Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

TanksAndSpartans wrote:John and Ralph - great answers - I really appreciate it. I’ve always wanted to discuss this. (I have John’s book on numbers - Ralph, I’ll put your book on my list)

One thing that didn’t come up is whatever the origin of the lineups that we see in old newspapers, I think they were “loose” with distinguishing between LH and Q. From what I’ve read on Potsy Clark, he was committed to the single-wing, but a lot of times, the tailback, Dutch Clark is listed as “Q” in the box score. I think that’s just a result of someone not being accurate or maybe just thinking the player who takes the snap is the quarterback? Have others noticed this for other teams?

rhickok1109 wrote:In obvious passing formations, virtually all teams, including the Packers, used the short punt formation.

The team that comes to mind for me is Canton with Jim Thorpe and Milt Ghee. I would think Thorpe knew the single-wing from Warner at Carlisle, but Ghee actually put up some good passing numbers. So maybe when it was time to pass, they just lined up in a short punt formation and Ghee took the snap. When they wanted to run, Thorpe would take it as the tailback. One deficiency I see is Ghee wasn’t a big guy (even for the era), so probably not ideal to line up at blocking back… For any team in this situation, Massillon with Dorais in the backfield, Dayton with Al Mahrt in the backfield, the single-wing doesn’t seem like a great fit for the personnel. (I'm referring to backs whose greatest asset was passing, but may not have been considered strong blockers or runners.)

For pre-NFL teams, 20s, 30s, etc. I wonder how many teams there are where it could be documented what they did on offense - Packers (see posts above), Bears (T), Giants (A formation), for the Spartans I have a book by Potsy Clark with actual plays. But for most teams I look at the box score and read the newspaper write up, but without knowing what formations the team ran, its hard to picture what happened.

rhickok1109 wrote:Some coaches considered the player who called the signals to be the QB, no matter where he lined up. I wonder if that was true of Clark?

rhickok1109 wrote:

JeffreyMiller wrote:... btw, who is Elliott Harrison?

Elliott Harrison is a writer for nfl.com.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:I see what you're saying, there's a Dutch Clark interview where he mentions that he called the signals rather than the QB even though he was the tailback. And I think there's a number of players - Baugh, Friedman, etc. that history remembers as QBs even if they may have actually played a lot of tailback.

Bob Gill wrote:

TanksAndSpartans wrote:I see what you're saying, there's a Dutch Clark interview where he mentions that he called the signals rather than the QB even though he was the tailback. And I think there's a number of players - Baugh, Friedman, etc. that history remembers as QBs even if they may have actually played a lot of tailback.

I think that's exactly right about Dutch Clark -- that he was (virtually always) listed as a QB because he called the signals. Friedman, too.

As for formations teams used in pre-NFL days, I'm pretty sure the Detroit Heralds were using the T formation throughout what you might call the Thorpe years.

JeffreyMiller wrote:

Bob Gill wrote:

TanksAndSpartans wrote:I see what you're saying, there's a Dutch Clark interview where he mentions that he called the signals rather than the QB even though he was the tailback. And I think there's a number of players - Baugh, Friedman, etc. that history remembers as QBs even if they may have actually played a lot of tailback.

I think that's exactly right about Dutch Clark -- that he was (virtually always) listed as a QB because he called the signals. Friedman, too.

As for formations teams used in pre-NFL days, I'm pretty sure the Detroit Heralds were using the T formation throughout what you might call the Thorpe years.

I believe the buffalo all Americans also used the T at some point

TanksAndSpartans wrote:Bob, have you written about the Heralds at all?

I'm yet to bite the bullet on any paid newspaper subscriptions, but I'm getting closer because I want to look into some pre-NFL Heralds games. I didn't find anything searching PFRA articles.

Bob Gill wrote:

TanksAndSpartans wrote:Bob, have you written about the Heralds at all?

I'm yet to bite the bullet on any paid newspaper subscriptions, but I'm getting closer because I want to look into some pre-NFL Heralds games. I didn't find anything searching PFRA articles.

I'm pretty sure I've never written any articles about the Heralds. I do have information about most of their games from about 1914-19 -- generally just a line score and maybe the lineup. I tended to skip games against teams that weren't part of the big-time pro circuit, the kind of teams that the Heralds would beat 50-0. If that's the kind of thing you're interested in, send me your e-mail and I'll try to put it into a workable form.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:I'm thinking of telling the story of their '17 season which was a pretty good one (and I don't think has shown up in Coffin Corner).

Bob Gill wrote:

TanksAndSpartans wrote:Bob, have you written about the Heralds at all?

I'm yet to bite the bullet on any paid newspaper subscriptions, but I'm getting closer because I want to look into some pre-NFL Heralds games. I didn't find anything searching PFRA articles.

I'm pretty sure I've never written any articles about the Heralds. I do have information about most of their games from about 1914-19 -- generally just a line score and maybe the lineup. I tended to skip games against teams that weren't part of the big-time pro circuit, the kind of teams that the Heralds would beat 50-0. If that's the kind of thing you're interested in, send me your e-mail and I'll try to put it into a workable form.