could hurl that rock downfield 50 yards without floating it. HoF player that was a joy to watch even with the hapless players surrounding him. I was glad he was a Saint, never once was I not glad he was ours. If there had been this era's FA, Archie would have been courted by 80% of the teams.

[Uk Saint]

In the Draft was he 1st overall?? also if we were rubbish we whould of had high draft picks yes?? so who was our outher standout players at the time?? (sorry to young and for the uk so dont know anything about this time )

[broccoli60]

He was miles better than Hebert. I saw him one day at Tulane Stadium roll left and on a dead run hit Bob Newlin at the goal line. He threw it from his own 45. It is one of the most amazing throws I've ever seen. When they finally put a line in front of him he lit the league up like a pinball machine.

[Sophandros]

It was said that Archie was a franchise player without a franchise.

[cajnwillie]

Originally Posted by Uk Saint

In the Draft was he 1st overall?? also if we were rubbish we whould of had high draft picks yes?? so who was our outher standout players at the time?? (sorry to young and for the uk so dont know anything about this time )

Our other high draft picks were busts, like our low draft picks too. The front office had no idea how to scout players. When I look back, it seems like they were always trying to prove they were smarter than the rest of the league. They weren't.

To the OP, Archie was the guy who gave the city hope...

[LoE]

He was amazing to watch. He really was.

[RJ in Lafayette]

A fascinating question. There was a time in the late 1970s when Archie was surrounded with talent on offense. The offensive line was only average, but the skill players--Chandler, Childs, Munchie, Galbreath--were superb.

Archie was a better athlete than his sons, and in a more stable system with consistently sound coaching, he would have had a chance at a HOF career. He was as physically gifted as the other great quarterbacks of his era. My only complaint is that when the Saints had their powerful offense, I don't remember Archie winning games in the fourth quarter. Rather, I remember our blowing three touchdown leads with the offense doing little with the game on the line.

[mosaints]

You need only to watch two of his sons play to get a sense of what Archie could do; when folks would discuss the game the next day you could watch them mimic a throw, shake their heads in disbelief and smile. Amazing how often a person would see that, when you consider how infrequently the Saints won.

[Professor]

Manning was the #2 overall pick. I remember going to a game where the Saints lost 38-34, or something like that. I recall thinking if the Saints had a defense, they might go somewhere. That was in 1979, I think.

I was also at the Monday Night Meltdown, where they played the Raiders. They were leading by a LOT at the half (28-7, I think). The second half was much different. I recall reading later that a lot of the players had snorted some coke during halftime (not Manning). Someone once complained in an interview (might have been Manning, I don't remember) about the "white mustaches" on team flights home. The NFL was insane back then with the drug use.

[boutte]

Anyone who thinks Hebert was a better QB than Manning was either very young at the time or has very poor evaluation skills. Hebert was a very good QB most of the time but was terrible in the clutch. In critical situations and inside the 20 he was terrible. I'm sure some of it had to do with Carl Smith but Bobby had plenty of opportunities to make game/season changing plays and invariably failed.

Archie had very few such opportunities so we don't really know how he would have performed but since he excelled in so many other facets of the game I'll assume he would have excelled in crunch time too.

IMO.

[basilisk]

Originally Posted by bornnraisedwhodat

Looking at some old clips, Archie reminds me of Aaron Rodger, the way he plays.

that seems like a very good comparison

[DomeDude]

Originally Posted by SaintsJunkie

I remember both well and Bobby Hebert was better, but we were so bad for so long Archie was the only qb we could even call good , and he wasn't that good,

both his sons are far better than him

WOW. Hebert was a mediocre QB at best, the only reason they had any success with him at QB was because we had the Dome Patrol at the time. If we had a decent QB back then, we would not have had to wait until 2009 season for our first Lombardi. Who can forget the Philadelphia playoff game, where Hebert single handedly threw away a certain victory ?

Manning on the other hand had all the physical talent in the world, but you're not going to have much success when you are running for your life the second the ball is snapped. Despite this, Manning was able to put up some points, but never enough because the defense at that time couldnt stop a team of grandmas in wheelchairs. Had Manning gone to a good team, he very well could have been a HOF QB.

[Elija Nevett]

Originally Posted by SaintsJunkie

I remember both well and Bobby Hebert was better, but we were so bad for so long Archie was the only qb we could even call good , and he wasn't that good,

both his sons are far better than him

I dont know what you remember, but it is flawed. archie was in a separate class than herbert, i.e. much better.

[SaintStephen]

Originally Posted by Professor

Dr. Z, who once worked for Sports Illustrated before a stroke ended his career, has never had a great fondness for the Saints, but he has written that Manning still belonged in the HOF because of what he did with literally no team around him. He WAS the New Orleans Saints for many years. He nearly got the Saints into the playoffs, but the defense went into prevent mode when all the Rams (then in Los Angeles) needed was a FG to win. STUPID!!! The Saints finished 8-8 and out of the playoffs, of course.

He was a great scrambler (had to be because he had the worst O-line in the league) and would make plays out of nothing. Danny Abramowicz (hope I spelled that right) was a very bad O-coordinator for the Saints years ago but a very sure-handed WR for the Saints when Manning played, was a frequent target of Manning's. Manning was a GREAT QB who certainly would have been a HOFer had he played for a good team.

(Saints Junkie's memory is clouded. Hebert was a game manager who had a great defense. SJ was also six when Manning was drafted.)

I forgot all about Dr. Z. His column was like Hemmingway does NFL. A little pretentious with his wine talk, but I loved the Flaming Redhead. Good OP as I wondered the same about Manning. They rarely show older NFL Films anymore...