Your Unpopular Football Opinions

[7DnBrnc53]

I know this is a football forum, but that was a great show. Too bad there wasn't a season 2.

Indeed. I was a high school senior in a small midwestern city during the school year that show takes place in, and I'm telling you, they nailed it. The characters, the clothes, the music, the teachers, all of it. There was recently a documentary about F&G, and surprisingly, most of the cast said they were thrilled with the show's legacy and that it was for the best that it ended the way it did.

I was in second grade that year (in Pennsylvania), and I remember that school year. I especially remember the razor blades Halloween controversy at the time (that they do cover in the Tricks and Treats episode).

Someone on another video said that they should do a new version (with their kids being in school). With That 90's show being out, that may not be a bad idea.

[Saban1]

I believe that the Cleveland Browns were the greatest team in football during the All-America Conference years (1946-49). That is just my opinion, but I think that I can prove it. Here goes:

1. Cleveland Browns 35 Philadelphia Eagles 10. For the opening game of the 1950 season, the Cleveland Browns played the Philadelphia Eagles in Philadelphia. This was billed as a showdown between the 4 time AAFC champion (1946-49) Cleveland Browns against the 2 time NFL champion (1948-49) Philadelphia Eagles (the first unofficial Super Bowl if you will).

Cleveland won easily as the Eagles had trouble covering Cleveland's receivers Lavelli, Speedie, and Dub Jones. People were expecting the Eagles to show that the Browns were merely the best of a bunch of minor league teams.

Of course, players like Otto Graham, Marion Motley, Dante Lavelli, Mac Speedie, Bill Willis, Lou Groza, and Frank Gatski were not yet known as the great players that they were, but just some of the better players of a bush league.

That was only one game, but it is evidence that the Browns were as great or greater than the NFL's best.

2.Six straight Conference titles in the NFL (1950-55). This is still a record which will probably never be broken, but also shows that Cleveland was great in any league, The fact that Cleveland could be the dominant team after joining the NFL in 1950 is further evidence that Cleveland was great before in the AAFC. I believe that it is ludicrous to think that the Browns just suddenly became much better in 1950 than they were during the late 1940's.

3. Defense. Starting in 1946, Cleveland led whatever league they played in by least points allowed an incredible 10 out of 12 seasons. They were second in 1950 (by 3 points) and in 1952. What else needs to be said except that the Browns had a lot of great players on their defenses as well as their offenses.

4. Receivers. Dante Lavelli, Mac Speedie, and Dub Jones. After Cleveland's 35 to 10 opening game win over the Eagles, a Philadelphia defensive back said that covering the Browns receivers was like trying to cover three Don Hutsons...impossible.

5. Offensive line. Cleveland's offensive lines were always good all the way through the 40's, 50's, and 60's, and I believe that they were the best throughout the Graham era. Two Hall of Fame players (tackle Lou Groza and Center Frank Gatski) and tackle Lou Rymkus, who many think should be in the HOF. Their guards in the AAFC were usually Ed Ulinski and Lin Houston and were considered good players with Bob Gaudio as a reliable back up at guard. Marion Motley would often help out with the pass blocking which I believe made Cleveland the best at pass blocking in all of football.

6. Otto Graham. Graham was considered by many to be the best quarterback in pro football.

7. Marion Motley. I think a shoo in as best running back during his prime years which included all his years in the AAFC. Also a great blocker as has been mentioned many times on this forum.

8. Paul Brown. Just seemed to have the Midas touch when it came to football. Everything he touched seemed to turn to gold. Great success in high school football, college football, and even military football before starting the Cleveland Browns in 1946. Otto Graham said that Brown was light years ahead of the rest. Basically invented the playbook, and carried film study to greater levels among other things. He was very well organized as were his teams.

9. Kicking Game. Horace Gillom was the best punter of his time and Lou Groza was the best place kicker.

10. Hall of Fame players. Otto Graham, Dante Lavelli, Marion Motley, Bill Willis, Lou Groza, and Frank Gatski make 6 Cleveland players in the HOF during their AAFC days, and those players continued to prove themselves worthy of the honor after joining the NFL in 1950. 6 HOF players is more than any other team during that period and the fact that Mac Speedie isn't included is a travesty in my opinion.

Having more HOF players in itself is not proof that the Browns were the greatest team, but it does add to the evidence.

