Continuation of Discussion Under Cam Newton

[Saban1]

I should have added in my last post that many of the players drafted in the 1950 dispersal draft that did not play in the NFL after 1949 did not play in a regular season game in the AAFC either, especially players taken in the later rounds of that draft. Many of those players were taken in AAFC drafts, but were probably cut before the regular season started, or were just somehow on AAFC rosters. That would account for many of the 90 players taken in that 1950 dispersal draft that did not play in the NFL.

[Reaser]

I should have added in my last post that many of the players drafted in the 1950 dispersal draft that did not play in the NFL after 1949 did not play in a regular season game in the AAFC either, especially players taken in the later rounds of that draft. Many of those players were taken in AAFC drafts, but were probably cut before the regular season started, or were just somehow on AAFC rosters. That would account for many of the 90 players taken in that 1950 dispersal draft that did not play in the NFL.

There was also guys, that incorrectly get put in the AAFC players who played in the NFL category due to the dispersal draft, like Lou Creekmur and Chuck Drazenovich who were both drafted by the Dons. Creekmur in '48 and Drazenovich in '49 (he was playing at Penn State in '49).

But yes, plenty of players who didn't play in the NFL after 1949 never played in the AAFC prior to the 'draft' either. Hence, it's a weird way to go about trying to point at the AAFC's alleged lack of talent.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Yup, that's a weird way to say AAFC players 'weren't good enough for the NFL' ...

Not really trying to say that. Just saying because the league was a bit weaker I feel a few distortions were created. The Browns won 4 championships during the AAFC years. If I wanted to I could say that's like 2 because they split (3-3) with Graham at QB post merger, but I won't say that. And I don't want to play the head-to-head hypothetical game, because no one knows who would have won those games. I just want to discount it down to maybe 3.5 (whatever that fraction means). Doing that, I actually think more people in a hypothetical coffee shop discussion would listen to my side - at least I'm willing to give a little. I'll mention the players coming home from the war, etc. - all those good arguments. Spec Sanders, I would say that's a 1,000 yard season so give him the credit with the other guys who achieved it. I would just adjust the 1400 number down a bit and mention he wasn't actually playing running back so may not be apples to apples with say Van Buren's seasons.

I'm also trying to use quantitative methods and not resort to overly subjective analysis. I think the video game YPC performances and dispersal draft are decent points. The CC indicates the players coming from 4 teams. Here's an example from the Yanks who kept most of their players (sorry I couldn't get it into a nice table):

NEW YORK YANKS
George Taliaferro B Indiana Los Angeles Dons
Nate Johnson T Illinois Chicago Hornets
Dan Edwards E Georgia Chicago Hornets
John Clowes T William & Mary Chicago Hornets
Bob Kennedy B North Carolina Los Angeles Dons
Chet Adams T Ohio University Buffalo Bills
Paul Crowe B St. Mary’s Los Angeles Dons
John “Mickey” Colmer B Mira Monte J.C. New York Yankees
Orban “Spec” Sanders B Texas New York Yankees
Tom Colella B Canisius Buffalo Bills


139/4 is about 35 players per team. Say 22 were starters for 80 starters. 49 got jobs. Did 30 or so retire or get a better paying job or go to Canada or never play in the AAFC in the first place, but just got stuck in the draft? Maybe - I don't know. 49 just seems a bit low to me especially when you consider 49/139, not 49/80 - I understand the explanations for it, but I think the dispersal draft results support my view better than the alternative.

[JameisLoseston]

With respect to Sanders, I feel like the fact that he was passing AT ALL is an important point that's often overlooked. That kind of versatility is astounding in itself. I was guilty of overlooking the fact that George Blanda was a QB/K and that is important in its own right even if he had his failings as a passer, and I was quickly put in my place. Sanders, I agree, was no more than an average passer either, but he was also completely adequate. Many single-wing tailbacks who were valued mainly for their running, like Whizzer White, Jim Musick, and Warren Heller, were absolutely abominable throwers of the ball. By even being decent at passing while doing what he did on the ground, Sanders represented the perfected final form, the apotheosis of the single-wing TB, and a fitting final requiem to the position as it passed from the game. It's impossible and irrational to hold the mediocrity of his passing against him, because by all rights he didn't have to be passing at all. The fact that he ran for way more yards than anyone ever had before while also being his team's perfectly competent quarterback is a Ruthian feat that is absolutely to be held in immense admiration. I could cite so many stats and bizarre records he still holds to show how ridiculous it was, but I'll make it simple: for a modern perspective, imagine Lamar Jackson, a comparably mediocre passer, running for 2000 and 20 TDs. If you wouldn't take healthy Sanders first overall in an AAFC fantasy draft, you're as foolish as the person who wouldn't take Blanda first in an AFL fantasy draft, because both are scoring you the points of literally two players in one roster spot.

