Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

JohnTurney wrote:

rewing84 wrote: Agreed 100% which safteys and tackles/guards would you like to see

some are here:

http://nflfootballjournal.blogspot.com/ ... t-yet.html

excellent read i agree with the selections

Matt, that old article I was referring to doesn’t dispute there were great players in the AAFC and neither do I, so the All-Pro results don’t surprise me. I believe the point of the article was that the percentage of players absorbed into the NFL from the dispersal draft was lower than it should have been had the leagues been equal. It’s been a long time though, its possible the article was making the opposite argument, but that’s not how I remember it. Logically, a lot of those players, maybe half? should have been able to catch on with NFL teams. Is that what happened? You may have looked at this in your AAFC analysis or seen that old article. My other thought is that logically it must have been tough to hit the ground running in '46 with the same caliber of player as the NFL. Seems more likely the rosters would have been filled out with a lot of rookies and players cut from the NFL. If not, how did they pull it off? If so, even if only one season, that's 25% of the league's existence.

Reaser wrote:The Browns blew out as many teams in the AAFC in 1949 as they did in the NFL in 1950.

You got me on this one. Unexpected.

Back to Speedie:

-It seemed part of the argument for Speedie was statistically based, so it did bother me if he was racking up numbers against inferior teams like the L.A. Dons, Miami Seahawks, etc., but if the leagues can be shown to be roughly equivalent, then I can admit to being wrong on wanting to discount his AAFC seasons which is all I wanted to do, not disregard them.

-I noticed he was a receiver with the benefit of an all-time great QB, so I thought there may be a discount there too, but looks like I'm in the minority on that

-Having watched Browns highlights myself, he didn’t make an impression on me. I didn't have much/any AAFC footage though, so probably unfair.

-The PFRA HOVG page shows that we advocate Slater, Dilweg, Speedie, and Wistert for the HOF (http://www.profootballresearchers.org/h ... y-good.htm) and top 4 seemed high to me, so I questioned it. I don't think Bachslunch has him even close to top 4.

-Finally, I didn't think there was a shortage of players for that position/era combination. Hutson played in the 40s, Pihos, Fears, Lavelli, and Hirsch. Speaking of Fears he was around 100 yards per game and Speedie was around 50 yards per game in the playoffs. Fair or not, possibly a reason Speedie isn't remembered as well.

Sadly, I don’t think it will matter because he probably played too long ago to be considered for the 2020 class from what's been posted so far.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:Matt, that old article I was referring to doesn’t dispute there were great players in the AAFC and neither do I, so the All-Pro results don’t surprise me. I believe the point of the article was that the percentage of players absorbed into the NFL from the dispersal draft was lower than it should have been had the leagues been equal. It’s been a long time though, its possible the article was making the opposite argument, but that’s not how I remember it. Logically, a lot of those players, maybe half? should have been able to catch on with NFL teams. Is that what happened? You may have looked at this in your AAFC analysis or seen that old article. My other thought is that logically it must have been tough to hit the ground running in '46 with the same caliber of player as the NFL. Seems more likely the rosters would have been filled out with a lot of rookies and players cut from the NFL. If not, how did they pull it off? If so, even if only one season, that's 25% of the league's existence.

Reaser wrote:The Browns blew out as many teams in the AAFC in 1949 as they did in the NFL in 1950.

You got me on this one. Unexpected.

Back to Speedie:

-It seemed part of the argument for Speedie was statistically based, so it did bother me if he was racking up numbers against inferior teams like the L.A. Dons, Miami Seahawks, etc., but if the leagues can be shown to be roughly equivalent, then I can admit to being wrong on wanting to discount his AAFC seasons which is all I wanted to do, not disregard them.

-I noticed he was a receiver with the benefit of an all-time great QB, so I thought there may be a discount there too, but looks like I'm in the minority on that

-Having watched Browns highlights myself, he didn’t make an impression on me. I didn't have much/any AAFC footage though, so probably unfair.

-The PFRA HOVG page shows that we advocate Slater, Dilweg, Speedie, and Wistert for the HOF (http://www.profootballresearchers.org/h ... y-good.htm) and top 4 seemed high to me, so I questioned it. I don't think Bachslunch has him even close to top 4.

