Continuation of Discussion Under Cam Newton

[TanksAndSpartans]

Good article. And good timing! Someone should comment he is in the HOVG. And no one putting any kind of asterisk for the AAFC - maybe I'm the last holdout

I'm glad they mentioned Young - I think that was fair. Something I find interesting is that for the most part, piling up 250 yards against the 1-13 Rockets is fine, no one wants to throw that game out, but if you go back to the Thorpe era, its fairly standard to throw out the games against the weaker opponents. Then in the 20s, the games aren't thrown out, but definitely some asterisk type comments made.

[JameisLoseston]

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

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

I was expecting to see more era-adjusted Sanders vs. Jackson comparative analysis in that, it being Football Perspective. The graph, though, shows what an insane outlier Sanders was; he not only averaged 75 and 75, he averaged 100 and 100, and over a TD a game in both as well, also the only player to do this. I think our attitude toward Sanders has some hints of "Wilt Chamberlain derangement syndrome" in it: an old player did things that were such an ostentatious affront to our expectations of what a player is capable of that no one anymore can believe he really did it as advertised. Which can basically be translated as, "no one else ever came close, so it can't be true." The fallacy in this is apparent; it doesn't work for Wilt, and it doesn't work for Spec either. If Sanders played 10 years like Graham, and did this in 3 of them, we'd be talking about him as the undisputed GOAT and none of this would ever be suggested. The reason we're debating this at all is because his career-ending injury made it look like a fluke. Not something he had control over, I'm sorry. All you have to do is believe.

Tanks, you forgot about Grange, although he was more of a very good runner in the NFL than a great one. Fritz Pollard, Conzelman, etc. also similar. Also Johnny Blood, who I believe had the best career out of any of the names you mentioned, due to how long he played and the 13 TD season. Nevers had a 12 TD, but his yardage output doesn't stand out at all, unless it is heavily incomplete. Driscoll was also a very good player, as was Dutch Clark, but if you can find his full stats you'll see that Friedman is truly on a different level from anyone who had ever played to that point. As dominant as he was, adjusted passing metrics love the heck out of him; he was averaging 70 and 80 ratings in an era when the league average was "chuck the ball into the ground" level. The fact that equally elite QBs reemerged just ten years later doesn't really speak to someone who was truly one of the greatest ever as these metrics suggest, but he absolutely deserves his place on the expanded QB Mt. Rushmore. And Curly Lambeau?! Don't make me laugh, he may have been the first attempt at a volume passer but first experiments rarely work; he averaged a sub-"intentional grounding" PR and threw 29 INTs in less than 200 attempts in his "best" year. Passing that poor is only hurting the team, it's like trying to run a fake punt every other drive. You're far better off just running the ball every down. He's in the HOF as a coach and a pioneer. Friedman made passing not only viable but an engine of destruction, and for that he deserves far more respect than he gets.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Tanks, you forgot about Grange, although he was more of a very good runner in the NFL than a great one. Fritz Pollard, Conzelman, etc. also similar. Also Johnny Blood, who I believe had the best career out of any of the names you mentioned, due to how long he played and the 13 TD season. Nevers had a 12 TD, but his yardage output doesn't stand out at all, unless it is heavily incomplete. Driscoll was also a very good player, as was Dutch Clark, but if you can find his full stats you'll see that Friedman is truly on a different level from anyone who had ever played to that point. As dominant as he was, adjusted passing metrics love the heck out of him; he was averaging 70 and 80 ratings in an era when the league average was "chuck the ball into the ground" level. The fact that equally elite QBs reemerged just ten years later doesn't really speak to someone who was truly one of the greatest ever as these metrics suggest, but he absolutely deserves his place on the expanded QB Mt. Rushmore. And Curly Lambeau?! Don't make me laugh, he may have been the first attempt at a volume passer but first experiments rarely work; he averaged a sub-"intentional grounding" PR and threw 29 INTs in less than 200 attempts in his "best" year. Passing that poor is only hurting the team, it's like trying to run a fake punt every other drive. You're far better off just running the ball every down. He's in the HOF as a coach and a pioneer. Friedman made passing not only viable but an engine of destruction, and for that he deserves far more respect than he gets.

