Quarterback "Storylines"

[Reaser]

In general, the 1950 team had a lot of new players who were big contributors. To your point, I think Reinhard was the only AAFC refugee on the Rams, but I also think that the 1950 team was much different than the 1949 team. It would be like comparing the 1973 Steelers to the 1974 Steelers (speaking of "garbage" analogies).

1950 Rams added Reinhard, Art Statuto and Vic Vasicek as 'contributors'/'starters' that came from the AAFC.
And, of course, Crazy Legs had come from the AAFC the year prior.

And, as you alluded to, 4 rookies who were contributors/starters.

I posted something about this before.

It was 1950 so 'starters' isn't a straight shot, with players staying on the field, rotating players, injuries, etc.

But roughly, the 22 off/def starters/contributors for the five NFL teams that had a winning record in 1950 and what league they came from:

Browns: 20 AAFC, 0 NFL, 2 rookies

Giants: 6 AAFC, 13 NFL, 3 rookies

Rams: 3 AAFC, 15* NFL, 4 rookies (* - Hirsch was NFL in '49, but AAFC prior, listed as NFL here but could move to AAFC)

Bears: 2 AAFC, 17** NFL, 3 rookies (* - Rykovich similar to Hirsch in joining in '49, but '47 and '48 in AAFC / * - Bauman played a little in the AAFC in '47)

Yanks: 20* AAFC, 1 NFL, 1 rookie (counted Spec Sanders as AAFC but didn't play in '49)

Add up the 5 teams
AAFC: 51 (counting Spec)
NFL: 46 (counting 3 players who's careers started in the AAFC so could be 54 and 43)
Rook: 13

That's players. As an idea of teams, carrying over teams from their respective league in 1949 to what they did in the combined 1950 NFL largely shows teams were what they were (though one could argue AAFC teams didn't need NFL players to keep status quo and/or stay good while NFL teams did need the AAFC players they got to stay good and/or improve):

Teams that roughly carried over their W/L/T records from '49 to '50

-Team / 1949 / 1950-
Browns 9-1-2 to 10-2
Bears 9-3 to 9-3
Rams 8-2-2 to 9-3
Yankees/Yanks 8-4 to 7-5 (AAFC Yankees were essentially the NFL Yanks, minus some of their best players who went to NYG)
Steelers 6-5-1 to 6-6
Cardinals 6-5-1 to 5-7
Lions 4-8 to 6-6
Redskins 4-7-1 to 3-9
Packers 2-10 to 3-9
Colts 1-11 to 1-11

Outliers.

-Team / 1949 / 1950-
Eagles 11-1 to 6-6 (theories have been discussed here before)
49ers 9-3 to 3-9 (theories have been discussed here before)
Giants 6-6 to 10-2 (influx of AAFC talent a big part of why they improved in 1950)

10 of 13 teams had a similar record year-to-year, 2 good teams (one from each league) fell off (Eagles didn't immediately recover, 49ers got closer back to what they were more making '50 an 'off' year), and 1 team who wasn't good the 3 years prior and was good for the next 3 years after they benefit from adding great AAFC talent (along with rookie Eddie Price.)

Seems pretty equal, to me.

[TanksAndSpartans]

@Reaser, I conceded in prior discussions the AAFC had players comparable to the NFL. My prior belief was that other than the Browns, teams consisted of whatever stars they could afford with the rest of the rosters filled in with below average players, whereas apart from the worst NFL teams, I thought the NFL had deeper talent. But I conceded the debate, I don't need to revisit it.

This question was different. The OP compared the Stars of the USFL and the Browns in the AAFC. 56-4-3 with all 4 titles to me is even more dominant than that example. My question was more along the lines of if the AAFC was a comparable league to the NFL, logically, shouldn't the Browns have had a nemesis? Or shouldn't at least one other team in the league have had a tangible success? The 49ers being great on paper in the '50s doesn't cut it for me as on field success. Also was wondering - could it have been coaching? If there was a coach on par with Brown, might the Browns actually have had a losing record against at least one AAFC team?

