1956 Detroit at Chicago

[JuggernautJ]

I would like to see on film the Meadows hit on Bobby Layne, but it probably isn't on film anyplace. Just would like to see how late the hit was and how dirty....

Again, here is a photo from just before the hit.
Meadows is about a yard away from Layne. Layne has his back to Meadows and looks like he (at least) believes he is out of the action.
The ball carrier is about 3-4 yards away with the ball clearly tucked under his arm (implying to me he had the ball for a few seconds).

But you be the judge....

https://www.detroitathletic.com/blog/wp ... -layne.jpg

[Saban1]

I would like to see on film the Meadows hit on Bobby Layne, but it probably isn't on film anyplace. Just would like to see how late the hit was and how dirty....

Again, here is a photo from just before the hit.
Meadows is about a yard away from Layne. Layne has his back to Meadows and looks like he (at least) believes he is out of the action.
The ball carrier is about 3-4 yards away with the ball clearly tucked under his arm (implying to me he had the ball for a few seconds).

But you be the judge....

https://www.detroitathletic.com/blog/wp ... -layne.jpg

I have seen that picture before, but I still would like to see the play on film. Meadows claimed that he thought that Layne still had the ball.

[Jay Z]

Meadows had the play in front of him. It seems an odd reaction. He would have had pursuit or contain responsibilities.

[Saban1]

Meadows had the play in front of him. It seems an odd reaction. He would have had pursuit or contain responsibilities.

So Jay Z, do you think that Detroit would have won that game without the Layne injury, or do you think that Chicago would have won anyway, or do you have no opinion?

[JuggernautJ]

So far, three people here think that Chicago would have won anyway if Layne did not get hurt in that 1956 game at Wrigley. One person here says that Detroit wins if they had a healthy Bobby Layne play the whole game....

Technically, I did not say and am not sure that with Layne the Lions would have won.
I don't know that Bears team well enough to make that determination.

I just thought someone should speak up in favor of Bobby and his Lions, since no one else was.
I certainly would have been rooting for the Lions, though.

(Just wanted to clarify 'cause it sounded like you were conducting a study and I try not to make judgments for which I am not qualified.)

[Saban1]

Believe me, this thread is completely unofficial. If you do think that Detroit would have won with a healthy Layne, then you are not alone. Detroit head coach Buddy Parker, for one, said that Layne's injury cost Detroit the game.

Chicago had a pretty solid team in 1956. In 1955 they finished second to the Rams after losing their first three games and ending up with an 8 and 4 record. They had the best receiver in Harlon Hill, the best running back in Rick Casares, and QB ED Brown had a great season averaging over 9 yards per pass attempt.

Chicago's lines were balanced in age with veterans who were not getting old. They had great linebackers with Bill George and Joe Fortunato. All in all, the Bears seemed to reach a peak that year.

Chicago's 47 to 7 pasting by the Giants was misleading. I believe that Chicago suffered a letdown after their win or else game with the Lions where they were very much up for that game. Also, the field at the Polo Grounds was frozen for the title game and Andy Robustelli, who owned a sporting goods store, got fresh sneakers for the entire Giants team. This may have been an advantage for the Giants, who also had the home field.

Chicago seemed to have trouble getting out of the starting gate sometimes and lost their opener to Baltimore in 1956. After that, they won their next seven games, often by big scores. They had a tie with the Giants, thanks to a spectacular catch by Harlon Hill near the end of the game, lost to Detroit, at Detroit, and then won their last two including the Detroit game in Chicago.

Detroit was good that year also, but I believe that the Bears were the better team that year, which is just my opinion.

[JuggernautJ]

Not being a Sith Lord I try to not think in absolutes (Star Wars joke, sorry) but rather in percentages.
Again, I am not that familiar with the '56 Bears but I am pretty sure the Lions would've had a better chance to win with Layne than without him.

One way to compare teams from the past is to look at the number of Hall of Fame (or VG) players.
And (without doing a complete count) I am pretty sure the 1950's Lions have the Bears beat on that score.
But that is a general measuring stick and, as you say, perhaps '56 was just the Bears peak year.
It certainly wasn't the Lions year!

[Saban1]

Not being a Sith Lord I try to not think in absolutes (Star Wars joke, sorry) but rather in percentages.
Again, I am not that familiar with the '56 Bears but I am pretty sure the Lions would've had a better chance to win with Layne than without him.

One way to compare teams from the past is to look at the number of Hall of Fame (or VG) players.
And (without doing a complete count) I am pretty sure the 1950's Lions have the Bears beat on that score.
But that is a general measuring stick and, as you say, perhaps '56 was just the Bears peak year.
It certainly wasn't the Lions year!

Good points here.

Over the whole 50's decade. the Lions were better than the Bears, winning 3 championships and 4 conference titles. There is another debate between the Detroit Lions and the Cleveland Browns over which team was the team of the 50's. Both Detroit and Cleveland won three NFL Championships during the 1950's.

Yes, Layne was a better quarterback than Harry Gilmer, but Gilmer did not play that bad in the Chicago game passing for two TD's and completing another to Chicago's one yard line. Trouble is, Detroit's running game really wasn't working that day. Chicago's was. Chicago gained over 300 yards rushing including 190 yards alone by Rick Casares. If my info is right, Detroit gained 47 yards in 27 rushes.

Gilmer did throw a TD pass to give Detroit a 7 to 3 lead at one point, so I doubt that Detroit would have just given up when Layne was injured. If they did, then the Detroit Lions were not the team that I think they were.

Of course, Detroit had a better chance to win with Layne playing the whole game. We already know that Detroit lost that game with Gilmer, but with Layne, then anything is possible because we don't know.

Lions' Head Coach Buddy Parker said that if Layne wasn't knocked out of the game, Detroit not only would have beaten Chicago that day, but they also would have won the NFL Championship by beating the Giants. I think that Buddy might have had a bias.

Parker also said that he didn't mind losing because Chicago was up, but then complained about what he considered dirty play by the Bears.

[Jay Z]

Meadows had the play in front of him. It seems an odd reaction. He would have had pursuit or contain responsibilities.

So Jay Z, do you think that Detroit would have won that game without the Layne injury, or do you think that Chicago would have won anyway, or do you have no opinion?

I think I responded on Page 1, but I think the Bears would win anyway. Also think Meadows made a dirty play.

[Saban1]

Sorry, my mistake. The first mistake I ever made (I wish).