1950's Detroit Lions

[Saban1]

In fact, I don't remember the word "dynasty" being used when the UCLA Men's Basketball team won 88 straight?
You are sooo right, John.
There is something about the banners in the Boston Garden (old and new) and the pennants flying in Yankee Stadium (when they do)
that reminds one: All glory may be fleeting but the Celtics and Yankees won a lot of titles.
I bet there is the same feeling in the Forum?

I take it that with the Forum you are referring to the Lakers. With Shaq and Kobe's pennants added to Magic's and West's, it adds up to a lot.

BTW, thanks for carrying over all of these threads from the old website. I am glad that we didn't lose everything.

[oldecapecod11]

Saban » Mon Oct 27, 2014 5:14 pm
oldecapecod 11 wrote:
In fact, I don't remember the word "dynasty" being used when the UCLA Men's Basketball team won 88 straight?
You are sooo right, John.
There is something about the banners in the Boston Garden (old and new) and the pennants flying in Yankee Stadium (when they do)
that reminds one: All glory may be fleeting but the Celtics and Yankees won a lot of titles.
I bet there is the same feeling in the Forum?

I take it that with the Forum you are referring to the Lakers. With Shaq and Kobe's pennants added to Magic's and West's, it adds up to a lot.

BTW, thanks for carrying over all of these threads from the old website. I am glad that we didn't lose everything.


I first read your comment and screamed "What?" and then I laughed.
Okay, they were not the Celtics but then no other team ever will be. The days of tradition and pride and long-term commitment won't be seen again until we see some political gumption and another purge of the "trusts."
Yeah; I'll say the LA Forum also has a tad of tradition.

But it pales when compared with Les Habitants and the chain of Forums in that city going back to the days when they played
in a three-team league. Could you just imagine if the NFL consisted of no other teams but the Giants, Jets and Bills?
That's a pretty close parallel with what existed in those turbulent times.

As for the Threads... I can tell you copying and saving them by the hundreds was not a pleasant task. Even less pleasant
is taking out the many not needed words and functions that clutter such data in ours and similar sites.
But, I've received a few personal messages concerning that and those - as well as yours here - make it all worthwhile.
There is a lot of junk there but it is not junk to those who posted it. That is what matters. If we can save as much as possible
for the next generations who will not be able to sign their names then we have fulfilled an obligation to our descendants.

I simply find it hard to believe that our bored members did so little - if anything - to preserve what they allegedly serve.
It is a shame.
They had access to the new site for at least a month and had to know this was not working but the sell-out had already
taken place.
The least they could have done was give us more than a few days notice and called for volunteers and then assigned
an area of focus for each to try and save.

Another Member has commented to me that they (the bored members minus one) are notably absent from participation here
and that is also a shame.
Ego and self-preservation is one thing but there is also a matter of dedication to duty and the honor of service.
I did not take an Oath on the Plain at West Point but I sure do understand what MacArthur meant about duty and honor.

I say to you as I have said to others: if you are looking for a particular thread, let me know.
If it is among the next few hundred remaining, I will try to get to it as soon as possible.

Again, thank you for your appreciation.

[Saban1]

Seems like we had a "dynasty" definition thread before? Interesting to see how some view it. Seems to be a difference on franchise dynasty (e.g. Yankees) and team (core group of players) dynasty (70's Steelers) ...

Definitely agree that dynasty - like "future HOF'er" - is thrown out WAY too often these days.

Dynasty is (probably) the wrong word to define the specific four year period that the Patriots won 3 of 4. Though I'm more of a championship or bust type thinker so I prefer to acknowledge teams that won multiple (at least 3) championships in a relative short amount of time as opposed to "were good for 15 years and won one championship" ... Since - and more these days than historically - making the playoffs and being considered "good" doesn't quite mean what it used to, especially compared to when you had to actually be the BEST team in your division/conference to play for the Championship (e.g. 1953) ...