I intentionally omitted Grange because the Bears ran the T. Pollard was a wing back. Nice call on Conzelman - I'd add him to my list - may have led the league in both rushing and passing yardage one year which has never been done. I'm actually not a big Nevers fan because he doesn't meet my "underdog" criteria so I can't say much about him off the top of my head, but I'd have to guess his stats are heavily incomplete - if you like Sanders, you'd like one particular ironman season Nevers put up. I think it includes a 300 yard passing game too, perhaps the first recorded. Friedman/Clark/Driscoll is a really tough choice. Remember the latter two were triple threats - kicking was important. Agree on Friedman being a really unique talent for his era though. It would be hard not to take him on an era specific fantasy team and then try to get the rushing yards from a nice FB or WB in round 2. I think Lambeau was a good player. If the HOF doesn't recognize it, that's probably because the evidence points to them not looking closely enough at the 20s.

[JameisLoseston]

I intentionally omitted Grange because the Bears ran the T. Pollard was a wing back. Nice call on Conzelman - I'd add him to my list - may have led the league in both rushing and passing yardage one year which has never been done. I'm actually not a big Nevers fan because he doesn't meet my "underdog" criteria so I can't say much about him off the top of my head, but I'd have to guess his stats are heavily incomplete - if you like Sanders, you'd like one particular ironman season Nevers put up. I think it includes a 300 yard passing game too, perhaps the first recorded. Friedman/Clark/Driscoll is a really tough choice. Remember the latter two were triple threats - kicking was important. Agree on Friedman being a really unique talent for his era though. It would be hard not to take him on an era specific fantasy team and then try to get the rushing yards from a nice FB or WB in round 2. I think Lambeau was a good player. If the HOF doesn't recognize it, that's probably because the evidence points to them not looking closely enough at the 20s.

Nevers was a "should not be throwing" level passer at Duluth; he rounded into much better form with the Cards, but threw a bit less. I suspect you're referring to the first Duluth season where he also had 7 defensive INTs. Which is great, but I'll take a hard out on the passing. You can't count average passing against Sanders, because of how ompressive it was that he could even be average, but Nevers was so poor that he was hurting the team, rating 24.7, and his continuing to pass in that circumstance can certainly be held against him. Even if we don't, he had a very good rushing and defensive season, which wasn't that uncommon back then. His passing was about what any RB would do if he threw 100 times. Nothing special, like Sanders was. I think LT may have been able to do Sanders-like things, particularly in 2006; he'd certainly be better on 100 attempts than Nevers.

The same argument applies to Lambeau. He was certainly not worse than average, but not particularly great at anything; with a little Spec Sanders Versatility Bonus, he was a "good" player in that sense. His 3.3 ypc looks bad, but really wasn't so much back then, although it was never high tier. His defense was good, but not great like, say, Dilweg's. His passing wasn't even below average for the volume he tried, but the case against him is that it was still on the level of a running back trying to pass. And running backs, generally, shouldn't be trying to pass. Many other early running backs, very good ones like Nevers, White, Heller, and Jim Musick, were also trying to throw ill-advised passes in that era. And they shouldn't have, and neither should Lambeau. Jim Musick, the year he led the league in rushing, may also have had the worst passing season in the history of football.

And then there was the wholly useless dreck like Johnny Gildea, Hugh McCullough, and Ronnie Cahill who really don't fit any position except arm-punter. Their very presence reeks of desperation. How did this middle-school talent get starting jobs?! In comparison to these guys, I will admit, someone like Lambeau looks like a superstar.

[Reaser]

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.