I am sure that there is more, but let's see what we have here. The Cleveland Browns during their years in the All-America Conference had the best coach (Paul Brown), the best quarterback (Otto Graham), the best receivers (Dante Lavelli, Mac Speedie, and Dub Jones). the best fullback (Marion Motley), the best defense, the best offensive line, and the best kicking game.

So, as they say in a court of law, by the preponderance of the evidence, the Cleveland Browns were the greatest team in football during the time of the All-America Conference (1946-49).

On this forum, I think that most would agree with that premise because the people here are mostly very knowledgeable football fans, but among casual fans, there could be a lot of people that don't agree.

I should have mentioned that all 6 HOF players for Cleveland (Otto Graham, Dante Lavelli, Marion Motley, Bill Willis, Lou Groza, and Frank Gatski) played all 4 years (1946-49) in the AAFC for the Browns.

There were 9 other Cleveland players that also played all 4 years in the All-America Conference for the Browns, and there is plenty of evidence to show that they ranged from very good to great players. They were:

(1) Mac Speedie - Should be in the HOF. Led AAFC in receptions 3 times (1947, 1948, and 1949) and also led the league in total receptions over the entire 4 year span. Also led the NFL in receptions in 1952.

Missed 1952 championship game due to an injury and played in Canada after that. Might have made a difference in 1952 and 1953 championship game losses to Detroit.

(2) Lou Rymkus - Was one of the best tackles of his era. Was used as a model for pass blocking for younger players by Paul Brown, who called Rymkus the best pass blocker ever. Played a lot on defense as well during Cleveland's first couple of years (1946-47).

Was among 15 players as finalists for Hall of Fame in 1988, but did not make final cut.

(3) Lou Saban - Best linebacker in AAFC during those years and maybe all of football. Even though Saban played almost strictly on defense, was made All-AAFC at center as a special consideration in 1948 and 1949 because they did not name all-league or all-pro teams for defensive positions before 1950.

Retired to start a coaching career in 1950, and I am sure was sorely missed by the Cleveland Browns after they entered the NFL in 1950.

(4) Edgar "Special Delivery" Jones - Second highest rusher behind only Marion Motley for Cleveland during AAFC years. Averaged 7 yards per carry in 1946 and 6.4 yards per carry in 1947. Paul Brown called him his greatest clutch runner.

Retired, then decided to play in Canada in 1950 where he made an all-star team.

(5) Ed Ulinski - Was named 2nd team all-league at guard in 1946 and 1948. Like Saban, Ulinski retired to go into coaching after the 1949 season. With another guard, Bob Gaudio, also retiring, it was necessary for Cleveland to buy Abe Gibron from the Buffalo Bills in 1950 to go along with Weldon Humble and Lin Houston as Cleveland's guards in 1950.

(6) Cliff Lewis - Played safety and backed up Otto Graham at quarterback. Led AAFC in interceptions over the 4 year period of the league's existence with 24 interceptions.

(7) Lin Houston - Played right guard from 1946 through 1953 for the Browns. Was named 2nd team all-pro in the NFL by the United Press in 1951.

(8) John Yonakor - Cleveland's right defensive end from 1946-49). Paul Brown called Yonakor the Browns best defensive end behind only Len Ford and Paul Wiggin during Brown's 17 years with Cleveland.

Was sold to the New York Yanks in 1950 due to the fact that Len Ford had been picked up in the AAFC dispersal draft in 1950, and there was a 33 player limit in 1950. Ironically, Ford was passed by in that draft by every NFL team and by most of them twice.

Yonakor also played in Canada in 1951 and for the Washington Redskins in 1952.

(9) George Young - Played 8 years for Cleveland from 1946 through 1953, and was the starting left defensive end for the Browns for most of that time. I think that a player had to be pretty good to play 8 years for Cleveland during that era.

George Young later became an umpire in the American Football League for almost the entire 10 years before the AFL officially was merged with the NFL in 1970 (played each other in regular season games). Young was umpire for the first Super Bowl game between Green Bay and Kansas City and also the first AFL championship game in 1960.

I posted this about Cleveland's years in the All America Conference (1946-49) about 7 years ago, but after the NFL stuff about the Browns-Lions rivalry, I thought I would bring this back about Cleveland's years in the AAFC, the first part of Cleveland's championship run.

BTW, Mac Speedie has since been inducted into the Pro Football Hall Of Fame.

