Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

sluggermatt15 wrote:
That's a nice list, but I think some of your second tier guys belong in the top tier as well. Adderly, Butler, Woodson, Aeneas Williams, Green IMO should all be in tier 1, too.

IMO, I also have these guys ahead of Bailey - Emlen Tunnell, Ken Riley, Ed Reed, Dick LeBeau, Bobby Boyd, and Johnny Robinson (maybe you could consider him a safety instead).

So, Bailey is far down the list as one of the best CBs, but he's HOF worthy, I guess, based on his credentials.

I'd consider Tunnell, Robinson, and Reed safeties. And unless there's a great film study argument, I wouldn't have Riley, Lebeau, or Boyd ahead of Bailey. YMMV.

I agree Tunnell should be with the tier 1 safeties.

And I'm not sure about Don Hutson - Ken's film study doesn't support what I read about him being somewhat of a defensive liability, but I don't think it supports him being a HOF defensive player either. He had interceptions, but that's not surprising given his skillset - I would have used him at safety to give him chances to play the ball like he excelled at and not have to make a lot of tackles close to the line which I think he was weaker at.

I think we need someone to tell us when CBs started to exist. With a 6-2-3 defense as we may have seen in the 30s and 40s, I'm not sure what the responsibilities of the DE were - did he stay with his man on pass plays making him like a corner or would he read the back such that if the HB on his side stayed in to block he could go after the QB and let the DB on his side pick up the OE. My guess would be the DE had his focus in the backfield, so if he wasn't like a corner, was one of the Dbs like a corner or were they more like 3 safeties? I'm just speculating - we have T.J. Troupe's book telling us about early defenses, but I think that starts in '53.

I like the sentiment, but I don't see enough evidence to call any of the pre 1950s players great corners - I'd be on board with some other positions, mainly ones that didn't evolve as dramatically - I never see players like Nagurski, Hinkle, Hein, Bulldog Turner, etc. in discussions of great LBs for example.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:I like the sentiment, but I don't see enough evidence to call any of the pre 1950s players great corners - I'd be on board with some other positions, mainly ones that didn't evolve as dramatically - I never see players like Nagurski, Hinkle, Hein, Bulldog Turner, etc. in discussions of great LBs for example.

I think that would be an interesting research project...who were the best DBs in the 30's and 40's. I remember awhile back I questioned the HOF credentials of George McAfee, and one of the points in his favor was that he was a great defensive halfback. I can't really say if that is true or not...it's not borne out by any pro bowls that McAfee made or any big INT season. McAfee did have 25 INTs in only 75 games (missing most of the 45 & 46 seasons), which is nice, but contemporary Frank Reagan has 35 INTs in 68 games. I guess its noteworthy that Reagan has nary a pro bowl or All Pro mention, so perhaps good DB play in the pre 1950's was simply unnoticed/unmentioned.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:I agree Tunnell should be with the tier 1 safeties.

And I'm not sure about Don Hutson - Ken's film study doesn't support what I read about him being somewhat of a defensive liability, but I don't think it supports him being a HOF defensive player either. He had interceptions, but that's not surprising given his skillset - I would have used him at safety to give him chances to play the ball like he excelled at and not have to make a lot of tackles close to the line which I think he was weaker at.

I like the sentiment, but I don't see enough evidence to call any of the pre 1950s players great corners - I'd be on board with some other positions, mainly ones that didn't evolve as dramatically - I never see players like Nagurski, Hinkle, Hein, Bulldog Turner, etc. in discussions of great LBs for example.

I think they Hutson him closer to the line as they would occationally blitz off the edge, pretty effectively with his speed.

I've seen a reasonable amount of late-Hein ('42, '43) and he was still very good defensively at that point. Of course the star of that team - for far to short a run - was Al Blozis. He looked to me on film in '43 the way Aaron Donald looks now, J.J. in '12, Reggie in the late 80's or Len Ford in '51. Just looks too big to be that fast.

NWebster wrote:I think they Hutson him closer to the line as they would occationally blitz off the edge, pretty effectively with his speed.

I've seen a reasonable amount of late-Hein ('42, '43) and he was still very good defensively at that point. Of course the star of that team - for far to short a run - was Al Blozis. He looked to me on film in '43 the way Aaron Donald looks now, J.J. in '12, Reggie in the late 80's or Len Ford in '51. Just looks too big to be that fast.