That's because they just look at one game. If you stop before the Championship games are played you have Browns going to 4-straight in the AAFC, then going to 6-straight in the NFL -- and I definitely wouldn't say the 1950's NFL was weak or low quality. My favorite era to watch, personally. But it's yet another thing where it's only applied one way. Going to 4-straight championship games in the AAFC is used to say the Browns had no competition but the same people that make that argument say nothing about going to 6-straight NFL championship. You have to apply these things across the board or it's just clear bias -- can't argue in one direction when it's the same in the other direction. As always, I don't think them going to 10-straight championship games means they had no competition. So I've never said either of those things, but I also have no bias for/against leagues or teams, especially from that era since my favorite team didn't even exist.

Either way, so if the Yankees held onto their 9-7 lead heading into the 4th Quarter (Spec Sanders TD gave them the lead, naturally) instead of losing 14-9 in the '46 Championship then the quality of the AAFC shoots up? That doesn't make sense. That's just the result of one game. But yes, clearly the Browns did have competition in '46. In the first game between the Browns-Yankees the Browns were up 7 heading into the 4Q before pulling away for 24-7 win. In the second game the Yankees outgained the Browns 237 to 67 but turnovers and not getting the ball in the endzone cost them and they lost a 7-0 game.

Or if the '47 championship isn't on an icy field and Sanders and Young can actually run and it works out that they go onto win in '47 that would make the AAFC better quality? Result of one game, that doesn't make sense. But yes, clearly the Browns had competition in '47. In the first meeting between them the game was tied until late in the 3Q and still went into the 4Q as a one possession game before the Browns won 26-17. In the second meeting they tied 28-28 in a game the Yankees were up 28-0 in. Then a 14-3 game in the championship with the field conditions.

'48 the Browns dominated by W/L record and dominated the championship game but they had close games. The AAFC inexplicably had divisions when there was no reason for them which is why that was the Championship. The real championship was Browns-49ers which the Browns won those games 14-7 and 31-28. Those aren't blowouts.

I already explained that pretty clearly there was a larger gap between the Eagles and the rest of the NFL in '49 than there was between the Browns and the rest of the AAFC in '49. So competition, yes, the Browns had more of it for that season.

Regardless, depending on how you look at the 'scandal' and the reorganization, Massillon as champions of the "Ohio League" five years in a row. Would that mean Akron, Canton, etc didn't have good teams/players? I'd argue they did have good teams, and brought-in good players.

[TanksAndSpartans]

You surprised me with the Ohio League reference - I was thinking about the same this morning - Canton kind of had it too with '15,'16','17, and '19 - some don't give them '15, but they won the big game. I would argue its not quiet the same - less teams truly in contention and they had the option to play multiple times to get the thing decided - sometimes you could get lucky and a team would give you a rematch - I don't think the Browns/Yankees would have done a home and home for the title or scheduled another game beyond what was planned - different era.

Sports are weird - what you call just one game can have a lot of pressure associated with it - upsets happen. To me the 4 straight is a sign the deck was probably stacked in their favor. In '47, '48, and '49 I think the NFL runner-up would have given the Browns a better game, but you didn't want to get into it and only mentioned the comparative scores in '49.

[Reaser]

Sports are weird - what you call just one game can have a lot of pressure associated with it - upsets happen. To me the 4 straight is a sign the deck was probably stacked in their favor. In '47, '48, and '49 I think the NFL runner-up would have given the Browns a better game, but you only wanted to get into how I'm biased, etc.

No, I'm saying using the result of one game to determine the quality of FOUR-years of a league wouldn't make sense. e.g. if the Browns lost to the Yankees in '46, '47, or even both then won in '48 and '49 that'd change perception [from the AAFC was inferior and Browns had no competition crowd] but it wouldn't change what the quality of the league actually was -- since they very easily could have lost in '46, easily could have not even made it to the championship in '49. The total picture matters. Which again, things go one-way. The Eagles went to 3-straight NFL championship games in this same time frame, them losing by 7 in one of them changes how the entire quality of the NFL and both leagues are viewed? Or would it be the same comments, "deck stacked in their favor", had they won 3 in a row? For me, it wouldn't change my view of the quality of the NFL towards the negative, at all. That'd be weird, to me. To use the result of one game to determine the quality over multiple years of a league.