If you would like to know more about the Browns Championship years of the late 40's and 50's, I highly recommend Andy Piascik's book, "The Best Show In Football." You can read not only many details about Cleveland's championship run of the late 40's and 50's (the Graham years) but a lot of other things about pro football during those years. I think it was the best football book I have ever read.

[74_75_78_79_]

This reminds me of the final scene of what I feel may, very well, be the Greatest one-season TV series of All-Time. The kind of one-season triumph that makes you so very sad that it only lasted one season (Season 2 would have been so Awesome). What 'Happy Days' or 'Sopranos' would have been seen as had it somehow wasn't picked up for a second season. The series I'm talking of is...'Freaks and Geeks'! PLEASE see if you haven't already! Eighteen episodes in which each one is better - more progressive - than the one prior! This especially goes for if you're a Detroit-fan!!

Anyways the character, Lindsay, is being sent-off by her family, via-bus trip, to a summer field trip that involves academics. Her younger brother's two friends suddenly show up to wish her goodbyes. One of them, Neal, had a crush on her the entire series thus far. He bought her chocolates. The other, Bill, didn't have such a crush on her at all so didn't get her anything; just wishing her a goodbye. Yet, Lindasy kisses BOTH goodbye before getting onboard the bus. As phrased, it didn't cost Bill a cent!

I know this is a football forum, but that was a great show. Too bad there wasn't a season 2.

Man, I've said it numerous times already in that the '57 Browns were like the '91 Lakers. Yes, Browns still had Paul Brown whilst LA still had Magic. No more Kareem (nor Pat Riley) and no more Otto though. Yes, '57 and '91 respectively SO different, and distant-enough, than the years prior.

That is a great analogy. Never thought of that.

Thanks, 7Dn! I don't remember what my exact feelings were going into that 1991 NBA Finals Series, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't see it as LA being any real threat to preventing Jordan from finally getting that very first Ring! Bulls just got done sweeping the Pistons! It simply didn't feel like..."Showtime" anymore despite, again, Magic still onboard and still in top-form.

Perhaps what would make this analogy even better if it would have been "new" Unitas's Colts playing against the Browns instead in '57 - and, of course, Jordan - I mean, Unitas - beating Browns handily. That '57 Detroit team was quite different than previously as well.

And though rules-were-rules, everyone played by them, getting swept by Giants doesn't at all "taint" their '50 title. If NYG deserved it, then they simply complete the 'hat-trick' (heck, win at least one of the two that Clev DID win in the first place)! Just like the '67 Rams should have still went into wintry Wisconsin and did it again a couple weeks later (I'll ALWAYS respect the Pack more than the Rams in '67 because of that; if every playoff game has to be at home in order to be able to win a title...yeah)!

That comparison makes no sense. The Rams didn't play in the same division as GB, beat the Packers twice, then 'tie' for the division and still have to play another game against GB to win the division. The Browns shouldn't have had a 'third crack' at the Giants; they benefited from the rules of the time to still be alive at the end of the season. The comment that NYG didn't "deserve it" because they didn't defeat Cleveland three times is ludicrous. And I don't understand your bolded statement at all. The Browns winning the 50 title was like when Alabama defeated LSU in the National Championship game...thus winning the title despite not even winning their division in the regular season. Its not really a sign of 'dominance', IMO. Its being able to benefit from good circumstance. If the Giants didn't "deserve it" for not going 3-0 against the Browns in 1950, then the Browns definitely didn't deserve it by going 0-2 against the Giants in the regular season.

But Browns, despite 11-1 and beating Rams in LA by 15, still didn't get it done when they had to in the very end. And those '51 Rams, to me, were good overall at 8-4, Classic offense, but nothing special on defense thus making them the team that more-stronger and balanced Cleveland should have beaten handily

That 1951-1953 Western division was probably the most competitive in NFL history. Rams, Lions, Niners, Bears....all top teams. The Browns had a cakewalk on the other side of the ledger. I think the Browns were probably better but they were lucky to win the 50 title against the Rams, and Van Brocklin was the difference in the 51 title game. Do you actually view the 51 title game as some type of upset? I don't.

As some older posts of mine ought to indicate, I used to think that 1950 was..."not fair". I thought that the Giants & Bears should have played for the Title due to sweeping Browns & Rams respectively. But, perhaps due to some here inspiring me otherwise, I have since changed that logic.

