Continuation of Discussion Under Cam Newton

[TanksAndSpartans]

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.

It's a message board - please don't act like I'm trying to publish my comments - its an exploration and I think I did hit on something with the YPC thing and I look forward to your refuting my hypothesis that not enough displaced AAFC players won starting jobs with actual numbers because I suspect I might be onto something there too.

I haven't seen anything about the Browns v. Eagles debate in these two recent threads?

Agree - but it came up in the other threads - just providing context. Its exactly why I was very hesitant about even mentioning the AAFC - I pretty much saw this coming.

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

In my view a truly strong case doesn't need to insult the other side. People are going to have views that may disparage what you believe based on your research and it seems to happen even more the further back you go. A respected member and author of a book I read commented something to the effect of there not being many good players before '25. I responded without calling him lazy, devoid of context - all that stuff. I'm looking for something concrete - tell me why I can't assume the AAFC teams reached a bit relative to the NFL to fill out their rosters especially on defense resulting in the better teams having an easy time of it more often than their counterparts in the NFL? (and one team dominating 4 seasons to the point that some have said attendance suffered). Why wasn't the first AFL better? The AAFC had the war ending, but couldn't I argue an increased pool of talent looking to turn pro once Grange legitimized it (and showed real money could be made) was available to fill out AFL rosters? Without some numbers behind it, the extent of the impact isn't known. And what about the 49ers going 3-9 in '50? I think there's a reason so many people are either firmly or moderately (like myself) on the "other side" - I don't think it can all be explained by us being lazy, etc.

[Reaser]

Went from objective to exploration to hypothesis. Not wanting to research it yourself, but want me to answer your questions which I'm sure if I take the time to type it all up would just be ignored and followed with another question where something has to be proven to you. Doesn't sound too interesting, to me.

So I don't feel like going through my stuff or getting anything out for someone who isn't interested, anyway.

I'm happy to help you get started on looking it up yourself if you'd like and you can use PFR since it's an available reference. Which it's 1950, still players playing both ways, rotating QB's, and usual things like injuries so "starters" isn't a straight shot. I know from the past that PFR has guys listed with 0 starts as starters and actual starters on the bench but if you want to use that.

For example, here's their listed starting lineups for the 1950 NFL Championship and where players played prior to that season:

Of the 44 listed starters: 23 were in the AAFC in 1949, 15* were in the NFL, 6 were rookies. (* - Hirsch was in NFL in '49, AAFC in '46-48 so dealers choice on how to count him, listed NFL here)

-By team-
Browns: 20 AAFC, 0 NFL, 2 rookies
Rams: 3 AAFC, 15* NFL, 4 rookies (* - Hirsch)

And here's the other 3 teams that had winning records in NFL in 1950 so then all you would have to do is look up the 8 average and/or bad teams and make whatever conclusion you're trying to get to from them? Honestly don't know? Since players in the 1950 leaves out players that retired prior to 1950, good players that were injured prior to 1950, the players who couldn't come to terms on a contract and retired or didn't play in 1950 and then of course playing in Canada was a real option back then and players did that. And rookies, which wasn't just 1950 draft but previous drafts before that since players went back to college after WWII. But clearly looking for something so here's what PFR lists for the other 3 teams that had a winning record:

Yanks: 20* AAFC, 1 NFL, 1 rookie (counted Spec as AAFC but didn't play in '49)

Giants: 6 AAFC, 13 NFL, 3 rookies

Bears: 2 AAFC, 17** NFL, 3 rookies (* - Rykovich similar to Hirsch in joining in '49, but '47 and '48 in AAFC / * - Bauman played a little in the AAFC in '47)

Add up the top-5 teams
AAFC: 51 (counting Spec Sanders)
NFL: 46 (counting 3 players who's careers started in the AAFC so could be 54 and 43)
Rook: 13

Something like that.

[Saban1]

Whenever there is a discussion about the NFL and AAFC, someone almost always brings up the 1950 49ers as evidence that the AAFC was not as good as the NFL during the years before 1950. The 49ers were the second best team in the AAFC but fell to a 3 and 9 season in 1950. So, what happened? The NFL too tough for those 49er teams? I believe I have some of the answers here.

The 49ers were not happy about not getting paid for a playoff game in 1949 and even threatened to not play in the AAFC championship game in 1949 against the Cleveland Browns. They did end up playing, but lost 21 to 7 in the AAC title game. Almost half the team retired after the 1949 season including all of their starting tackles. As a result, the four starting tackles for the 49ers in 1950 were rookies. With the NFL teams unwilling to help out any of the new teams from the AAFC with trades, the 49ers had to replace the retired players with rookies (13 rookies made the 1950 49ers team including 6 starters).