Of course there's no real criteria, and the Lions, I think of them as the second best team of the 50's but I don't know if they're a dynasty or not, 3 in 6, is that enough? 4 in 6 (Steelers) is, for me, but I don't know if 3 in 6 years is, or that it should really matter. Was a great team with legendary players that won 3 championships in 6 years, that's good enough for me, whatever the defining word for it is. It's a team I enjoy reading about and much more so love to watch film of.

Reiser: Very good points made here. I used the word dynasty for teams that were good over a period of years because I don't know of any other one word definition to use, and I have heard the word used for even teams like the Dolphins of the early 1970's and the Giants of Frank Gifford and Sam Huff, even though Miami only won Super Bowls in 1972 and 1973 and the Giants of their great era (1956-63) only won one, but played in championship games 6 times in 8 years.

Anyway, whether dynasty is appropriate or not, I remember watching those Detroit teams during their championship years of the 1950's, and they were very tough to beat, especially in big games. The Rams were a good team from 1949 through 1955 (some call them a dynasty), but did not have as good a defense as Detroit, even though they had great pass rushers Larry Brink and Andy Robustelli. The Rams could score points with their great offense (Waterfield, Van Brocklin, Hirsch, Fears, Boyd, Towler, Younger, Waller, etc.), and played in the NFL championship game in 1949, 1950, and 1951, but once Detroit got going, the Rams championship games stopped until 1955 when Detroit had a bad year.

The 49ers were another good team, but could never seem to get past Detroit in the standings, except for 1955. I think that Detroit's defense was just too good for the Rams and 49ers, and also the Bears, except for 1956 (1955 too, but everyone did better than Detroit that year). Detroit reminded me of the 1960's Packers by their penchant for winning big games. They were just a very tough team. What more can I say?

[Reaser]

The Rams were a good team from 1949 through 1955 (some call them a dynasty), but did not have as good a defense as Detroit, even though they had great pass rushers Larry Brink and Andy Robustelli. The Rams could score points with their great offense (Waterfield, Van Brocklin, Hirsch, Fears, Boyd, Towler, Younger, Waller, etc.), and played in the NFL championship game in 1949, 1950, and 1951, but once Detroit got going, the Rams championship games stopped until 1955 when Detroit had a bad year.

Here's one for you, Saban. Unless you're going to do a 1950's Rams thread, after this Lions discussion dies out, and want to save the answer until then?

Skeet Quinlan, have only seen a handful of games (and some highlights), but I like to project (myself?) back to the 50's and think of who would have been my favorite players and I always imagine I'de have picked him out to be one of my favorites (he is one of my favorites to watch) ... Exciting, shifty, a playmaker, but again I'm only going off of what I have seen, and obviously what I have read.

Wonder what kind of player he was thought of to be at the time by those who were watching then, such as yourself? Or if he was thought of at all? You remember seeing him play?

[Saban1]

Yes, I remember him. He caught a long TD pass (73 yards I think) from Van Brocklin in the 1955 championship game against Cleveland. Paul Brown must have been impressed because he traded for Quinlan in 1956. Trouble is, Quinlan was injured and missed some of the season. I think that he retired after 1956.

Volney Quinlan wasn't very big as far as NFL halfbacks were then, but I think that he was very fast.

[Saban1]

Bobby Layne had a lot of self confidence, and for good reason. He was very good and was a real tough competitor. He did not like to lose. Even after their last place finish of 1955, Layne, as well as coach Parker, felt that the Lions could regain the NFL championship, and they almost did in 1956.


I would call the 1956 season "Buddy Parker's masterpiece." I believe that Parker did his best coaching job in 1956, turning the 3 and 9 Lions into a 9 and 3 team that came very close to winning another Western Conference title. The 0 and 6 start of 1955 was reversed and became a 6 and 0 start in 1956, playing the exact same teams and in the same order. Coach Parker got the Coach of the Year award for 1956, and it was well deserved IMO.

