Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Rupert Patrick wrote:

sluggermatt15 wrote:I won't debate you player for player, but to point out guys from the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, and try to compare them to players today and say they don't belong in the PF HOF is totally out-of-context. The game has vastly changed over the years. At the time of his retirement, Joe Namath was one of the best QBs to ever play. Blanda was a legend. Waterfield was pretty darn good too, teaming with Norm Van Brocklin in the Rams' two-QB system, which was not uncommon back in the day.

You are comparing apples to oranges and it is unjust.

Using standards (such as passing standards) for evaluating who should be in the HOF doesn't work. Using standards to rate players got us the Passer Rating system, and we can see how well that works, where virtually all of the guys on the top 20 list at any point in pro football history are contemporary QB's from that particular point and time.

And for the earlier posts pointing to George Blanda as a poor example of a Hall of Fame QB is silly, as he would not be in the Hall of Fame if he had never kicked a ball in his NFL career. I also think it is pretty likely he would have made the Hall of Fame if he would never have thrown a single pass in his NFL career due to his kicking. The fact he led a couple Oilers teams to AFL Championships and came off the bench for the Raiders a few times in 1970 was the icing on the cake, but I think with his high career point total (1,948 just on field goals and extra points), he would have eventually made the Hall of Fame even if he was strictly a kicker.

The game changes and I do not feel there is a universal system that accounts for it. Especially comparison between eras. Right? Teams threw far less in the 1960s than they do today. Does that mean the QBs were less deserving of the PF HOF than they are today? Or just because they threw less, does that mean they were worse throws or less important stats?

Reaser wrote:For clarity, this all isn't in response to JameisLoseton, or anyone specifically, just in general since there's been a lot of comments re: AAFC's level of play/quality in various threads lately and it's extremely odd, to me, how it is viewed by some. As if it was just a league with players who weren't good enough for the NFL and then when they played in the NFL it was proven how inferior the AAFC was because of cherrypicked -and largely irrelevant- stats. And we'll just call the Browns an anomaly, I guess?

In another post, I referred to the Browns as an anomaly, and I think I'm going to stand by that. They were a historical anomaly; a situation such as the Browns, where you had Paul Brown, who coached a stateside Naval team during WWII. in the next season after the war ended, he found himself in charge of a team in a new football league, with all of these athletes whom he once coached being discharged from the military. Of course, he snatched up as many of his former Great Lakes players and quality guys that he played against as he possibly could, which gave him a strong competitive advantage over the rest of the AAFC. It should have come as no surprise that he would run roughshod over the rest of the AAFC. A situation of this kind could never happen again, it was an alignment of events due to the war and Brown being in the right place at the right time at Great Lakes and taking full advantage of his situation with the Browns.

Hm, seems like this AAFC debate is rather contentious. You made great points, Reaser. I'm honestly not trying to suggest anything either way about the leagues in general, just pointing out things that seem to apply to specific players. Some NFL guys definitely had a harder time with the Browns suddenly being in the league too. Eh, I'll go along with any narrative that pushes Spec farther up the Baaaaaaaad Man scale, so it's all good with me.

About Crazy Legs - his career arc is another one that confuses me. He had one of the greatest seasons of all time, and every other year of his career adds up to a solidly mid-high tier HOVG resume. Why did he randomly ball out like that, and why could he never do it again?

JameisLoseston wrote:Hm, seems like this AAFC debate is rather contentious.

Ha, not contentious or personal or anything. Just odd to me the statements people make re: AAFC. Never make any sense.

Like take 1949, since it was the season prior to the 'merger'. The conclusion from others is that the Browns dominated the AAFC because they were good and there was no competition because the rest of the AAFC lacked talent and there was no [other] good teams/players in the AAFC -- some in the past have even taken the next step to say that means the Browns really weren't that good either.

Then you look at the NFL in 1949 and the Eagles had seven 20+ point victories (Browns had five), one relatively normal loss (Browns loss was a blowout loss), and not much in the way of competitive games otherwise (Browns had 2 ties and a 2-point win). Then the Browns' playoff and championship games were one score games over halfway through the 4th Quarter because they were competitive games against other good teams.

Somehow the conclusion looking at that, for others, is that the AAFC wasn't competitive in 1949 and the NFL was competitive. Which defies logic. Reality is, on the field and results wise, there was a larger gap between the Eagles and the rest of the NFL than there was between the Browns and the rest of the AAFC in 1949.

So the reason given for the AAFC being inferior -because the Browns didn't have any competition because no other teams or players in the AAFC were good- would then have to be the same for the Eagles/NFL in 1949 -- i.e. "the Eagles didn't have any competition because there was no other good teams/players in the NFL." That, of course, would be stupid to say. Yet applying their reasoning it's what you would get. Except the Eagles dominated because they were better than the other good teams in the NFL. Same way the Browns won because they were better than the other good teams in the AAFC.

For what it's worth:

1949 Eagles v. 4th best team in NFL
Beat the Steelers 38-7 & 34-17
or can say the Cardinals, who they beat 28-3

1949 Browns v. the 4th best team in the AAFC
Tied the Bills 28-28, tied them again 7-7 then beat them in the playoffs 31-21 in a game that was 24-21 until late in the 4Q when the Bills threw a pick-six.