-Finally, I didn't think there was a shortage of players for that position/era combination. Hutson played in the 40s, Pihos, Fears, Lavelli, and Hirsch. Speaking of Fears he was around 100 yards per game and Speedie was around 50 yards per game in the playoffs. Fair or not, possibly a reason Speedie isn't remembered as well.

Sadly, I don’t think it will matter because he probably played too long ago to be considered for the 2020 class from what's been posted so far.

you and I think alike

TanksAndSpartans wrote:Matt, that old article I was referring to doesn’t dispute there were great players in the AAFC and neither do I, so the All-Pro results don’t surprise me. I believe the point of the article was that the percentage of players absorbed into the NFL from the dispersal draft was lower than it should have been had the leagues been equal. It’s been a long time though, its possible the article was making the opposite argument, but that’s not how I remember it. Logically, a lot of those players, maybe half? should have been able to catch on with NFL teams. Is that what happened? You may have looked at this in your AAFC analysis or seen that old article. My other thought is that logically it must have been tough to hit the ground running in '46 with the same caliber of player as the NFL. Seems more likely the rosters would have been filled out with a lot of rookies and players cut from the NFL. If not, how did they pull it off? If so, even if only one season, that's 25% of the league's existence.

WWII ...

Roster building was completely different. Wasn't 'normal' NFL seasons -- or college seasons for that matter. Players who were drafted and would have started playing in the NFL were in the military. Many instead signed with an AAFC team when the war ended. Remember, Spec Sanders and Frankie Albert were both 1st round picks in the NFL in 1942 and neither played in the NFL until 1950. Otto Graham was a 1st round NFL pick in 1944 and John Yonakor was a 1st round pick in 1945 and neither played in the NFL until 1950. Glenn Dobbs was a 1st round pick in 1943, Angelo Bertelli was the 1st overall pick in 1944, Billy Hillenbrand was a 1st round pick in 1944, and all played in the AAFC but none ever played in the NFL (and not because they weren't good enough; Dobbs was AAFC MVP and Hillenbrand was a solid football player.) Elroy Hirsch was a 1st round pick in the NFL in 1945 and spent his first 3 seasons in the AAFC before joining the Rams in 1949. There wasn't just one [normal] rookie class available to the AAFC. And yes, 'rookies', 44 of the 60 who played in the 1946 College All-Star game chose the AAFC, including Graham, Hirsch, etc. They beat and shutout the defending NFL champion Rams, for the record.

There was also other leagues. The Pacific Coast League had talent, many players ended up in the AAFC. Plus of course all the service teams. Then guys who played in the NFL pre-war and post-war signed with the AAFC. Not guys who were cut from the NFL and/or weren't good enough for the NFL. Plus of course players like Bill Willis and Marion Motley weren't exactly going to play in the NFL, obviously. Even the the 1940 NFL MVP and 1944 NFL MVP were both in the AAFC in 1946. Bruiser Kinard also was in the AAFC from the beginning. It really was wide-open for AAFC teams to get quality players (including some of the best in pro football history) prior to 1946 kickoff.

From Andy Piascik's book on the Browns: Not counting 1950 rookies (who obviously couldn't have played in the AAFC), in 1950 40% of the players in the NFL were former AAFC players. And of the 5 teams with winning records in the NFL in 1950 (Browns, Rams, Giants, Bears and Yanks) 52% of the players on their rosters were former AAFC players.

I'd add that you also have to look at percentage. In 1949 there was 7 AAFC teams and 10 NFL teams, had there been a full merger and a 17-team league there would still be 10 teams of NFL players so to expect 50/50 split obviously wouldn't make sense because there was more NFL teams. As it was, 3 AAFC (4 counting Yanks), 10 NFL (9 counting Yanks) to end up with the amount of former AAFC players in the NFL in 1950 actually is a significant point in favor of the quality of the leagues being somewhere around equal.

Sadly, I don’t think it will matter because he probably played too long ago to be considered for the 2020 class from what's been posted so far.

Agreed. It'll likely be 'names' from the 70's & 80's with one or two token choices of further back to make it look like it was considered.

As for Speedie, I was more trying to point out the quality of play in the AAFC so a more accurate (in my opinion, of course) look could be taken. Not just him, but any of the players, teams, etc.

