Best Year of the 1950s

[74_75_78_79_]

Thought I beat you to it, Joe, by starting this inevitable thread. A lot to pick from, obviously. You got '58 that concluded with 'you-know-what'. The year before brought on quite a lopsided Title Game but the Western Conference Title game...Lions' famous comeback at SF - makes it memorable. Not only that, and not the fact that Baltimore was actually alone in first in that conference with two weeks to go, but had they, Det, and SF have all been tied, there would have actually been a two-week playoff just to determine the Western champ! That never turned out to be, however, for the Colts lost their last two games. Cleveland waiting three weeks to play for the Title? Just imagine.

1950 would have to be a real popular one first based on the 'high school' Browns team immediately proving themselves to the max in the famous opener vs 2-time-World Champ Philly and then the regular season concluding with both conferences having to hold tie-breaker games - couldn't ask for more in that era of conference-winners-only playing for all the marbles! Both games that Cleveland had to win to clinch the Title made '50 quite historic. You had the weather-assisted defensive (no TDs) slugfest vs the Giants for the American Conference, and then you had the multiple-lead-changing, high scoring Title Game in which Cleveland came back from an 8-point, end-of-3rd-quarter deficit to top the Rams in front of their home-crowd.

However, I pick 1951. No conference title games, Cleveland won the American over NYG by a game and a half (and swept them too), but were never more than ahead by that margin the whole season. As for the National race?? That, to me, is what makes it. Four teams of the conference's six still had a chance to win it in the final week! Too bad sports-bars with multi-screen TVs didn't exist for fans back then. And then when that dust settled with the Rams winning it again, you had another real competitive Title Game with the Rams prevailing this time - and in front of their home-crowd to boot. As for good conference races in the '50s, 1959 a worthy mention as well with SF and the Bears giving the Colts a run of things in the (now called) 'Western' (GB, of course, rallying to their 7-5 finish in Vince's first year at helm).

[Reaser]

Any of them, the entire decade was great.

Personally, I think the first half of the 50's has the best, or more accurately my preferred roster size, while the latter half has the best playing rules.
The first half has the great teams that I like, while as the decade went on more of the great players I like began their careers so the latter half has more individual great players that I like.

I like it all, though most interesting - with an argument for best - would be 1950, of course. Which you covered. I also think that more of the AAFC consolidated into the NFL than is given credit for and that is also is why I think AAFC stats should be included with NFL/AFL stats, though that's an entirely different subject that applies more to a different decade - and I know everyone doesn't agree (the PFHOF 'counts' the stats anyways so it isn't a huge deal, though I'd like it to be that way.)

[Rupert Patrick]

I have to go with 1950 as the best football year of the decade because of the naysayers who said the AAFC Browns were from an inferior league and could not compete in the NFL but they went out and smoked the Eagles on opening day and cruised thru the regular season. Also, the tiebreaker games in both conferences, and in my opinion the best Championship Game of the decade. The Rams offense averaged 38.3 points a game, which I believe is still the highest per-game average of all time. LA also scored 135 points over two consecutive games, a mark that is unlikely to ever be beaten; the next closest two-game total is 109 by the 1963 Chargers.

[Veeshik_ya]

I have to go with 1950 as the best football year of the decade because of the naysayers who said the AAFC Browns were from an inferior league and could not compete in the NFL but they went out and smoked the Eagles on opening day and cruised thru the regular season. Also, the tiebreaker games in both conferences, and in my opinion the best Championship Game of the decade. The Rams offense averaged 38.3 points a game, which I believe is still the highest per-game average of all time. LA also scored 135 points over two consecutive games, a mark that is unlikely to ever be beaten; the next closest two-game total is 109 by the 1963 Chargers.

Some people have tried to discredit (or, at least, add an asterisk to) the Rams' prolific offense saying they feasted on former AAFC teams. But they scored 65 against the Lions and 51 and 45 against the Packers.

[ChrisBabcock]

I like it all, though most interesting - with an argument for best - would be 1950, of course. Which you covered. I also think that more of the AAFC consolidated into the NFL than is given credit for and that is also is why I think AAFC stats should be included with NFL/AFL stats, though that's an entirely different subject that applies more to a different decade - and I know everyone doesn't agree (the PFHOF 'counts' the stats anyways so it isn't a huge deal, though I'd like it to be that way.)

I think the reason the NFL still refuses to count the AAFC stats is, like someone said, it wasn't a full fledged merger and the teams that got dumped by the wayside were deemed inferior so therefore those AAFC stats would be "tainted".

I've always wondered what an alternate history would have looked like if it was a complete merger. Would teams like the Dons, Hornets and Colts have fizzled out at some point because of their inferior rosters?

[Reaser]

I think the reason the NFL still refuses to count the AAFC stats is, like someone said, it wasn't a full fledged merger ...

The NFL's reason was scoresheets.

The PFRA forums have been having this discussion for many years, years before I joined (which on the old forums I was able to go back and read through all of the posts before joining, as well as parts of the message board before that), and the discussion has happened every year since I joined.

It usually comes down to two lines of thought;

Against: Boils down to that the NFL only 'took' 3 teams.
For: AAFC was (arguably) on par with NFL and the amount of AAFC players that ended up in the NFL.

Both make sense to me, but I always argue that more of the AAFC than just 3 teams ended up in the NFL. The NY Yanks were essentially the NY Yankees minus the 6 players that went to the Giants, and Brooklyn and NY merged while in the AAFC so that covers two AAFC teams. That doesn't even get into Topping on the front end (NFL to AAFC) ... The Buffalo owner took 25% ownership in the Browns and 3 Buffalo players with him. Saying Buffalo 'survived' wouldn't be the best way to put it, but in way ... at least if the owner is the franchise.

The Rams and Dons consolidated interests, though I've never figured out that full situation, I think the Dons owner passed on partial ownership of the Rams?

Which just leaves Chicago, which obviously there wasn't going to be 3 Chicago teams.

Buffalo is the only city that lost out (personally think they should have ended up in the NFL, but again, the owner took part of the Browns.) ...

Of course all of the players that were in the Allocation Draft.

I just think when it's phrased "only 3 teams survived" implies that 4 just died, when in reality a 4th team all but officially survived (by previous merger can say a 5th AAFC team), then the partial Browns/Bills merger brings the Bills (owner) with the Browns into the NFL, then whatever Rams/Dons interests were consolidated. All or part of pretty much every AAFC franchise except Chicago (not counting players) ended up in the NFL. A flimsy tack-on here could be to say that the NFL essentially lost the NY Bulldogs in the so-called 'merger' ...

[ChrisBabcock]

Thanks for the info! The above post is why I love this forum.

[BD Sullivan]

I've always wondered what an alternate history would have looked like if it was a complete merger. Would teams like the Dons, Hornets and Colts have fizzled out at some point because of their inferior rosters?

Actually the Colts did fizzle out after one year. The current Colts franchise is the progeny of the former New York Yanks franchise, which left NYC after 1951 and then spent a miserable year in Dallas (and other parts) as the Texans.

[Byron]

Some people have tried to discredit (or, at least, add an asterisk to) the Rams' prolific offense saying they feasted on former AAFC teams. But they scored 65 against the Lions and 51 and 45 against the Packers.

Yes, that's just silly on every level. The majority of the AAFC was absorbed and the players drafted into the NFL as part of the existing teams; the influx of talent greatly improved the older league in 1950. The idea of the Rams "feasting" on old AAFC teams is ridiculous.

[SixtiesFan]

I have to pick 1958 as the best year of the 1950's. It was the first year I watched football on TV.