Parker did so much juggling of personnel that year that only 3 players on offense (Layne, Creekmur, and Sewell) and 3 players on defense (Christiansen, David, and Miller) played the same position that they played in 1955, and Creekmur only played his usual left tackle position half the season in 1955 before being moved to middle guard on defense. Despite this, no rookies broke into the starting lineup in 1956, although rookie running backs McIlhenny and Cassady, and rookie DE Cronin got a good amount of playing time.

To start with, the 1956 Lions lost RB/E Doak Walker, RB Hunchy Hoernschemeyer, DE Jim Cain, C Andy Miketa, and backup center Leon Cunningham to retirement, FB Lew Carpenter to the Military, and Dick Stanfel was traded to Washington as was Lee Riley to Philadelphia. Also gone were the 1955 rookies from the taxi squad (I think) previously mentioned.

Additions that year were DB Yale Lary, RB Gene Gedman, T Ollie Spencer, T/DT Gerry Perry, and FB Bill Bowman back from military service, drafted rookies Howard "Hopalong" Cassady, Don McIlhenny, Gene Cronin, FB Tom Tracy, QB Jerry Reichow, and C Bob Lusk, and veteran DT Ray Krouse was acquired in a trade with the Giants.

One thing that helped was the strategy of running the ball more often. Despite the changes in the backfield, the Lions ran well in 1956 and did not fumble very often despite running so much (more than 100 times more than in 1955). Only one team (Pittsburgh) lost less fumbles (one less) than Detroit that year. The Lions ran and ran the ball, and this made the passing game more effective when they did pass. Running the ball so much had to take the edge off of the opponents' pass rush, and Detroit quarterbacks were only sacked about 7 times in 1956. The offensive line must have done a great job that year even though Charlie Ane was moved to center (where he was selected to some all-pro teams and was invited to the pro bowl at year's end), Spencer took the right tackle position, and Salsbury was moved over to right guard.

It all worked splendidly until the season finale against the Chicago Bears at Wrigley Field. The game was for the conference title, although the Lions would have gotten the championship with a tie (Detroit had a 9 and 2 record and Chicago was 8-2-1 going into the game). Unfortunately, Layne was knocked out of the game early in the 2nd quarter due to a late blindside hit by Chicago defensive end Ed Meadows. Harry Gilmer played quarterback for the Lions for the rest of the game and played well, passing for 2 TD's and completing another to the 1 yard line that was shortly turned into 7 points for Detroit.

The Bears went on to win the game 38 to 21. Coach Parker and the Lions cried foul and blamed the Meadows play for the loss, but Chicago outplayed Detroit and Detroit's great defense could not stop Chicago that day, especially the Bears running game. Rick Casares alone gained 190 yards on 17 carries.

Despite the disappointing finish, it was a tremendous turnaround by the Detroit Lions in 1956. The Lions were definitely back. Layne's injury may have turned out to be a good thing for Detroit in a way. Buddy Parker said that he made a trade for Green Bay quarterback Tobin Rote as a result of what happened to Bobby in the Chicago game. Rote turned out to be the key to Detroit's success in 1957.

One thing that the 1956 Detroit Lions were unlucky about is that the Chicago Bears had their best team of the 1950's in 1956. The Bears were really hitting on all cylinders that year, especially during the first half of the season. In 1956, the Bears had the leading rusher in Rick Casares, one of the 2 best pass receivers in Harlon Hill (the other one was Bill Howton), and QB Ed Brown had a great year passing, averaging 9.92 yards per pass attempt and completing over 57 per cent of his passes. Most of Chicago's linemen were still young yet experienced, and they had good linebackers and a sensational rookie named J C Caroline who played well on defense and offense.

The Bears getting good in 1956 was no fluke. That Chicago team had finished 2nd in the west in the previous 2 seasons. So, they did not come out of nowhere to be such a strong team in 1956. They may have suffered a letdown in the title game against the Giants, losing 47 to 7, or maybe the inferior foot ware did them in as the Giants had fresh sneakers that helped on the frozen field. Anyway, the title game was not anything like what the Chicago Bears played like during the regular season.