JWL wrote:Most of the advanced baseball stats I support. It is just that one quote John Turney shared threw me for a loop. I had to mock it. What I do not like about fancy football statistics is when folks try to compare 2018 passers to ones from 1952 and 1974. This is often done through formulas that many times seem almost rigged to produce a desired result. It's like somebody asks himself, "How can I do this so that my formula can have Ken Anderson in the top 20?" and then spends free time orchestrating things so that Anderson does end up in the top 20. "Anderson was excellent here so I will accentuate this stat and he was subpar in this department so I will put less weight on that stat..."

Fair enough, and thanks for explaining.

Only one quibble. I'm not sure the folks who are doing this kind of analysis have an ax to grind. My guess is that they devised their systems in ways that make the most sense, and they just happen to show results with Anderson near the top of the heap. I have a suspicion that Anderson may have been better than many folks think, which is the purpose and beauty of approaches like this -- as I said elsewhere, he's definitely a stathead's darling, at least as far as regular season play is concerned. YMMV of course, depending on what one values in a QB.

In baseball, it has helped show how good players such as Bert Blyleven and Bobby Grich were, which fortunately was enough to get the former enshrined in the BBHoF.

bachslunch wrote:Re Rasaretnam: if I read correctly, what he’s apparently trying to do is an analogue to some of baseball’s advanced metrics — take passer stats and adjust year by year. He’s using a basis figure where he takes the number of completions minus the interceptions tripled (which he abbreviated as CMTI) and adjusting yearly. That may or may not be useful for ranking purposes.

But what I find interesting is that it seems to produce reasonably good results. For “best 10,” all but four QBs in the top 22 are (or in Manning’s case, will be) HoFers — only Anderson (#5), Gabriel (#15), Brodie (#16), and Mark Brunell (#18) are not enshrined. And the only HoFers ranked lower are Arnie Herber and four QBs who are known for “winning” despite pedestrian stats (Stabler, Layne, Bradshaw, and Namath). It’s similar for the best 4 and best 7 lists, too.

FWIW, I’ve seen people make similar gripes that I’m seeing on this thread about advanced metrics in baseball, usually saying (no surprise) that it’s artificial, contrived, I can’t figure it out without a slide rule, etc. Note well that attempts to apply similar approaches to football are still in the embryonic stages (Rasaretnam, Stuart, AV over at Football Outsiders) and likely can and will be refined. Fine by me — make them as useful as possible, but make the attempt. I’m not sure all these can (or should) be dismissed as sheer nonsense. And I realize I’m talking to a tough audience here: for example, there’s a strong dislike for Football Outsiders at this forum, for reasons that may or may not be the best. So be it — never hurts to have a devil’s advocate around.

Rasertnam's article is interesting (because who doesn't like a good QB list?) but his methodology is somewhat flawed IMO.

First and foremost, I hate statistical analyses that ignore large chunks of data. P4/P7/P10 is based on this concept. It also isn’t looking at 4/7/10 year periods on the calendar, its cherry picking the ‘best’ seasons.

Second, while I love standard deviations/means/mathematical gyrations as much as the next guy, the list is still a derivative of the passer rating formula. If you are a fan of passer rating, then you’d like the list and wouldn’t be surprised Anderson to be ranked so highly. Years ago I devised my own passer formula, which basically cut out the completion % portion of the equation; Allen Barra’s formula simply used YPA and INTs. Point being, I’m not really sold on passer rating being an accurate historic lens. I remember when Len Dawson was the highest rated passer in history, and there weren’t people putting him on the QB Mt. Rushmore. It was more like an interesting factoid as opposed to some validation of Dawson being the best ever. IIRC Roger Staubach surpassed Dawson when he retired, and when people listed Staubach’s career accomplishments, him being the #1 rated passer in history was probably the 98th thing mentioned. If I am going to look at historic passer rating info, PFR’s Rate+ gives you a much clearer picture as opposed to Rasernam’s “cumulative percentiles for certain seasons” approach.