As for the "bolded" statement, what I meant was the two games that the Browns did win that the Giants did not win outside that two-game sweep they put on them. Others here have brought it to my attention that, paraphrasing, "If you sweep a team, then don't lose the two other games that your 'victim' DID win".

I have since agreed with that. And though I lean on the sweeper at least hosting the tie-breaker, "oh well" to a coin-flip if that's the way it has to be. Both won 10 games, both have to play a tie-breaker and earn it no matter on what field. JMO.

AS for the LSU/Bama comparison? Not sure I see it as exactly the same. Again, BOTH Browns & Giants were 10-2 whilst LSU did have a better record than, and yes won their conference, over the Tide going into that second game. But I have not been a fan of the college playoff system for quite some time so not too much disagreement, if any at all it seems, between us on that matter.

Maybe GB/Rams 17 years later not the greatest analogy of all for the reasons given (not in same division, no 0-2 going in, etc). But it's not too terrible an analogy either, What I actually should have specified in the comparison was the Browns still playing Giants at home part, which - again - I lean a bit on the game being played at the Polo Grounds instead,

Yes, Pack getting to play them at home didn't hurt them. But it's not as if the Rams beat them penultimate game by a lopsided margin and then they, now, have to play them there two weeks later and now lose "because" of it. And even so, if the Rams really, really, really were better - then why not simply...WIN AGAIN? Beat them again. That's all. Both are bad-asses. Both can compete in the cold and with the stakes all the higher as Champs DO in those situations. "Finesse" San Fran at tundra Chi, '88 NFCCG, anyone? Just DO it!

I so respect the '67 Rams! I should have emphasized that better. Clobbering the 11-0-2 Colts for that division and all! They weren't too far behind Green Bay. But behind them they were. I respect that SBII victor even more than them.

A few examples of me since posting on this site where my opinion forever stands on some issues despite more knowledgeable people here to steer me. But quite a few more examples since I've been here where many inspired otherwise. What you said, Bryan, about the Western being stronger in the early-'50s may start planting seeds in me. Yes, a strong division the Rams were in that '51 campaign. Perhaps a good point. But Browns still beat them in LA by 15 during the regular season. And if you are a juggernaut, no matter how tough the division, you should end up better than...8-4? Lions & Forty Niners split with Rams. But LA only played Bears once for some reason. Yes, late in season and at Chicago. Rams walloped them so I'll give them that.

But Browns had 9-2-1 Giants in their division and swept them. That said, seeds may have already been planted. Maybe the real gap between Clev & LA was closer than I convey. Or maybe Rams simply matching up well in both '50 & '51. Or maybe a bit of both. But, in either event, Browns not being too "dominant" simply because they DID get swept by the Giants whilst not finishing with a better regular season record than them - thus the extra game needing to take place; and, yes, beating them but by an 8-3 score and at home may make a strong point. A point that they weren't "dominant" but still better even if barely. Giants were right there but, really, should have still won in the end IMO. Gotta finish the hat-trick (as Giants did vs Redskins in '86; Steelers in '08 vs Ravens, etc). But, again, that tougher Western division thing could grow on me.

I'm forever a student here. And this site - you all - is a reason why I am far stronger and more-knowledgeable a fan than any of my, otherwise, passionate and old-school knowledgeable-enough friends who also have been following the game since forever.

I don't agree that today's tiebreaker system is the best way to settle a division tie. I believe that the best way to settle it is with a playoff game, like it used to be done. I believe that the reason that it was changed to tiebreakers is because of television and today's multiple playoff games. Just because they do it that way today doesn't make it the fairest way. That is just my opinion for what it's worth.

Yes, modern-day stuff and $$$ is what does it now. I think the 1950 season as a whole has to be among the most intriguing! Back then you only HAD one playoff game - the League Championship Game! But in this case you got to have two extra playoff games! That had to add such excitement and set template for the future of the NFL. It was as if the "future was NOW" in some respects. And this new kind-of team now in that was also a juggernaut as well albeit an 'umbrealla' keeping them in place! 1957 would have been even more exciting IMO had there not only been a mere conference tie-breaker game but a conference...semi-final??

Yes, having a Title Game's location switching off year by year between conference champs would be inconvenient due to big business reasons. You'd want a 'Super Bowl' date and location to be set-in-stone very well-in-advance for everyone who bought expensive tickets so they can have time to book a hotel, box seats, business meetings though away from the main work-place, etc...the "capable" hosting "BIG" city can have time to get ready to set up all infrastructure and festivities and all. And then, of course, the TWO WEEK separation between the CCs and SB itself.

