Early to mid 50s QBs not named Otto Graham

[conace21]

If you had actually read the article, you would know that the author's statement that Moon could have approached 650 yards was related to a number of dropped balls by the Oiler receivers, as well as a catch by Haywood Jeffries that was called out of bounds. It wasn't just about the final few minutes of the game. I think 650 yards is nonsense, but it was based on a quote from Moon himself.

MarbleEye was incorrect in stating that Moon was taken out of the game and declined to re-enter it just to have a shot at breaking the record. However, his general point was accurate. Moon did decline to try and go for the record at the end of the game. In the article, he says he wasn't aware of how close he was to the record until coaches upstairs told him. They offered to let him go for the final 28 yards, but he was content to hand the ball off and run out the clock, saying the Oilers might meet the Chiefs in the postseason, and there was no reason to give them additional motivation.

[Bryan]

If you had actually read the article, you would know that the author's statement that Moon could have approached 650 yards was related to a number of dropped balls by the Oiler receivers, as well as a catch by Haywood Jeffries that was called out of bounds. It wasn't just about the final few minutes of the game. I think 650 yards is nonsense, but it was based on a quote from Moon himself.

MarbleEye was incorrect in stating that Moon was taken out of the game and declined to re-enter it just to have a shot at breaking the record. However, his general point was accurate. Moon did decline to try and go for the record at the end of the game. In the article, he says he wasn't aware of how close he was to the record until coaches upstairs told him. They offered to let him go for the final 28 yards, but he was content to hand the ball off and run out the clock, saying the Oilers might meet the Chiefs in the postseason, and there was no reason to give them additional motivation.

As much as I appreciate impartial, scientific analysis such as "Lorenzo White dropped a screen pass, that would have easily gone for 10+ yards" or "Curtis Duncan's reception was wiped out by a shaky penalty", I still don't understand how this relates to the 1950's QB discussion. Is it meant to lessen Norm Van Brocklin's passing record, as the "true" record holder should be Warren Moon....Moon had to overcome dropped passes, penalties, and "chose" not to break the record at the end of the game, whereas Van Brocklin was wildly inaccurate, bailed out time and time again by Fears and Hirsch making spectacular catches, refusing to come out of the game and throwing deep passes right until the final gun?

I just don't think it's logical/fair to compare Moon's game to Van Brocklin's game, make allowances for Moon, but not do the same for Van Brocklin....if that is indeed what is going on here. I'm not really sure what the point is to any of this. I guess it was a minor miracle for me to establish that Warren Moon was not yanked from the game...that only took about 3 posts to "prove". I'll assume my Ralph Hay Award is already in the mail.

[MarbleEye]

If you had actually read the article, you would know that the author's statement that Moon could have approached 650 yards was related to a number of dropped balls by the Oiler receivers, as well as a catch by Haywood Jeffries that was called out of bounds. It wasn't just about the final few minutes of the game. I think 650 yards is nonsense, but it was based on a quote from Moon himself.

MarbleEye was incorrect in stating that Moon was taken out of the game and declined to re-enter it just to have a shot at breaking the record. However, his general point was accurate. Moon did decline to try and go for the record at the end of the game. In the article, he says he wasn't aware of how close he was to the record until coaches upstairs told him. They offered to let him go for the final 28 yards, but he was content to hand the ball off and run out the clock, saying the Oilers might meet the Chiefs in the postseason, and there was no reason to give them additional motivation.

Thank you for the support. I am glad to see you understand and get my point, and I appreciate it. Didn't realize it would hit such a nerve with anyone. It was a memory from 28 years ago that was a little inaccurate. That's all. I also think 650 yards is nonsense; that's not why linked to the article. The article does say with 6+ minutes to go Moon was at 521 yards. He threw only 1 more pass for 6 yards.

I apologize to any else, that's so deeply offended about this off topic digression. Please resume discussion of the topic.

[Bryan]

Here's a discussion on another site comparing Graham and Van Brocklin. I warn you its long though....

http://www.footballperspective.com/tag/ ... -brocklin/

Interesting, but I think you have to really stretch reality to say Van Brocklin was better than Graham. The main thrust of the argument seemed to be that if you put Van Brocklin on those 1946-1955 Browns teams, he would have accomplished as much or even more than Graham accomplished. I'm not really a fan of that type of argument. I see it as "Van Brocklin could, Graham did". Perhaps that's oversimplistic.

I don't put merit in the pro-Graham guy's chronological comparison of Van Brocklin's and Graham's seasons. Yeah, Graham was better in 1953 and 1955, but Van Brocklin had a nice season in 1960 when Graham had been retired for several years.

My biggest issue with the argument is that the pro-Van Brocklin guy gives a throwaway line when comparing Van Brocklin to Graham of "His efficiency stats were essentially identical", which the pro-Graham guy bizarrely doesn't even respond to. Van Brocklin's efficiency stats are not identical to Graham's. Graham has a better comp%, a higher TD%, a lower INT%, a higher YPA, and a much higher passer rating. Even if we throw out Graham's AAFC numbers and just focus on his 1950-1955 seasons, Graham had a Rate+ those years of 110, 127, 111, 142, 115, 138. If you are trying to find the chink in Graham's armor, I would say that citing "efficiency stats" is probably the worst argument you could make.

[Bryan]

Thank you for the support. I am glad to see you understand and get my point, and I appreciate it.

Sorry to offend. I didn't mean to call you out personally...I assumed you were just passing along some old sportswriter 'mythology' about the game, because there is no way you could have known what the conversation was on the Oilers sideline between the coaches and Moon from simply watching the game on TV. At the risk of further offending you, can I ask what your point is? I am still lost. Perhaps I am reading too much into this.