Either way, on-field, teams, players and coaches quality of multiple years of a league isn't determined by the result -and especially just using the result of who won instead of looking at competitiveness of the actual games- of one game, or even four games, for me.

Regardless, it usually comes down to the same as always. "NFL" is viewed as if it's the NFL of 2019, or for the confused the NFL of 1960 (AFL and AAFC comparison) or NFL of of the 70's (WFL and AAFC comp.) or NFL of the 80's (USFL and NFL comp.) instead of the NFL it actually was. When people say things like "NFL quality", the NFL itself wasn't NFL quality heading into the 4-years of AAFC and NFL both existing. As always, while some will at least acknowledge that WWII did in fact happen, most still don't then acknowledge what that meant in terms of quality and talent pool of not only the beginning of the AAFC but also the NFL pre-AAFC existing as well as during the AAFC existing. The NFL certainly had players and established teams/coaches/etc as a starting point post-war but it wasn't the "senior league" that was in 1960. Not all the best football players in the country even played pro football, in the 20's obviously (and not 100% of all the best teams were even in the NFL in the 20's), that continued into the 30's, still had guys foregoing pro careers into the 40's and then there was WWII which not only depleted NFL rosters but also kept players that normally would have been starting their careers in the NFL out of pro football until post-war and for others even until after the AAFC-NFL merger -- hence more quality players coming into the 1950 league than a regular one year draft class. All these things are viewed different by others (not YOU specifically, a general statement) which is odd, to me.

The during WWII NFL of the 40's wasn't the 2019 NFL or the 1960 NFL, but it is viewed that way because it's called the "NFL." Which is why I've always thought if you just swapped the league names (AAFC is NFL and NFL is AAFC) all these arguments from people would be in reverse. The NFL would be called stacked top to bottom with great teams with the Browns the best of them all while the Bears, Cards and Eagles would have been champions of a "lesser league", and those hypothetical arguments would be just as asinine, in my opinion, as the ones made in reality.

Even post-'merger' is viewed odd to me in some cases. As if it'd be like the Saskatchewan Roughriders being dropped into the 2019 NFL and then they'd play "in the NFL." For example, the 49ers weren't just dropped into the NFL, the leagues combined but it's viewed in the context of what they did "in the NFL" as opposed to what they did in a combined league. Might be a subtle difference but it's a difference. There's a reason the National-American Football League existed, for 5 seconds (think it was really something like 75 days but pulling that out of my head so don't quote me on that) and the AAFC wasn't the only league with teams struggling financially. It was beneficial for both leagues to merge -- much the same as it was for the AFL-NFL which is an AAFC-AFL comparison that actually makes some sense, at least if you leave it there since the AFL and AAFC and the mergers themselves were completely different.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Thanks - this has mostly been a good discussion. I found the stuff you mention about the brand name of the NFL interesting. Some of my favorite players (Presnell, Latone) put in seasons with non-NFL pro football teams, and a lot of my favorite players were at their best pre-NFL, but I pretty much accept no one is going to count those seasons.

Last question, what about contemporary AAFC opinion? The only experience I can think of is I was looking at a late 40s All-Pro team newspaper article and they mentioned the AAFC as the junior circuit. Do you/others find that to be true or is this discounting of anything non-brand name more a modern phenomena?

[Saban1]

I have heard the American League in baseball referred to as the junior circuit. All it means is that the other league (National League,NFL) started earlier.

[TanksAndSpartans]

I have heard the American League in baseball referred to as the junior circuit. All it means is that the other league (National League,NFL) started earlier.

Good point - I guess it may not have been a dig.