Perhaps the tie-breaker system that I, for some time now, agree with would be better suited in modern times for a new developing league, As I opined before, I think this new UFL format should adapt that very style (until it gets real big if it ever, actually, does). Simply have both 4-team conference winners play in a title game with each conference-winner taking turns hosting that very game. And if there's a W/L/T record tie between teams for a conference winner/right to play in the LCG, then have a tie-breaker game. And if MORE THAN TWO tie for a division...then enter hypo-1957!! Simply delay things a week or maybe two. If you purchase a ticket for a possible CCG or LCG, then either get a refund if your team/venue doesn't make it after all or the ticket still stands in the event of one week, or two, later.

I'd simply love for this recent NFL to have it that way with this 4-4-4-4 conference system. Maybe allow a one-week separation between the end of the regular season and the 1st Rd of the playoffs. This, of course, to allow a possible tie-breaker game for whatever divisions need it. But when if you got an...almost-'57 scenario?? Yes, this brings us back to the way modern NFL is and it would be an inconvenience for all the reasons already given, A shame. Heck, simply delay things another week.

But, then again, I say this. But how about MLB, NHL, NBA? All big-money/business-friendly in this day yet it still works though we're not sure where possibly venues may be? So maybe it can still work in the NFL circa 2024?? Hmm?

I know this is a football forum, but that was a great show. Too bad there wasn't a season 2.

Indeed. I was a high school senior in a small midwestern city during the school year that show takes place in, and I'm telling you, they nailed it. The characters, the clothes, the music, the teachers, all of it. There was recently a documentary about F&G, and surprisingly, most of the cast said they were thrilled with the show's legacy and that it was for the best that it ended the way it did.

I was in 4th grade. '80/81 school year thus...my first year following the NFL/sports-in-general. I see 'Freaks and Geeks' in the same vein as 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High' (as was 'nodded' throughout by Judd Apatow) just as 'Sopranos' is the same DNA as 'Goodfellas' (very 'nodded' by David Chase as well among so many other SO MANY things).

'80/'81, to me, isn't really the...Eighties! Not yet! Even 8/1/81, the first day of MTV. No. Took quite a while for "everyone" to have that channel. Not a household name until a bit later. 'Freaks and Geeks' along with 'Fast Times' each capture the very beginning of the '80s before the '80s really WERE...the Eighties. A wet, mushy 'goodbye kiss' to the '70s, if you may!

Like 1960. Yes, it was technically the '60s. But, heck, Ike was still in office the whole year (and a bit into Jan '61). Crew-cuts and everything still in Black and White. Even Kennedy...so much '50s leftoverture still all around! "The Twist" was likely the most exciting thing until. Sadly, it wasn't until that very tragic 11/22/63 day that the 'Sixties' actually began (Ali, Beatles, etc, etc, etc, etc)!

And, of course, not at all on the same turbulent social scale. But, to me (JMO), the '80s pop-culture-wise at least didn't begin until early-'83. Autumn 1982 began with a bouncy but '70s-enough Jackson Browne hit (yes, from 'Fast Times') but you had Duran Duran, Culture Club, Adam Ant, Bow Wow Wow, INXS, and so many others making SUCH non-70s acts out of themselves throughout that very autumn onto the end of that calendar year. Michael Jackson had a new album out. The cover looked the part of '80s swagger to come. But the first track released (MTV/videos, mind you) had a video-less AM ballad by he and Sir Paul who was already making an AM-pop-ster out of himself.

And then...the Single AND Video, "Billie Jean" was released and ALL the '70s were now Dead. JMHO, of course. But, back to point, 'Freaks and Geeks' touches on those very early-'80s before they BECAME, truly, that very decade!

A great selling-point for 'Freaks and Geeks'...the actor who played BIFF in 'Back to the Future', Thomas Francis Wilson Jr, plays the gym/health teacher! You can almost say that (if you do the math) he actually WAS 'Biff' and is now a gym/health teacher outside Detroit in 1980! Not just a bad-ass gym/health teacher who basically supports the bad-ass jocks in class, but a much more complex, perhaps sensitive, role than you'd expect once the series goes on.

Really, check it out and enjoy!