The article does say with 6+ minutes to go Moon was at 521 yards. He threw only 1 more pass for 6 yards.

I'm guessing the Chiefs getting the ball back with 6 minutes to go and driving the length of the field played a factor in Moon throwing only one more pass for 6 yards.

[TanksAndSpartans]

I didn't mind the Moon discussion either. In all honesty, my memory isn't the best or I'm just not that stat minded - I had thought I watched Dan Marino break that record as a kid in a game against the Jets.

Good catch on the efficiency stats. I thought the pro-Van Brocklin individual was the stronger debater although to some extent his argument mostly revolved around different ways of emphasizing Van Brocklin's time with the Eagles. I counted 7 pre-1960 QBs in their top 42 - Baugh, Luckman, Graham, Unitas, Van Brocklin, Tittle, and Layne. With Graham at 9 and Van Brocklin at 25, I prefer the discussion we had here about Van Brocklin, Tittle, and Layne. The skeptical side of me wonders if the pro-Van Brocklin side was really a "Graham is overrated" side. The pro-Graham side didn't make any "watch the film" argument either. These aren't players from the 20s, we could probably watch '50, '55, and '60 championship game highlights and have the same discussion afterwards - I don't think it would be that close. I can't watch Graham and say he was just a guy benefiting from a great defense and a great coach - I think its an easier argument to make if you don't watch.

List of 42: http://www.footballperspective.com/grea ... wds-recap/

[JeffreyMiller]

I think winning 50 games as a starter against only 28 losses is pretty good, along with winning a championship ... I think the Marlboro Man deserves some love ...

[Bryan]

The pro-Graham side didn't make any "watch the film" argument either. These aren't players from the 20s, we could probably watch '50, '55, and '60 championship game highlights and have the same discussion afterwards - I don't think it would be that close. I can't watch Graham and say he was just a guy benefiting from a great defense and a great coach - I think its an easier argument to make if you don't watch.

One thing that stood out to me from Graham film is how accurate he was while passing on the run or with defenders draped on him. You read stuff like Paul Brown invented the pass pocket concept, or that Marion Motley was the best FB ever at picking up blitzes, and you envision Graham dropping back, standing still for 5 seconds, and making a simple throw against an overmatched DB trying to stick with Lavelli in man coverage. I saw numerous plays where Graham's protection broke down immediately, or a defensive player got a free run at him, and Graham was still able to complete the pass. Such a great athlete and very accurate with his throws.

Watching Van Brocklin on film, I appreciated his arm and his anticipation. He could be backpedaling with a DL grabbing at his ankles, and Van Brocklin could still zip the ball 30 yards downfield on a line. I saw many times where he is throwing the ball deep within 2 seconds of getting the snap. Perhaps these early, downfield throws partially explain Van Brocklin's INT total, too.

[Bryan]

I think winning 50 games as a starter against only 28 losses is pretty good, along with winning a championship ... I think the Marlboro Man deserves some love ...

He had a couple big years. I guess you can argue that Conerly's 1959 season was his best, but Conerly's career highs in completions, yards, and TDs all occurred in his rookie year of 1948. Conerly's career is interesting to me because it is so incongruent...some years he'd lead the league in interceptions, other years he'd throw the fewest interceptions...some years he'd complete 55% of his passes, others he'd be in the low 40% range...in 1958 he averaged a low 6.5 YPA, with virtually the same offense in 1959 he led the NFL with 8.8 YPA.

A fellow 'historian' whom I spoke with was very high on Conerly. He liked how Conerly was consistently good on film despite advancing age(he was 27 as a rookie), and he explained that Conerly played almost a single-wing tailback role in Steve Owen's screwy offense, and that really hindered Conerly's overall durability due to the pounding he took. I haven't seen enough of Conerly to make any firm statement about him. Looking at his career, I would not put him with the Layne/Tittle/Van Brocklin group, but I'd have him at the top of the next tier, ahead of Tobin Rote and Eddie LeBaron.

[JeffreyMiller]

I think winning 50 games as a starter against only 28 losses is pretty good, along with winning a championship ... I think the Marlboro Man deserves some love ...

He had a couple big years. I guess you can argue that Conerly's 1959 season was his best, but Conerly's career highs in completions, yards, and TDs all occurred in his rookie year of 1948. Conerly's career is interesting to me because it is so incongruent...some years he'd lead the league in interceptions, other years he'd throw the fewest interceptions...some years he'd complete 55% of his passes, others he'd be in the low 40% range...in 1958 he averaged a low 6.5 YPA, with virtually the same offense in 1959 he led the NFL with 8.8 YPA.

A fellow 'historian' whom I spoke with was very high on Conerly. He liked how Conerly was consistently good on film despite advancing age(he was 27 as a rookie), and he explained that Conerly played almost a single-wing tailback role in Steve Owen's screwy offense, and that really hindered Conerly's overall durability due to the pounding he took. I haven't seen enough of Conerly to make any firm statement about him. Looking at his career, I would not put him with the Layne/Tittle/Van Brocklin group, but I'd have him at the top of the next tier, ahead of Tobin Rote and Eddie LeBaron.

I, too, consider myself a historian ... from what I've seen from film, anecdote and stats, Conerly might not be in the top three of four for the decade, but he deserves to be in the conversation. Winning over 60 percent of your starts and boasting a title are pretty impressive ... definitely above Rote and LeBaron ...