[Reaser]

I'm also trying to use quantitative methods and not resort to overly subjective analysis. I think the video game YPC performances and dispersal draft are decent points. The CC indicates the players coming from 4 teams. Here's an example from the Yanks who kept most of their players (sorry I couldn't get it into a nice table):

NEW YORK YANKS
George Taliaferro B Indiana Los Angeles Dons
Nate Johnson T Illinois Chicago Hornets
Dan Edwards E Georgia Chicago Hornets
John Clowes T William & Mary Chicago Hornets
Bob Kennedy B North Carolina Los Angeles Dons
Chet Adams T Ohio University Buffalo Bills
Paul Crowe B St. Mary’s Los Angeles Dons
John “Mickey” Colmer B Mira Monte J.C. New York Yankees
Orban “Spec” Sanders B Texas New York Yankees
Tom Colella B Canisius Buffalo Bills


139/4 is about 35 players per team. Say 22 were starters for 80 starters. 49 got jobs. Did 30 or so retire or get a better paying job or go to Canada or never play in the AAFC in the first place, but just got stuck in the draft? Maybe - I don't know. 49 just seems a bit low to me especially when you consider 49/139, not 49/80 - I understand the explanations for it, but I think the dispersal draft results support my view better than the alternative

It's not very quantitative if you don't understand what you're looking at and thus it then becomes subjective.

Do more research. Fun to look it up yourself so here's some hints for things to look at:

Look up how Buddy Young, Jack Russell, etc ended up on the Yanks and why for all intents and purposes there was a 4th AAFC team -stripped of some of it's best players- in the combined league in 1950.

Look up how the Giants ended up with Weinmeister, Landry, Schnellbacher, Rowe, etc.

Look up how Abe Gibron ended up on the Browns.

How did Ratterman end up with the Yanks.

Players not in the dispersal draft. How did that happen.

[TanksAndSpartans]

I definitely appreciate the appreciation of Sanders - in my opinion though, I think its too far. Warner thought Thorpe was the ideal for his new system when he developed it at Carlisle, so I’d at least consider him. Friedman could run, stats are incomplete, so hard to say, certainly he could pass. Off the top of my head, I’d probably go with Dutch Clark .

Hence, it's a weird way to go about trying to point at the AAFC's alleged lack of talent.

I’m really not trying to do anything more bizarre than trying to use some objectivity. Imagine two leagues A and B of 4 teams each, 10 players per team, 5 starters per team. If A folded and B drafted its players, I’d expect the 20 starters from A to displace the 20 reserves from B. I’d also expect 10 of the players from A to start. So in the end half of the players from A got a job and half remained starters. If you want to say the NFL/AAFC case is much much more complicated, its a fair criticism, but I’m not seeing why my logic has to be completely discounted.

[TanksAndSpartans]

It's not very quantitative if you don't understand what you're looking at and thus it then becomes subjective.

Getting the feeling this may devolve. I feel I've actually supplied more objective reasoning for my case, but there always seem to be some historically specific factors making it incorrect - interesting how that works especially when combined with condescending comments. If I don't understand then just tell me how many starting players in the AAFC in '49 started in '50 and whether its above or below what a simple analysis would predict. You guys have more knowledge than me with regard to where the players wound up - so give me the numbers without any name dropping.

I don't have much interest in researching the draft, etc. myself - I actually like the AAFC (more so up until recently) - what brought me into this is that I think your side, including even NFL films sometimes, not just the posters involved in this thread, can get obnoxious about using the '50 Eagles to tear down the '47-'49 Eagles for the purpose of building up the Browns mythology.

Also, if you look at posters who post on HOF senior candidates or if you imagine a “wisdom of crowds” approach, I don’t think Speedie is top 4 - that’s another thing that got my attention. Its the decision of the committee so I respect it, but I also have a right to the opinion that it seems a bit biased.

[Saban1]

Yup, that's a weird way to say AAFC players 'weren't good enough for the NFL' ...

Not really trying to say that. Just saying because the league was a bit weaker I feel a few distortions were created. The Browns won 4 championships during the AAFC years. If I wanted to I could say that's like 2 because they split (3-3) with Graham at QB post merger, but I won't say that. And I don't want to play the head-to-head hypothetical game, because no one knows who would have won those games. I just want to discount it down to maybe 3.5 (whatever that fraction means). Doing that, I actually think more people in a hypothetical coffee shop discussion would listen to my side - at least I'm willing to give a little. I'll mention the players coming home from the war, etc. - all those good arguments. Spec Sanders, I would say that's a 1,000 yard season so give him the credit with the other guys who achieved it. I would just adjust the 1400 number down a bit and mention he wasn't actually playing running back so may not be apples to apples with say Van Buren's seasons.