Thanks - that's really good info - other analysis combines the military war hero part and the football part together, interesting to hear the football part stands alone. In the bits and pieces of pre 1950 film I've seen (not much), I don't recall a lot of stand out defensive plays. I saw Hein get a couple of interceptions, but they were on pretty terrible passes. Baugh impressed me making a tackle or at least a hit near the line once (I think it was from the 30s against the Bears) - I remember thinking he's a safety - what's he doing there . The exception for me is barely pre-1950, but the '49 Eagles in the championship game just shut down the Rams - the problem was it was so hard to get anyone's number with the combination of bad weather and grainy black and white footage.

NWebster wrote:

TanksAndSpartans wrote:I agree Tunnell should be with the tier 1 safeties.

And I'm not sure about Don Hutson - Ken's film study doesn't support what I read about him being somewhat of a defensive liability, but I don't think it supports him being a HOF defensive player either. He had interceptions, but that's not surprising given his skillset - I would have used him at safety to give him chances to play the ball like he excelled at and not have to make a lot of tackles close to the line which I think he was weaker at.

I like the sentiment, but I don't see enough evidence to call any of the pre 1950s players great corners - I'd be on board with some other positions, mainly ones that didn't evolve as dramatically - I never see players like Nagurski, Hinkle, Hein, Bulldog Turner, etc. in discussions of great LBs for example.

I think they Hutson him closer to the line as they would occationally blitz off the edge, pretty effectively with his speed.

I've seen a reasonable amount of late-Hein ('42, '43) and he was still very good defensively at that point. Of course the star of that team - for far to short a run - was Al Blozis. He looked to me on film in '43 the way Aaron Donald looks now, J.J. in '12, Reggie in the late 80's or Len Ford in '51. Just looks too big to be that fast.

I don't think this is right about Hutson. I've seen over a dozen of his games from the 1940s, and I can't remember ever seeing him near the line. However for the first four years of his career he played end both offensively and defensively. Lambeau was quoted as early as 1936 that he would like to move Don to the backfield on defense to get him out of harm's way, and I believe he experimented with using blocking back Hank Bruder as a defensive end in the preseason. It wasn't till 1939 that Curly was able to make the switch with burly rookie blocking back Larry Craig who turned out to be an excellent defensive end. On defense, you don't see much of Hutson unless there is a pass downfield because it is usually very hard to make out the secondary on the old film.

I would concur with Nick about Hein and Blozis, but let me add a couple other names of defenders from the time who stand out on film. Bulldog Turner at linebacker is one. Tackle Frank Cope is another from the Giants, but the defender often receiving the most praise from Giants' coach Steve Owen was halfback Hank Soar who was often assigned to the opposition's best receiver.

John, were they splitting receivers out in the 40s and Soar would come up on that #1 receiver like a corner or was that best receiver on the line tight with the DE over him and Soar would pick him up once it was clear he was going out for a pass?

Tying it back to the discussion of best CBs, would you consider any of them CBs or would that position show up later in response to more modern offenses like the Rams and Browns? (date needed - late 40s maybe).

I did a breakdown of Hutson's offensive positioning and wrote about it on my blog
https://packerspastperfect.wordpress.co ... sitioning/
The Redskins used a lot of double wing, spread and short punt formations that flexed receivers. The Bears would sometime split an end wide. As you surmised, it seems that the trend increased as the decade went on. The Packers would sometimes use Lou Brock as a flanker and Hutson as a split end, but not a lot.

The Giants generally did well in defensing Hutson. Owen was very good in taking away a selected weapon of the opposition. With Hutson, the Giants general plan was for linebacker Hein to ride Hutson toward the sideline and then Soar or the other halfback would pick him up. Sometimes the safety would also provide deep help over the top. This is gleaned mostly from reading since it is really hard to pick up on old film.

Just as a heads up, my next book is called Pioneer NFL Coaches: Shaping the Game in the Days of Leather Helmets and 60 Minute Men. It is a study of a dozen pre1950 coaches who laid the foundation for the modern football coach, starting with Paul Brown. It should be out in the spring.

Thanks John! The book sounds good - looking forward to it.

Jimmy Johnson deserving of HOF. He built those Cowboys' teams of the 1990s and would have won at least one more SB, had he not resigned after Jerry Jones insulting him. Tom Flores not deserving. Basically inheriting Maddon's team. Did not do anything to improve the Seahawks. Coryell no. Did not even get to a SB and basically expanded on Sid Gilman's passing oriented offense.