Of course, the NFL teams were all up for the new teams (Browns and 49ers). Combine this with the rookie tackles and the result was murder for Frankie Albert and the 49ers passing game. Albert was running for his life on most passing plays and usually had to settle for short passes to his backs like Jimmy Cason or rookie receiver Alex Loyd, who led the 49ers in receptions in 1950 though only averaging a little more than 12 yards per catch.

So, the 49ers were not nearly as good as they were in 1948 or 1949. There is some proof of this. They beat the Baltimore Colts easily in their four games in 1948 and 1949 (56 to 14 in one game), but struggled to beat them in 1950 (17 to 14).

The 49ers beat the Yankees 35 to 14 in their last regular season game in 1949 and beat the Yankees in the playoffs in their next game, 17 to 7. In 1950, the 49ers lost to the Yanks twice.

The 49ers played the Browns tough in just about every game they played during the AAFC years and beat Cleveland twice (once in 1946 and once in 1949), but Cleveland beat them easily in 1950, 34 to 14.

People can make what they want about the 1950 49ers, but as far as I am concerned, they simply were not the same team that they were in earlier years. With their rookies having some experience, the 49ers rebounded to second place in 1951, 3rd place in 1952, second place again in 1953 and 3rd place in 1954. Original head coach Buck Shaw was fired after the 1954 season after 8 winning seasons in 9 years, which I believe was a big mistake.

[TanksAndSpartans]

@Reaser, My position is actually quite simple. I'm saying the AAFC other than the Browns probably had something like 17-18 NFL caliber starters per team each year. The other 4-5 players, probably mostly on defense resulted in some offensive stat inflation as the best players were able to achieve better statistics than they would have been able to achieve in the other league. In order to get some evidence of that, I proposed looking at actual players and tracking where they went from '49 to '50. As you've pointed out there are issues with that approach - it doesn't prove anything about '46 to '48, players may have retired, gone to Canada, etc. And obviously, there wasn't a draft every year - I was just trying to look at the draft which did take place (which you guys so politely pointed out was incorrect [sarcasm emoji here]) as a proxy.

I gave you 16 6+ ypc rushing seasons from the top 10 rushers in a 4 year period (about 4 per season) and challenged anyone to point out when that happened in NFL history. You countered by looking at receiving where the scale is different. 6 is 20% better than 5 which is normally considered excellent. The 7 yard seasons are 40% better than 5. 22 is only about 5% better than 21 and about 10% better than 20. Not that anomalous in my opinion plus your method of requiring 2 catches per game etc. seemed more contrived than mine - I just took the top 10 players.

@Saban, when I compared the '49 Eagles with the '50 Eagles in a similar way to what you did for the 49ers, I don't recall you conceding on any of my points. You wanted to say the '50 Eagles were great so that I wouldn't say the Eagles were better than the Browns in '48 and '49 which I had no intention of saying. The '50 49ers had Albert and Perry, but I won't play that game - I'll just concede they stunk. Can't use the dispersal draft, can't use the Colts or 49ers, can't use anomalous single season statistics like multiple guys putting up Feathers type numbers, so I'm guaranteed to be wrong it seems. The teams didn't play each other any of the 4 seasons so that can't be used - almost makes it impossible to determine except it always simply seemed like common sense to me that the AAFC was a bit weaker - the NFL didn't have the number of teams fold nor the number of teams with uncompetitive records.

Finally, I concede the Browns were great. I concede the AAFC had stars who helped other teams like the Giants. I don't need any of that not to be true for my position. For the AAFC to be about 15-20% weaker, it only takes about 4-5 of the non-Cleveland starters per team.

[Saban1]

I believe that the 1950 Eagles were a lot closer to the 48 and 49 Eagles than the 1950 49ers were to the 48 and 49 San Francisco 49ers, but that is just my opinion. As far as our opinions on the strengths of the pre 1950 NFL and AAFC, I can see that we will never agree, so I guess that we should just agree to disagree.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Sounds good to me - I'll even concede its a tougher position to prove than I thought - the teams didn't play each other at all for 4 seasons, 2 of the teams that joined the league in '50 seemed to have legitimate reasons for not doing well, and all these years I assumed the dispersion draft would at least prove something regarding players who started in the AAFC but weren't stars not being able to get jobs even as reserves post-merger, but it actually either doesn't prove that or I just lack the enthusiasm to research 90 players I never heard of and also had undistinguished football careers. I don't think it would give me much joy either way and the most it could show would probably just be which league was stronger in '49, I'd have more fun cleaning up my Latone bio than doing that. I just don't get how your side can be so sure, but maybe we should leave it.