I'm also trying to use quantitative methods and not resort to overly subjective analysis. I think the video game YPC performances and dispersal draft are decent points. The CC indicates the players coming from 4 teams. Here's an example from the Yanks who kept most of their players (sorry I couldn't get it into a nice table):

NEW YORK YANKS
George Taliaferro B Indiana Los Angeles Dons
Nate Johnson T Illinois Chicago Hornets
Dan Edwards E Georgia Chicago Hornets
John Clowes T William & Mary Chicago Hornets
Bob Kennedy B North Carolina Los Angeles Dons
Chet Adams T Ohio University Buffalo Bills
Paul Crowe B St. Mary’s Los Angeles Dons
John “Mickey” Colmer B Mira Monte J.C. New York Yankees
Orban “Spec” Sanders B Texas New York Yankees
Tom Colella B Canisius Buffalo Bills


139/4 is about 35 players per team. Say 22 were starters for 80 starters. 49 got jobs. Did 30 or so retire or get a better paying job or go to Canada or never play in the AAFC in the first place, but just got stuck in the draft? Maybe - I don't know. 49 just seems a bit low to me especially when you consider 49/139, not 49/80 - I understand the explanations for it, but I think the dispersal draft results support my view better than the alternative.

New York Yanks owner in 1950, Ted Collins, was allowed to take 32 players from the 1949 AAFC Yankees minus 6 players that went to the New York Giants. That means that after those 32 players, any players left after that were allowed to be taken in the dispersal draft in 1950. So, most of the players from the 1949 Yankees that were on their active roster were not allowed to be taken in that draft.

Spec Sanders was taken in the dispersal draft, I believe, because he missed the 1949 season due to an injury. Sanders had been a single wing tailback in his AAFC years, but the 1950 Yanks played in a T-Formation, so Sanders played defensive back in 1950, and apparently played it very well.

The Yankees and Brooklyn Dodgers merged in 1949. So there were a lot of players on the Yankees roster in 1949, many that didn't play that year, but Collins was allowed to only take 26 of them in 1950. The players that were eligible for the 1950 dispersal draft were all players from the 1949 Dons, Bills, Hornets, and whatever players that were left over on the 1949 Yankees from the 32 players that went to the 1950 Yanks and Giants, and various players that were on AAFC rosters whether they ever played or not.

[Reaser]

If you want to say the NFL/AAFC case is much much more complicated, its a fair criticism, but I’m not seeing why my logic has to be completely discounted.

Because it's illogical? Look at your numbers "139/4 is about 35 players per team", dividing by 4 doesn't make sense.

The Browns, 49ers and Colts went to the NFL. The Yankees (minus 6 players picked by the Giants) for all intents and purposes went to the NFL. That leaves the Bills, Dons and Hornets. Except the Bills 'sold' players so not all of their players were in the dispersal draft. So you have the Bills (minus some of their starters/best players), Dons and Hornets players along with a bunch of players that were drafted by the AAFC (and NFL) but never played in the AAFC who were included in the dispersal draft.

So "4" is not the correct number to divide by, at all. And this is just one aspect.

For what it's worth, it wasn't two leagues of 4 teams each, obviously and I get your example but even that's an example of 50/50. There was 7 AAFC and 10 NFL teams. Even if all 7 AAFC teams survived the 'merger' (and in various ways more than 3 did / Yankees/Yanks, Bills owner getting part of the Browns, Dons/Rams 'agreement'/'merger', really only the Hornets were apart of nothing except players continuing on) it still wouldn't be 50/50 because there's less AAFC teams. Math.

As it was, officially 3 AAFC teams and 10 NFL teams (though one of those NFL teams was basically 4 players + an AAFC team), so really 4 and 9. So then you're saying that players from the remaining 3 AAFC (sort of, with the Bills 'selling' players) teams needed to make up 50% of the 9 NFL rosters? How is that logical? I ask and I answer, it is not.

And that is just basic, before getting into 'complicated' like the Redskins lack of players from the AAFC, which worked out great for them, last place in their division immediately following the 'merger'.

[Reaser]

I feel I've actually supplied more objective reasoning for my case, but there always seem to be some historically specific factors making it incorrect - interesting how that works especially when combined with condescending comments.

I actually don't have much interest in researching the draft - I actually like the AAFC (more so up until recently) - what brought me into this is that I think your side, including even NFL films sometimes, not just the posters involved in this thread, can get obnoxious about using the '50 Eagles to tear down the '47-'49 Eagles for the purpose of building up the Browns mythology

Well it's certainly not my fault you aren't interested in researching it and instead claim things are objective when they're massively devoid of context and frankly, incorrect.

I haven't seen anything about the Browns v. Eagles debate in these two recent threads? I'm also not on a side, I've never tore down the Eagles. Actually always list Van Buren as one of my favorite "before I was born" players and most of all I've promoted Al Wistert for the HOF more than anyone else that posts here over the last decade -- even graded 12 of his game films with Ken Crippen.

I only strive for historically accuracy. That's my sole reason for discussing (or debating, however one wants to phrase it) AAFC's level of play. Which is my interest in it. That one "side" has a completely inaccurate, flawed and lazy view of what the league was, how the rosters were built, the quality of the league and so on has never been specific to the Browns, since I'm not a Browns fan. I'm a Seahawks fan.