And though not really that much at all a sports-oriented series, a sports-fan around Detroit would still appreciate it. Laimbeer is at least mentioned once and Bill, the 'nerd' (Geek) character alone in a bedroom during a Halloween party with a hidden keg all to himself drinking out of a mini-Detroit Lions hard-hat while watching his favorite show, 'Dallas' - LMAO!

PS - apologies for getting too far from Professional Football itself! This, I guess, could have been better served on another site/thread altogether.

[Brian wolf]

Never saw Freaks and Geeks-- though it's hard for Cardinelli to look "plain"--but the best one season show I ever saw was Rubicon on AMC. A conspiracy theory show that seemed very plausible, maybe too close to home.

Getting back to the 50s Browns, teams were dumb passing on Len Ford in 1950. We can only imagine what the Browns could have done had they been able to sign Cookie Gilchrist, instead of botching it.

[TanksAndSpartans]

I believe that the Cleveland Browns were the greatest team in football during the All-America Conference years (1946-49).

Had there been a Super Bowl, what happens? @74_75_78_79_/others, what do you think?

'46: Browns v. Bears
'47: Browns v. Cardinals
'48: Browns v. Eagles
'49: Browns v. Eagles

I think the Eagles were better in '48 and '49, but the Browns in '50. Another book worth checking out is Rugged and Enduring by David Cohen.

[7DnBrnc53]

Thanks, 7Dn! I don't remember what my exact feelings were going into that 1991 NBA Finals Series, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't see it as LA being any real threat to preventing Jordan from finally getting that very first Ring! Bulls just got done sweeping the Pistons! It simply didn't feel like..."Showtime" anymore despite, again, Magic still onboard and still in top-form.

Perhaps what would make this analogy even better if it would have been "new" Unitas's Colts playing against the Browns instead in '57 - and, of course, Jordan - I mean, Unitas - beating Browns handily. That '57 Detroit team was quite different than previously as well.

You are welcome. Another comparison to the 57 Browns may be the 1990-92 Oilers in the NHL (Gretz, like Graham, was gone, but they were still successful) and the 84 Steelers (they got to the AFC Title Game with only a few of the dynasty players remaining).

As for the 91 Lakers, though, there is a You-Tuber named Karceno4Life. He has a six-part documentary on Chicago's fake dynasty, and he said that Magic had HIV symptoms during the 91 Finals (which is why Pippen shut him down).

'80/'81, to me, isn't really the...Eighties! Not yet! Even 8/1/81, the first day of MTV. No. Took quite a while for "everyone" to have that channel.

That's true. The place that we moved to (during the 80-81 school year. It was on the outskirts of town) didn't have cable wires put up until August of 1983. And, it was a premium channel when we first could get it (we really didn't get cable until 1987, when ESPN got football).

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

I believe that the Cleveland Browns were the greatest team in football during the All-America Conference years (1946-49).

Had there been a Super Bowl, what happens? @74_75_78_79_/others, what do you think?

'46: Browns v. Bears
'47: Browns v. Cardinals
'48: Browns v. Eagles
'49: Browns v. Eagles

I think the Eagles were better in '48 and '49, but the Browns in '50. Another book worth checking out is Rugged and Enduring by David Cohen.

Those really might have been some great games. The Million Dollar Backfield vs Cleveland! Cleveland and Philly likely would have split I think. Both had great lines and excellent passing games. And who wouldn't love to see Luckman vs. Graham? I think the veteran Bears might have an upper hand in that game, but maybe the youth would win out. All would be exciting games, I think.

As for 1950 and the Giants/Browns debate - I'm guessing that sort of thing has happened in sports quite a bit. The Dodgers had a winning record against the Giants in 1951. We accept it in baseball and even looked forward to it when it happened. Never questioned season records. And they have far more games to determine who was better.

I don't have time to look up how many instances there were of a division champion getting beat by the second place team twice in the regular season throughout history, but it's likely happened often.

Remember the ONLY two losses the Browns had that year was to the Giants. Then they beat the Giants - they beat every single NFL team they faced in 1950.

[74_75_78_79_]

I believe that the Cleveland Browns were the greatest team in football during the All-America Conference years (1946-49).

Had there been a Super Bowl, what happens? @74_75_78_79_/others, what do you think?