[JameisLoseston]

Whoo, that escalated quickly. OK, to reorient, I caught a Benny Friedman reference in one of those posts, so let's gushingly praise him now, because he was also one bad, bad dude. Before the era of Baugh, Luckman, and Isbell began more than 10 years later, Friedman held all the career passing records multiple times over, and all the season passing records in multiple instances. His career TD/INT is basically even from the stats we've been able to gather, much better than even in his best seasons (utterly unheard of back then), and his passer rating is extremely solid for as recently as the 1990s. I wonder where he ranks in Rupert's era-adjusted passer rating scale? Wouldn't be surprised at all if he's number one, the dude was ridiculously far above everyone from his era. Considering he could run too, and no outputs from the pure rushers of the era truly stand out, I'd say it's very hard to argue against him being the preeminent player of the 1920s NFL. He got his HOF honors way, WAY too late. He's the only player ever who was so good as to prompt a rival owner to buy his whole team just to sign him!

[Reaser]

@Reaser, My position is actually quite simple.

I gave you 16 6+ ypc rushing seasons from the top 10 rushers in a 4 year period (about 4 per season) and challenged anyone to point out when that happened in NFL history. You countered by looking at receiving where the scale is different. 6 is 20% better than 5 which is normally considered excellent. The 7 yard seasons are 40% better than 5. 22 is only about 5% better than 21 and about 10% better than 20. Not that anomalous in my opinion plus your method of requiring 2 catches per game etc. seemed more contrived than mine - I just took the top 10 players.

Doesn't seem that simple, but okay.

And yes, pretty sure I acknowledged the 6+ ypc and added something about how there was terrible teams with terrible run defense, as there was in the NFL, with the difference being the schedule. The AAFC guys got to play against teams twice (pad stats) and the NFL teams got to play against the bad teams some twice, some once, some none at all. Believe I also added that all the players to avg. over 5.0 ypc in 1950 (min. 70att) were from the AAFC and one rookie. Almost like the AAFC had guys who were good at running the ball and then were still good in 1950. As I said, it was interesting, but it's not like there wasn't a bunch of guys going over 6.0ypc during the 50's either, less than the 40's but still happened, then there was less in the 60's until getting to through the 70's and it becoming more rare.

The receiving yards per reception, not sure how contrived it is considering the literal record, not just for the 4-year period but for all the years of stats, happened in the NFL in 1947 and happened by a full 5-yards per. Just seemed like another thing where if "16-1" tells you something about the quality of one league then why wouldn't "9-0" tell you something also? Doesn't tell me anything about either, personally. Just stats. Interesting but doesn't make me think the AAFC was any worse because some players had good YPC and doesn't make me think the NFL was any worse because some players had good yards per reception. Certainly interesting as stats, though. But the 1958 NFL isn't all of a sudden poor quality because Perry, Mitchell and Moore all averaged over 6.0ypc. At least, to me.

For what it's worth. I remember reading in Andy's book that 40% of the non-rookies in the NFL in 1950 were former AAFC players. Considering that in 1949 the AAFC had 7 of 17 major pro American football teams (41%) that sounds about equal, to me.

Or can just look at the good teams in the NFL in 1950, the five teams with winning records had a combined 52% of their non-rookie players being former AAFC players. So for quality level. And of those five that's officially one former AAFC team and four NFL teams -- reality is 2 and 3 but still, more NFL teams yet excluding rookies 52% of their players played in the AAFC.

[TanksAndSpartans]

It’s impressive so many AAFC players wound up on the successful NFL teams and I can see the argument saying they were the driver of that success. With 32-man rosters, I calculate 224 ’49 AAFC players and 416 post-merger players. 154 starting AAFC (22*7) players getting NFL spots doesn’t surprise me and that’s about the 40% number you mentioned Andy calculating (although 3 teams guarantees about 20%). Also, I never said NFL reserves were better than AAFC starters. My point was more along the lines I wouldn’t expect the last handful of starters (grade-wise) on the AAFC teams to start in the NFL from ’46 to ’49 except those on the Browns who I think were loaded. I also conceded I don’t have an objective way to support my view, so let’s leave it as my opinion - I’m fine with that.

I think an issue some have is the Browns dominance. A 4-peat isn’t easy - we’ve only seen it once in a 100 years (I think) and it happened to be in the AAFC - I think its human nature to be skeptical of that kind of coincidence. We’ve been discussing overall league quality, but what about just looking at top teams? How do you think AAFC runner-ups match up against NFL runner-ups? In the NFL, the ’47 Eagles, ’48 Cardinals, and ’49 Rams all had cores similar to championship teams.

Back to the 20s, agree on Friedman. And before we give Spec the dual threat Tailback crown, we could consider a few more from that decade. Curly Lambeau - first 1,000 passer and among the rushing leaders several times. Hard to overlook Nevers - double-wing, but that may make it more impressive - the defense would know he was handling the ball every time. Paddy Driscoll. Probably forgetting a few.

[ChrisBabcock]

Coincidentally, today's article at Football Perspective is comparing Spec Sanders and Lamar Jackson.

http://www.footballperspective.com/lama ... c-sanders/