With respect to this argument: "though one could argue AAFC teams didn't need NFL players to keep status quo and/or stay good while NFL teams did need the AAFC players they got to stay good and/or improve", I don't think it works. If 4 NFL teams had been disbanded, wouldn't the AAFC have drafted them or are you saying the AAFC would have stood pat and passed on Don Doll, Les Bingaman, Cloyce Box, etc. had the 4-8 '49 Lions been disbanded?

Finally, I don't know this and wondering if you do- how many of the '49 AAFC players played in '50? I think it should be roughly 187. Was it?

17*35 - 13*35 = 140
140/17 = 8.23*7=57.64
7*35 - 57.64 =~187

Actually would be less than 187 depending on how many rookies displaced veterans.

[Reaser]

The OP compared the Stars of the USFL and the Browns in the AAFC. 56-4-3 with all 4 titles to me is even more dominant than that example. My question was more along the lines of if the AAFC was a comparable league to the NFL, logically, shouldn't the Browns have had a nemesis? Or shouldn't at least one other team in the league have had a tangible success?

I think he said it was "kind of" like that. Other than saying they were the best teams in their respective league's histories, the AAFC and USFL were completely different. From the amount of talent available when they started, to the amount of teams in the league, to the era, to the 'competitor' in the NFL being completely different, etc. The Stars also didn't join the NFL and immediately win the Super Bowl.

1946-1949 (AAFC with 2 then 3 less teams per year = higher odds of same teams making championship)
AAFC: 4 teams played in the championship game, 2 played in multiple, 1 played in four.
NFL: 5 teams played in the championship game, 2 played in multiple, 1 played in three.

Other than the result of the championship games it looks pretty similar, to me.

Similarly, the Browns went to 6-straight championship games in the NFL, so it's always weird when their 4-straight AAFC appearances somehow equates to the conclusion that the AAFC didn't have other good teams. Unless your argument is consistent and you're saying the Browns only went to 6-straight NFL Championship games because the American/Eastern Conference didn't have any other good teams between 1950-1955? Because, of course, using your logic, if there was other good teams in the American/East they would have had tangible success during that 6-year period (which is longer than 4-years. Math.) Not a huge difference between a 6-team conference and their original 8 then 7-team [AAF]conference.

Or the Browns were good for 10-years, because they were good, not because their conference(s) didn't have any other good teams.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Or the Browns were good for 10-years, because they were good, not because their conference(s) didn't have any other good teams.

I never said the Browns were good because the AAFC didn't have any other good teams. I think those two things can both be true without one negating the other. I think the Browns were good and the AAFC didn't have another championship caliber team. If all the teams, played 10 seasons in a single league and a single division like what the AAFC did in '49, I think the Browns would have won 5, but I don't think another AAFC team would have taken one. I'd be interested which other AAFC teams anyone thinks would have been one of the playoff teams any of the seasons. '48 for example, I would have the Browns, Eagles, Cardinals, and Bears.

[Bryan]

I'd be interested which other AAFC teams anyone thinks would have been one of the playoff teams any of the seasons. '48 for example, I would have the Browns, Eagles, Cardinals, and Bears.

If its just top 4 teams, then:

46 - Browns, Bears, Yankees, Niners
47 - Browns, Cards, Eagles, Yankees
48 - Browns, Eagles, Cardinals, Bears
49- Browns, Eagles, Niners, Rams

[TanksAndSpartans]

I'd be interested which other AAFC teams anyone thinks would have been one of the playoff teams any of the seasons. '48 for example, I would have the Browns, Eagles, Cardinals, and Bears.

If its just top 4 teams, then:

46 - Browns, Bears, Yankees, Niners
47 - Browns, Cards, Eagles, Yankees
48 - Browns, Eagles, Cardinals, Bears
49- Browns, Eagles, Niners, Rams

Thanks Bryan. I like it. I think I'd have similar. I should have started a new thread. I could see @74_75 starting one like this

[Saban1]

I don't think that many people realize that the NFL 49ers of 1950 were not anywhere as good as the AAFC 49ers of 1948 and 1949. Here are some of the players gone in 1950 for the 49ers:

1. T John Woudenberg - Often played on both offense and defense. Perennial all league 2nd team tackle. Not bad as there were some real good tackles in the AAFC like Arnie Weinmeister, Bruiser Kinard, Darrell Palmer, Bob Reinhard, Martin Ruby, Lou Rymkus, etc. Woudenberg was also invited to the NFL Pro Bowl in 1942 when he played for the Steelers.