The Detroit Lions were better in 1956 than they were in 1957 when they won the NFL championship, IMO. In 1957, there wasn't any team in pro football as strong as the 1956 Chicago Bears. Also just my opinion.

[rhickok1109]

One thing that the 1956 Detroit Lions were unlucky about is that the Chicago Bears had their best team of the 1950's in 1956. The Bears were really hitting on all cylinders that year, especially during the first half of the season. In 1956, the Bears had the leading rusher in Rick Casares, one of the 2 best pass receivers in Harlon Hill (the other one was Bill Howton), and QB Ed Brown had a great year passing, averaging 9.92 yards per pass attempt and completing over 57 per cent of his passes. Most of Chicago's linemen were still young yet experienced, and they had good linebackers and a sensational rookie named J C Caroline who played well on defense and offense.

Ed Brown has long been a mystery to me. His 1956 season is such an outlier. It doesn't stand out as much as Norm Cash's 1961 (baseball) season, but it was much better than any of Brown's seasons. I remember, as a Packer fan, thinking that the Bears would have an outstanding quarterback for years, but Brown was basically mediocre for the rest of his career.

[Saban1]

One thing that the 1956 Detroit Lions were unlucky about is that the Chicago Bears had their best team of the 1950's in 1956. The Bears were really hitting on all cylinders that year, especially during the first half of the season. In 1956, the Bears had the leading rusher in Rick Casares, one of the 2 best pass receivers in Harlon Hill (the other one was Bill Howton), and QB Ed Brown had a great year passing, averaging 9.92 yards per pass attempt and completing over 57 per cent of his passes. Most of Chicago's linemen were still young yet experienced, and they had good linebackers and a sensational rookie named J C Caroline who played well on defense and offense.

Ed Brown has long been a mystery to me. His 1956 season is such an outlier. It doesn't stand out as much as Norm Cash's 1961 (baseball) season, but it was much better than any of Brown's seasons. I remember, as a Packer fan, thinking that the Bears would have an outstanding quarterback for years, but Brown was basically mediocre for the rest of his career.

Harlon Hill wasn't as good after 1956 due to an injury (back I think) and maybe did not have to be double teamed anymore as he had in 1954-56. With Hill being double teamed, other receivers could get open easier. So, this is probably one thing that hurt Brown after 1956.

Rick Casares was still good, but didn't repeat his great 1956 season when he gained over 1100 yards in the 12 game season and averaged 4.8 yards per carry. Chicago (Bears) ran the ball often and good in 1956, forcing opponents to respect their running game, which probably took something off of their pass rush.

Anyway, the Bears were hitting on all cylinders in 1956, except for the title game and their first game with Detroit, and one thing working well would help the other thing work well. I don't think that it was quite that way for the Chicago Bears after that year when Brown was still with the team.

[Bryan]

The Rams were a good team from 1949 through 1955 (some call them a dynasty), but did not have as good a defense as Detroit, even though they had great pass rushers Larry Brink and Andy Robustelli. The Rams could score points with their great offense (Waterfield, Van Brocklin, Hirsch, Fears, Boyd, Towler, Younger, Waller, etc.), and played in the NFL championship game in 1949, 1950, and 1951, but once Detroit got going, the Rams championship games stopped until 1955 when Detroit had a bad year.

The Rams were somewhat unlucky to play in such a competitive era. I think that National/Western division of the early 1950's was perhaps the toughest in NFL history. For the Rams to appear in three straight title games is pretty rare...and most of the teams the Rams faced in the postseason from 1949-1952 were all in their own three straight title game runs...Eagles (1947-1949), Browns (1946-1955/1950-1955), Lions (1952-1954).

[coachtj]

....the 49ers, Lions, and Rams entered the '54 season with recent strong won/lost records......that is why the bears leaving their cave after a 2year hibernation still fascinates me. we all know the names of the young talent joining the bears. the bears had three teams to climb over to return to the title game.