Third, Anderson is going to have an advantage over vertical offense QBs like Fouts and Van Brocklin, because those guys typically have lower Comp% and higher INT%...but you’ll also see that Fouts and Van Brocklin’s offenses scored a boatload of points, which IMO is kind of the whole idea of being a QB. NVB Rams led the NFL in offense 3 straight years, Fouts Chargers led in offense 3 straight years, Anderson’s Bengals never did and weren’t nearly as explosive. The P4 list was the most interesting because it was the screwiest. Maybe the concept works for baseball hitters, where most players have the same career arc and you are measuring peak value. I really have a hard time using passer efficiency to gauge peak value, which is what Rasernam’s list is measuring. It’s really a “peak efficiency” list. I would say Dan Fouts having a 125 Rate+ on 609 attempts is more “valuable” than Ken Anderson having a 132 Rate+ on 328 attempts, but I’m guessing that isn’t represented in Rasertnam’s system. Anderson scores well because not only was he efficient, but his abnormal career arc is ignored as well. He’s like the Darrell Evans or Bobby Bonds of slugger career arcs. If we do a cursory glance at career passer rating from their full body of work (which includes some icky Fouts years with those early-70’s Chargers), Anderson’s 81.9 rating isn’t that much better than Fouts’ 80.2…yet on P4 Fouts is ranked one spot below Brad Johnson while Anderson is one of the best ever QBs.

Rick Gosselin's opinion: https://footballmaven.io/talkoffame/nfl ... L4eYMv6kg/

bachslunch wrote:Ken Anderson pretty much is a stathead’s darling when it comes to QBs, no doubt. Nothing wrong with that, and given that the Hall has similar great-stat/no-title guys in (Jurgensen, Fouts, Tarkenton, and Tittle, for four), I’m hard-pressed to see why the rest belong in and he doesn’t.

I think the term "great stat guy" for Ken Anderson is a bit misleading. His career totals aren't eye-popping as he wasn't a compiler. Even his career efficiency stats don't really stand out. His career Comp% is about the same as Dan Fouts and below Stabler. His passer rating still lower than Staubach or Dawson. You really have to take a deeper dive in the numbers, adjust for era, ignore 1977-1986 aside from 81-82, to see Anderson's statistical greatness. I think in part this is the answer to your question as to why other great stat guys are in...their statistical greatness is much more apparent.

Anderson v. Tarkenton - not sure this is even a contest. Tarkenton held every career passing and every career QB rushing record by a significant margin when he retired. Kind of easy to see Tarkenton's statistical greatness (even though he was forced to wait to get into Canton).

Anderson v. Fouts - maybe the best comparison since their careers overlapped. Fouts set the single season passing record three separate times...quite the feat. Offense routinely was tops in the NFL. I think the only record Anderson ever held was breaking Baugh's comp% season record in the strike shortened 1982 year. I think if Anderson set the single season passing record three times or if those 70's (or even early 80's) Bengals offenses were the equivalent to Air Coryell, Anderson would be in the HOF.

Anderson v. Tittle - I think Tittle held the career passing records when he retired in 1964. I think the two straight TD record seasons separate him from Anderson as well. He's a borderline HOFer IMO.

Anderson v. Jurgensen - there was a 9 year stretch where Jurgensen led the NFL in passing yards 5 times. Marino did the same 5 in 9 deal, Brees recently did a 5 in 8. I don't think Anderson would be in that company of QBs, statwise. Jurgensen's first year saw him set the single season passing record, which he then broke in 1967 (as did Namath). I think Jurgensen is also a borderline HOFer, but if Anderson led the NFL in passing yards 5 times instead of two times, I think Anderson would be in the HOF.

rewing84 wrote:I can see your logic on baughan and riley bryan out of curiosity who are your top 5 lb snubs Bryan

I think only two LBs have been "snubbed"...Howley and Gradishar. And I realize neither is a slam-dunk choice. I think the HOF has enshrined most of the deserving LBs. I loved Zach Thomas and think he should be in the HOF, but I am probably the only person that thinks this and am not holding my breath for Thomas' enshrinement. I guess Baughan would be the #4 snub.

Ken Crippen wrote:Rick Gosselin's opinion: https://footballmaven.io/talkoffame/nfl ... L4eYMv6kg/

Thanks for posting.

Really, really liking 5 of Gosselin's 7: Dilweg, Emerson, Wistert, Pearson, and Harris. Not so sold on Banducci or Covert. Really glad to see Gosselin pushing for the first three in particular, and hope that translates into them getting priority. Good for him.