Your Unpopular Football Opinions

[Saban1]

You don't think that the refs sometimes looked the other way when Graham was roughed?

[Saban1]

Here is one by someone who called himself "Nobodyaskedbut" who posted this on another website:

Nobodyaskedbut

"The Browns 1946-57 were the greatest and most consistently outstanding pro football team of all time. They dominated like no other team has since and be aware that they were not liked by the other NFL owners and coaches after they entered the NFL and dominated them. That means that nothing was easy for them in the NFL. The 1st 4 seasons that the Browns were in the NFL, they were in the top 2 in penalties called on and no other team was close to being top 2 in every one of those years not to mention what was allowed to be done to Graham, especially by the Lions."

I think that there is truth to what he posted. Nobodyaskedbut seems to know a lot about pro football of that era.

I disagree with most of this. The Browns were a great team, and Otto Graham's 10 title games in 10 seasons is a remarkable achievement....but I guess a lot of it depends on how much you weigh the AAFC stuff. 4 titles in 4 years (AAFC) is more impressive than 3 titles in 8 years (NFL), although both are significant.

The comment of "they dominated like no other team has since" requires a lot of interpretation...the Packers won 3 titles in 3 years twice. I think a lot of the Browns' success was due to Graham...if you look at the NFL title games, if Graham didn't play exceptionally well, the Browns lost. When Graham retired, the Browns immediately fell apart.

If the rules were different in 1950, the Giants would have won the head-to-head tiebreaker with the Browns and been the Eastern representative in the title game against the Rams. Much was made of the Browns dominating the Eagles in the opener, but the Eagles didn't have Van Buren and were not a great team in 1950. The 1950 title game with the Rams could have gone either way. The Browns didn't win another title until 1954. So I don't really agree that the Browns just entered the NFL and dominated. They were immediately competitive, and perhaps even the best overall team, but they didn't win enough titles to be 'dominant' IMO.

The nonsense about penalties and the anecdotal "what was allowed to be done to Graham" is ridiculous. Here are where the Browns ranked in the AAFC in penalties from 1946 - 1949: first, first, second, first. I mean, nobody asked....but....

You don't think that the refs sometimes looked the other way when Graham was getting roughed up?

[Sonny9]

From 1950-53 The Rams were 1st, 3rd, 1st and 4th in penalties committed

[Sonny9]

I disagree with most of this. The Browns were a great team, and Otto Graham's 10 title games in 10 seasons is a remarkable achievement....but I guess a lot of it depends on how much you weigh the AAFC stuff. 4 titles in 4 years (AAFC) is more impressive than 3 titles in 8 years (NFL), although both are significant.

The comment of "they dominated like no other team has since" requires a lot of interpretation...the Packers won 3 titles in 3 years twice. I think a lot of the Browns' success was due to Graham...if you look at the NFL title games, if Graham didn't play exceptionally well, the Browns lost. When Graham retired, the Browns immediately fell apart.

If the rules were different in 1950, the Giants would have won the head-to-head tiebreaker with the Browns and been the Eastern representative in the title game against the Rams. Much was made of the Browns dominating the Eagles in the opener, but the Eagles didn't have Van Buren and were not a great team in 1950. The 1950 title game with the Rams could have gone either way. The Browns didn't win another title until 1954. So I don't really agree that the Browns just entered the NFL and dominated. They were immediately competitive, and perhaps even the best overall team, but they didn't win enough titles to be 'dominant' IMO.

The nonsense about penalties and the anecdotal "what was allowed to be done to Graham" is ridiculous. Here are where the Browns ranked in the AAFC in penalties from 1946 - 1949: first, first, second, first. I mean, nobody asked....but....

1950 Eagles out gained their opponents by almost 1000 yards and were +5 in turnovers.
They lost their last 4 games of the season, all 1 score games, and were -10 in turnovers in those games. Lost by 4 points to the Cardinals, 6 to the Browns. 4 and 2 points to the Giants.
The Browns didn't throw a pass in their win. Philly had 4 turnovers including a 30 yard pic 6 in the first quarter.
The Eagles 2nd game against the Cardinals, they force 12 Cardinal turnovers. Cardinal QB Hardy threw 8 picks in that game. The next game he threw 6 TDs against the hapless Colts, 5 to Bob Shaw

[Saban1]

The Lions were still 6-1 against the Browns during that era of dominance.