'46: Browns v. Bears
'47: Browns v. Cardinals
'48: Browns v. Eagles
'49: Browns v. Eagles

I think the Eagles were better in '48 and '49, but the Browns in '50. Another book worth checking out is Rugged and Enduring by David Cohen.

viewtopic.php?p=40336#p40336

[Saban1]

How about we delve into the Browns-Lions rivalry of the 50's again. In 1950, the Cleveland Browns entered the NFL, a league that was very hostile to them. Cleveland's record over their first 6 years in the NFL (1950-55) was 58 wins, 13 losses, and 1 tie for a .817 winning percentage, a winning percentage that has never been matched in any 6 year stretch by any team since. So, why so much trouble with the Detroit Lions? Maybe I can supply some of the answers here:

1. Detroit was a great football team and was loaded with talent.

2. Marion Motley had his knee injured in the 1951 training camp and was never the force again that he was during his prime years (1946-50). In fact, Motley had lost his starting fullback job to Chick Jagade by the time of the 1952 NFL Championship game with Detroit. In 1951, the 2 leading rushers for the Browns were Dub Jones and Ken Carpenter. Motley had been Cleveland's leading rusher every year before 1951.

3. Mac Speedie never played in any championship games against the Detroit Lions. In 1952, Mac was injured and didn't play in the title game. Speedie played in Canada after that. I think that Cleveland could have really used Speedie (and a prime Motley) in those championship games against Detroit.

4. Lou Rymkus retired after the 1951 season and never played against Detroit (except maybe preseason). Rymkus was the Browns best pass blocker and Cleveland sure could have used him against an aggressive team like Detroit.

5. The Lions had a reputation for being dirty, kind of like the Raiders of the 70's. In a film of the 1952 championship, rookie Darrell Brewster, in for the injured Mac Speedie, caught a pass and was trying to run out of bounds when he was slugged by a Detroit player. It looked like he was knocked out and was replaced by punter Horace Gillom at left end for the rest of the game. One player for another team said that he always tried to get out of pile ups as soon as possible when they played Detroit or something would happen to him in the pile up.

6. The 1952 Championship. Cleveland was really hurting in that game. Injured were Mac Speedie, Dub Jones, and tackle John Kissell and all three missed the game. Speedie and Jones were 2 of the Browns main receivers. They were replaced in that game by rookies Brewster and Ray Renfro. Lou Groza had injured ribs and missed 3 field goals in that game, maybe due to his rib injury. Detroit won 17 to 7.

7. The 1953 Championship. I would say that Detroit got the breaks in that one. In one play Bobby Layne was sacked on 3rd down on their own 2 yard line. It looked like they would have to punt from the back of their end zone. But then, a huge break for Detroit as roughing was called on Don Colo. So, Detroit got a first down on their own 17 yard line. It looked to me like Colo just tripped over somebody at the end of the play. I saw a Browns player pleading with the official after the call.

After a Browns TD, Cleveland kicked off and the ball was fumbled by a Lions player. There was a scramble for the ball and Cleveland recovered on Detroit's 4 yard line. Coach Buddy Parker was really looking nervous on the Detroit sideline when a referee said it was the Lions ball as the whistle had blown. Don't know if those calls were good or not but they sure were big in Detroit's 1 point victory (17 to 16).

8. 1952 was Cleveland's worst of their championship (Otto Graham) era. Their record was 8 wins and 4 losses and the Browns actually backed into winning the Eastern Conference that year. Cleveland lost their season finale against the Giants, but the Eagles lost out on a tie by losing their last game to Washington. Paul Brown said that there was an attitude problem with the team that he had to weed out. In 1953, there was a 15 player trade with Baltimore which may have been part of the weeding out process.

9. Otto Graham said that his attitude reeked in 1952 as he was getting tired of the training camps and the separations from his family and was starting to think of retirement. He had his worst passing stats in 1952, I think. His stats may have been worse in 1950, but all the old NFL teams were up for them that year. If so, he more than made up for it in the 1950 Championship game.

10. So. just as Cleveland was starting to slip in 1952, the Lions were getting good, very good. It goes to show that once a team on top starts to slip a little, there is always someone ready and willing to take their place at the top.

[Bryan]

Yes, a strong division the Rams were in that '51 campaign. Perhaps a good point. But Browns still beat them in LA by 15 during the regular season. And if you are a juggernaut, no matter how tough the division, you should end up better than...8-4? Lions & Forty Niners split with Rams. But LA only played Bears once for some reason. Yes, late in season and at Chicago. Rams walloped them so I'll give them that.

I'm not 'debating' anything with this, but I found it interesting (and surprising). The Rams were favored by 7 over Cleveland in the 51 title game.