Reaser wrote:I remember something about his 'new' passer rating. Wasn't it simply completions minus interceptions adjusted for era? Layne ranking 50th in best 7 seasons wouldn't be a surprise with his high number of ints. Though football and particularly playing the position of quarterback isn't simply stats and especially not just two stats.
Does his 'system' take into account play-calling? Essentially on the fly in-game game-planning (who to use and how to use them)? Being a large part of why his team won?
Slightly off-topic, but I think how passing compilation stats (i.e. passer rating) are calculated and what 'system' a QB played in can somewhat skew historical perspective. We've already had this revolution in college. Guys like Hal Mumme and Urban Meyer developed simplified spread passing schemes that the defenses couldn't handle. I remember Omar Jacobs at Bowling Green had a year with like 40 TDs and 3 INTs during a time when a 20/10 split in college football was considered good. College defense still can't really stop these schemes, but now so many schools are using them that the passing numbers have become 'normalized'...guys putting up 30+TDs with single-digit INT totals are no longer outliers.
I don't know how prevalent this is in the present-day NFL where everyone runs the same stuff, but I think in earlier eras you had QBs greatly benefitting from stat calculations and systems. Ken Anderson led the NFL in passer rating in consecutive years...at the time he was the only QB who played in Walsh's offense, which produces QBs with high comp% and low int% due to the system...and two of the four main components of passer rating are comp% and int%. Was Anderson really that much 'better' than his peers (Bengals were 10th in offense in 1974, 9th in 1975...nice but not outstanding), or were his great stats somewhat a byproduct of playing in Walsh's offense during an era where low comp%'s and high int%'s were the norm?
To bring this back to Bobby Layne, I think its somewhat unfair to compare his stats to guys like Otto Graham, Norm Van Brocklin & Bob Waterfield. Those QBs benefited from the innovations of Paul Brown and Hamp Pool...spread sets, utilizing multiple WRs, pass protection concepts, etc. Layne operated in a more 'conventional' offense of that time period...3 RBs, closed ends, 1 WR, etc. Layne's stats on the face of it probably don't appear impressive...lots of INTs, low comp%. Look a little further, and you see Layne was an effective runner and placekicker (when used). To me, the biggest thing is that in 1949 prior to Layne's arrival, the Lions ranked in the bottom half of the league in scoring. When Layne took over as starting QB for the Lions in 1950, they ranked 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 5th, 1st, 8th, 2nd. They routinely outscored the Cleveland Browns in spite of Otto Graham putting up superior passing efficiency numbers when compared to Layne.
IMO, that is kind of my 'subjective' ranking of QBs comes in to play. A QBs job is to win games and score points. Impressive stats are a nice byproduct of this, but not always necessary. One of my favorite NFL Films lines is from the NFL Best Ever QBs (1981 edition, of course) when John Facenda says "Like all Tarkenton led teams, the Vikings could score...", which to me is a great compliment to give a QB.