I just noticed this post.

Yes, the Lions did seem to have the Browns number, both in the 50's and the 60's. However, I really don't think so much during the Graham era, which was their era of dominance (1946-55) in which the Lions beat Cleveland 4 times to one win by the Browns. However, that one win was pretty big, a 56 to 10 route in the 1954 NFL Championship.

Yes, Detroit did beat Cleveland in the 1952 and 1953 title games, 17 to 7 and 17 to 16. Detroit also won the regular season finale in 1954, 14 to 10 when both teams had their conference titles clinched, so the game meant nothing. The Lions also beat the Browns in a regular season game in 1952.

After 1955 when Graham retired, Detroit had much better quarterbacking with Bobby Layne and Tobin Rote (starting in 1957). Cleveland had free agent Tommy O'Connell in 1956 along with Ratterman and Parilli until they were injured. In 1957, Cleveland had O'Connell and rookie Milt Plum as their quarterbacks and they lost twice to Detroit that year. After that, it was Plum for Cleveland until 1962.

Overall, Cleveland won 88 games during the 50's to Detroit's 68, 7 Conference titles to the Lions 4, and both teams won 3 NFL Championships. So, Detroit won more games head to head against Cleveland, but Cleveland was the more consistent winner during the 1950's. Oh yeah, Cleveland had one losing season during the 1950's (1956), whereas Detroit had three (1955, 1958, and 1959).

[Bryan]

You don't think that the refs sometimes looked the other way when Graham was roughed?

Is there actual evidence of this, or is it just a conspiracy theory? Was Graham 'roughed up' moreso than other QBs and players of that era? I've heard nothing of the sort. I would guess that if anyone was getting 'roughed up', it was the African-American players.

The irony of all of this is that Ed Meadows cheap shot of Bobby Layne in the last week of the 1956 season probably cost the Lions a spot in the 1956 NFL Championship game.

[Bryan]

However, I really don't think so much during the Graham era, which was their era of dominance (1946-55)

Nobodyaskedbut

"The Browns 1946-57 were the greatest and most consistently outstanding pro football team of all time. They dominated like no other team has since

I see the "Era of Dominance" is already shrinking...conveniently leaving out the 59-14 title loss in 1957. Interesting. And I would agree that the Lions did not have Cleveland's number from 1946-1949, considering they were playing in different leagues.

Overall, Cleveland won 88 games during the 50's to Detroit's 68, 7 Conference titles to the Lions 4, and both teams won 3 NFL Championships. So, Detroit won more games head to head against Cleveland, but Cleveland was the more consistent winner during the 1950's. Oh yeah, Cleveland had one losing season during the 1950's (1956), whereas Detroit had three (1955, 1958, and 1959).

The 50's is kind of an arbitrary timeline. I measure 'dominance' by titles, not regular season wins. The Colts won more games than the Packers in the 1960s...were they more dominant? Of course not. I agree that Cleveland was the more consistent winner, but Detroit's number of titles and one-sided 'dominance' of the Browns makes it difficult for me to say that the Browns dominated like no other team.

[TanksAndSpartans]

1950 Eagles out gained their opponents by almost 1000 yards and were +5 in turnovers. They lost their last 4 games of the season, all 1 score games, and were -10 in turnovers in those games. Lost by 4 points to the Cardinals, 6 to the Browns. 4 and 2 points to the Giants.
...

They were still a good team, but Van Buren wasn't the same. He turned 30 after the '49 championship game. Before 30, he averaged 4.8 ypc. After 30, when the Browns were in the NFL, he averaged 3.2 ypc.

The Browns didn't throw a pass in their win.