2.T Bob Bryant - Starting left tackle for three years. Injured after about six games in 1949.

3. T Bob Mike - Started at left tackle in 1949 after Bryant was injured.

4. T Jack Carpenter

5. T Joe Morgan

6. HB Len Eshmont - Very good halfback on both offense and defense. So highly thought of that 49ers named a yearly award after him.

7. HB Eddie Carr - Intercepted seven passes in both 1948 and 1949.

8. G Don Clark - Starting left guard in both 1948 and 1949.

9. E Nick Susoeff - Second leading receiver for 49ers in 1947 and 1948.

10. PK/HB Joe Vetrano - 2nd leading place kicker in AAFC after Lou Groza.

11. E Ned Maloney

12. HB/DB Paul Crowe - Intercepted five passers in 1948.

13. QB Bev Wallace - Backed Up Frankie Albert at quarterback.

14. C Tino Sabuco

15. E Paul Salata - Second leading receiver for 49ers in 1949. Traded to Baltimore after 4 games in 1950, maybe due to the addition of E/PK Gordie Soltau from Cleveland.

Those retirements were devastating in 1950. To make things worse, none of the NFL teams from 1949 were willing to help out the 49ers with trades, so the 49ers had to replace the players gone from 1949 almost all with rookies. Cleveland gave them some help with E Gordie Soltau, but the lines were decimated. Four rookies manned the tackle positions (offense and defense) and QB Albert was no doubt running for his life on many pass plays. Also, the NFL teams were all up for the 49ers in an effort to try to prove that the AAFC was an inferior league.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Why didn't SF pick better in the dispersal draft? You'd think they would have had an advantage over NFL teams in terms of familiarity with the players. I get it though, 15 players is a lot to replace when roster size is 35. It is a bit interesting though that for AAFC teams, we take a deep dive, but for a team like the Eagles folks are happy to assume silly things like were it not for the AAFC, the Eagles would have dominated the NFL in the '50s or that the Browns being better than the Eagles in '50 meant that they were better the previous seasons as well (I've seen this in several books). I made this post a while back, but didn't follow up further on it:

https://www.profootballresearchers.org/ ... 963#p39078

[Saban1]

Apparently, in the 1950 AAFC dispersal draft, the 49ers took guard Knox Ramsey in the first round and defensive end Ed Henke in the second. Ramsey ended up playing for the Cardinals for some reason and I think that Henke played in Canada. Henke joined the 49ers sometime after 1950.

Philadelphia was 6 and 6 in 1950 losing twice to Cleveland and twice in close games to the rebuilt Giants. That made them 6 and 2 with other teams and they did beat the Rams 56 to 20. The Eagles did gain Concrete Charlie (Bednarik) in 1949 with the bonus pick (they picked first), which should have helped in 1950 as he had a year's experience. I think that the ease with which Cleveland beat them in 1950, 35 to 10, made some people think they were probably better in 1949, much like Green Bay was considered better after they beat Kansas City 35 to 10 in Super Bowl I. Only Green Bay was expected to win. Cleveland wasn't.

The 49ers added 13 rookies to their 33 man roster in 1950 and also got 3 free agents, HB/DB Fred Gehrke, DB Howie Livingston (after 4 games, which may be why they let Paul Salata go), and HB/DB Dan Sandifer. The 49ers used their first 3 picks in the 1950 NFL draft on tackles.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Giants were 6-6 in '49 losing to the Eagles twice, but had a QB in his prime and added a rookie back in Price who had a good year. They would have had a chance to beat the '50 Eagles twice independent of the AAFC. '50 Eagles were pretty bad in the second half at 1-5 with losses to the Cardinals and Steelers as well. Neither Van Buren nor Thompson ever regained their pre-1950 form.