'Obviously', somehow that means the NFL was more competitive in 1949 because of course the AAFC only had one team and everyone else wasn't good and there was no talent in the AAFC which is why the Browns blew them all out and never had any competitive games in 1949.

As I said, it's odd to me the conclusions some come to. Is what it is, I suppose.

Otherwise and moving on, yes, Spec Sanders was fantastic and is amazing to watch on film.

Reaser wrote:So the reason given for the AAFC being inferior -because the Browns didn't have any competition because no other teams or players in the AAFC were good

I don't think this is going to be said on this board, but I get it, you hear these things on other boards. Certainly there was star power beyond the Browns, some of my favorite players have AAFC origins, but I feel the statistical anomalies support the AAFC being weaker overall. I understand the Frankie Albert, Spec Sanders, Joe Perry, Marion Motley examples can be said to be cherry picked, just seems too coincidental to me.

Reaser wrote:Otherwise and moving on, yes, Spec Sanders was fantastic and is amazing to watch on film.

I'd be interested in seeing some of the better film. All I really have access to is the '47 championship game played in bad conditions - you can notice on the film players slipping and sliding, definitely suboptimal for player evaluation. Neither Graham nor Sanders had great games statistically, but the athleticism and awareness of Graham in things like ball handling, feeling pressure, etc. created a big gap with Sanders - probably unfair to be compared with a HOFer, but that's the game I had. As a runner, I liked Buddy Young - he had a really nice burst. If I had been told the Yankees had a 1400 yard runner, I would have guessed him. Sanders had some nice moments, but my opinion remains as stated previously.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:I feel the statistical anomalies support the AAFC being weaker overall. I understand the Frankie Albert, Spec Sanders, Joe Perry, Marion Motley examples can be said to be cherry picked, just seems too coincidental to me.

What about all the NFL players who's numbers went down in 1950 that I mentioned on the previous page? You can play with stats both ways.

Reaser wrote:What about all the NFL players who's numbers went down in 1950 that I mentioned on the previous page? You can play with stats both ways.

The 1950 iteration of the NFL had all the best players in the same league, I'm OK with the numbers going down.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:

Reaser wrote:What about all the NFL players who's numbers went down in 1950 that I mentioned on the previous page? You can play with stats both ways.

The 1950 iteration of the NFL had all the best players in the same league, I'm OK with the numbers going down.

For the NFL players, but not for the AAFC players. Makes sense ...

TanksAndSpartans wrote:I don't think this is going to be said on this board, but I get it, you hear these things on other boards.

Oh, it's been said here (our old forums) plenty of times.

I read your other post and I agree - cherry picking example players' statistical results and then drawing conclusions regardless of their age, injuries, and other factors, doesn’t make sense and is kind of silly.

I’ll try something else. I looked at the top 10 in rushing yards in the AAFC and the number of players averaging over 6 yards per carry.

’46: 5 players: 6.2, 8.2, 7.0, 6.4, 8.4
’47: 5 players: 6.2, 6.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.1
’48: 4 players: 6.1, 6.5, 6.1, 7.3
’49: 2 players: 6.8, 6.5

In the NFL for the same 4 year period, there was only one season where a player averaged over 6 ypc. So the AAFC had the advantage 16-1. My explanation would be that the best players were probably playing more offense in both leagues, but there was more of a discrepancy in the AAFC.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:In the NFL for the same 4 year period, there was only one season where a player averaged over 6 ypc. So the AAFC had the advantage 16-1.

That's interesting.

Also interesting, in 1950 only 6 players averaged over 5.0 ypc (min 70 rush att), 5 were from the AAFC and 1 was a rookie (no '49 NFL players) and 4 of the 5 AAFC players had their YPC increase from 1949.

Motley went from from 5.0 in '49 to 5.8 in 1950 (not quite 6ypc)
Grimes from 5.2 to 5.7
Hoernschemeyer from 3.4 to 5.6
Perry 6.8 to 5.2 (the one who went the other way)
Howard 3.9 to 5.1
Price was the rookie.

The AAFC did average more yards per carry league-wide every season:
1946 0.1 more ypc than the NFL (3.4 to 3.3)
1947 0.4 (4.3 to 3.9)
1948 0.6 (the one that really stands out, 4.6 to 4.0)
1949 0.3 (4.2 to 3.9)

In '48 everyone ran all over the Dodgers and Rockets, they were horrible. The Lions are the NFL comparison that season. Difference being in the NFL only four teams got to play the Lions x2 while the rest played them once or in the Giants case not at all. And in the AAFC everyone got to play those teams twice. So the Eagles got to rush for 262 yards in their ONE game v. the Lions while the Browns got to rush for 262 in their FIRST game against the Dodgers then come back for another 246 yards in their second meeting.

Just because rushing was interesting I looked at 1946-1949 yards per reception for 22.0 yards per reception or more (minimum avg. of 2 rec per game / i.e. 22 rec in 11 game season, 24 rec in 12 game season, 28 rec in 14 game season) and over those four years it happened 9 times in the NFL and 0 times in the AAFC.

’46: 2 players: 23.5, 23.8
’47: 3 players: 32.6, 25.6, 22.0
’48: 2 players: 23.8, 23.0
’49: 2 players: 24.4, 22.6

Kutner '46, '47 & '48 and Kavanaugh '47 and '49 are the only repeat players.