I read they threw a few passes in the 2nd game, but they were called back. I think I read it in a CC article.
...
They played twice. The first game was a blowout Browns win (35-10) sans Van Buren (which some claim proved they were the best team in football from '46 to '50 as well). Van Buren played in Game 2 with 10 carries, but went backwards. (Motley carried 12 times for 16 yards, not a lot better, but did rip off an 11 yarder.

There have been claims made on both sides, so the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I think Brown claims something along the lines he wanted to dispel that the Browns could only win by airing it out, so they didn't throw a pass. Neale claims he developed a defense to stop Graham and cites the fact that Graham didn't complete a pass in the 2nd game as evidence. The Eagles defense did hold the Browns to just a pair of field goals and a single first down in the game (I guess on Motley's long run) while the Eagles had 10 first downs. It was pretty far from a display of dominance from the Browns run game, so to me, Neale's claims hold a bit more credence. The conditions must have been pretty bad.

Nobody asked but, my opinion (unpopular?) is there's more than half a chance Nobodyaskedbut is a homer. The Eagles were very good in the late '40s and the Lions had some good championship teams in the '50s that did (unlike the Eagles) defeat the Browns head-to-head.

[Saban1]

However, I really don't think so much during the Graham era, which was their era of dominance (1946-55)

Nobodyaskedbut

"The Browns 1946-57 were the greatest and most consistently outstanding pro football team of all time. They dominated like no other team has since

I see the "Era of Dominance" is already shrinking...conveniently leaving out the 59-14 title loss in 1957. Interesting. And I would agree that the Lions did not have Cleveland's number from 1946-1949, considering they were playing in different leagues.

Overall, Cleveland won 88 games during the 50's to Detroit's 68, 7 Conference titles to the Lions 4, and both teams won 3 NFL Championships. So, Detroit won more games head to head against Cleveland, but Cleveland was the more consistent winner during the 1950's. Oh yeah, Cleveland had one losing season during the 1950's (1956), whereas Detroit had three (1955, 1958, and 1959).

The 50's is kind of an arbitrary timeline. I measure 'dominance' by titles, not regular season wins. The Colts won more games than the Packers in the 1960s...were they more dominant? Of course not. I agree that Cleveland was the more consistent winner, but Detroit's number of titles and one-sided 'dominance' of the Browns makes it difficult for me to say that the Browns dominated like no other team.

Nobodyaskedbut had the Browns era of dominance from 1946 through 1957. I don't agree with his last couple of years because Otto Graham retired after the 1955 season, and the Browns were never quite the same again. I did mention that the Browns lost twice to Detroit in 1957, but did not mention the scores, but did say that Detroit did dominate more after Graham retired, especially in 1957.

When Cleveland entered the NFL in 1950, Detroit was not considered a very good team, but improved rapidly after that. The Browns had those title game losses to the Rams and Lions but avenged them pretty well in 1954 and 1955 (56 to 10 and 38 to 14) before Graham retired. So, starting in 1950, the Browns played in 6 straight NFL Championship games, which is still a record. Of course, this doesn't count the AAFC years.

Detroit's championship run was from 1952 through 1957 (also 6 years like Cleveland's), but in the middle they finished in last place in 1955. Yes, the Lions did beat the Browns 59 to 14 in the 1957 title game, but Cleveland's championship run was over and the Browns were just a rebuilt team that was a 5 and 7 loser the previous year. Gone were not only Graham but also Dante Lavelli, Mac Speedie, Marion Motley, Frank Gatski, Chick Jagade, Bill Willis, Lou Rymkus, Dub Jones, Tommy James, etc. They were a different team and it was quite a job by the Browns coaching staff to get them into another championship game.

You may not value overall records as much but I do. Cleveland had a much better overall record than Detroit during the 50's and many people would put the Browns over the Lions during the 50's because of this, even though Detroit did better head to head. Also, Cleveland did win as many titles during the 50's.

[Bryan]

You may not value overall records as much but I do. Cleveland had a much better overall record than Detroit during the 50's and many people would put the Browns over the Lions during the 50's because of this, even though Detroit did better head to head. Also, Cleveland did win as many titles during the 50's.

I agree with you that the Browns were clearly the "team of the 50's". I just hesitate to call them the most dominant team ever.