If that post-season football game between Harvard and Boston College suggested several weeks ago for the benefit of the U. S. O. had materialized, there might have been a capacity crowd on hand, but take it from me, most of the pushing and shoving would have centered around the Eagles' goal line.
After viewing the season's finale between the two Jesuit teams from the Fenway Park press box Saturday afternoon it is my considered opinion that the Harlow style of football would completely outsmart the Myers-Shecketski dish.
The most striking thing about both teams Saturday was the complete lack of defensive strategy. In place of the four, five, six, seven, and eight man defenses, the loops, slashes, and drifts of the Harlow system, we saw nothing but basic six and seven man line--and little charging.
The Seven Blocks of Gothic (reduced to six after Morro left the game) relied almost solely on heft. With their green-light, full-speed-ahead charge, they would have been playing right into the hands of Harlow's Seven Pillars of Purity with their deadly mousetraps.
On the offensive side of the picture, much the same type of play was in evidence. The only trick to the Eagles' attack was the continued use of the man in motion. On two plays out of three, one of the halfbacks from the Heights crossed behind the center before the ball was snapped, and headed for the sidelines as if in search of the water pail.
Once or twice each period they threw him a long lateral, but most of the time he was completely out of the play as the ball was snapped back to the fullback who headed directly into the line.
With a fast starter like Maznicki, this style of play may have been advisable--but it raises a corking rhetorical question for the Monday morning quarterbacks. Wouldn't it have been a great Crimson team this fall if Dick Harlow had possessed one full-speed back like Murphy, Grigas, or Maznicki? The chances are that one of those boys would have been quite effective on the business end of a mysterious double reverse or a sizzling veer buck.