Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Thanks guys - I appreciate the support - I was expecting to be disagreed with. Ken, glad you chimed in - I really enjoy what you have done - its great work - and you are completely transparent - that's why it was so easy for me to put up a defense for Hewitt.

I also took a quick look at Milner this morning and realized the complete games rated of him were from 1945. Similar to Hewitt, this was after a layoff. He had been in the Navy from after the 41 season to 45 and was asked to return to the Redskins as a player coach. He said he was told that he would play about 20-25 minutes per game, but also claims it wound up being more like 50-55. So I guess it isn't all that surprising if he was caught on film taking some plays off. In actuality, I recall some players from the two-way era admitting to as much. An interview with Joe Kopcha comes to mind as a specific example - he said something to the effect of him and the guy he was playing opposite leaning on each other when the play went to the other side of the field. The jist of it was it was tough to play the whole game, but they didn't want to come out either.

And Jeffrey, I agree about the beauty of being able to see the film for yourself. I like Oral history from peers, but with that there can always be some doubt whether a player is being objective or talking up a buddy. And some of the writers covering games were awful - they didn't even understand the sport in some cases. The thing with Hewitt for me was there was decent corroboration that the guy made some impact plays on defense. If you look at the Bears type sights they give him credit for something like 300 yards worth of tackles for loss one of the seasons in the early 30s. I've read he was nicknamed the Offside kid or something like that which means nothing by itself, but makes me think he must of been in the backfield to get a nickname out of it. In looking at a non-Chicago point of view, he's mentioned in Gary Becker's book Home & Away about his games against the Spartans. Might he have been an over aggressive player with a tendency to take himself out of plays like he did in 43? Certainly, its conceivable, but in an era when they often punted before 4th down, I still lean towards believing he was making some plays in the opponents backfield that might have wound up being pretty valuable.

And slightly off topic, I think End might be the toughest position to get a clear ranking of who the greats were from the two-way era. In a lot of ways, they just needed to be like Tackles to be of the most value to their teams, but at the same time it was the pass catching aspect that would get them noticed. So to me it seems possible that the better pass catching ends may have been elevated onto All Pro teams, while better all around ends weren't recognized.

That is another reason why we added the graphs to the reports. It allows people to see how the player performed at different points throughout their career. Not all of the reports have graphs, yet. I add them as I am updating the reports.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:Thanks guys - I appreciate the support - I was expecting to be disagreed with. Ken, glad you chimed in - I really enjoy what you have done - its great work - and you are completely transparent - that's why it was so easy for me to put up a defense for Hewitt.

I also took a quick look at Milner this morning and realized the complete games rated of him were from 1945. Similar to Hewitt, this was after a layoff. He had been in the Navy from after the 41 season to 45 and was asked to return to the Redskins as a player coach. He said he was told that he would play about 20-25 minutes per game, but also claims it wound up being more like 50-55. So I guess it isn't all that surprising if he was caught on film taking some plays off. In actuality, I recall some players from the two-way era admitting to as much. An interview with Joe Kopcha comes to mind as a specific example - he said something to the effect of him and the guy he was playing opposite leaning on each other when the play went to the other side of the field. The jist of it was it was tough to play the whole game, but they didn't want to come out either.

And Jeffrey, I agree about the beauty of being able to see the film for yourself. I like Oral history from peers, but with that there can always be some doubt whether a player is being objective or talking up a buddy. And some of the writers covering games were awful - they didn't even understand the sport in some cases. The thing with Hewitt for me was there was decent corroboration that the guy made some impact plays on defense. If you look at the Bears type sights they give him credit for something like 300 yards worth of tackles for loss one of the seasons in the early 30s. I've read he was nicknamed the Offside kid or something like that which means nothing by itself, but makes me think he must of been in the backfield to get a nickname out of it. In looking at a non-Chicago point of view, he's mentioned in Gary Becker's book Home & Away about his games against the Spartans. Might he have been an over aggressive player with a tendency to take himself out of plays like he did in 43? Certainly, its conceivable, but in an era when they often punted before 4th down, I still lean towards believing he was making some plays in the opponents backfield that might have wound up being pretty valuable.

And slightly off topic, I think End might be the toughest position to get a clear ranking of who the greats were from the two-way era. In a lot of ways, they just needed to be like Tackles to be of the most value to their teams, but at the same time it was the pass catching aspect that would get them noticed. So to me it seems possible that the better pass catching ends may have been elevated onto All Pro teams, while better all around ends weren't recognized.

But for the purposes of a scouting report, newspapers will not tell you how a man fights off blocks, whether he misses tackles, how many overthrows he made, dropped passes, etc., all things a football braintrust will want to know when considering drafting or signing a player. That is what a scouting report is supposed to provide, and Ken is doing a stellar job with the film available. It ain't perfect, but still a worthwhile exercise.

Ken Crippen wrote: Matt and I completely agree, which is why we list the number of games reviewed with the scores. When we do rankings, ties are broken by the number of games. The more games we have, the stronger the score.

We would like to see a minimum of 20 games before we start to feel confident about the grade.

I would just like to take a moment to thank Ken for this incredibly mature and responsible answer.

In this day and age when so many are so disrespectful when defending even the most outrageous of claims it's truly comforting to deal with someone who realizes that one's opinion, even based on their hard work and substantial knowledge, is not the final word on a subject.

Thanks, Ken (and Matt) for doing all the work involved in your project and for having a great attitude about so doing.
You are a rarity in today's world.

Now, can I introduce you to my boss (and wife)?

JuggernautJ wrote:

Ken Crippen wrote: Matt and I completely agree, which is why we list the number of games reviewed with the scores. When we do rankings, ties are broken by the number of games. The more games we have, the stronger the score.

We would like to see a minimum of 20 games before we start to feel confident about the grade.

I would just like to take a moment to thank Ken for this incredibly mature and responsible answer.

In this day and age when so many are so disrespectful when defending even the most outrageous of claims it's truly comforting to deal with someone who realizes that one's opinion, even based on their hard work and substantial knowledge, is not the final word on a subject.

Thanks, Ken (and Matt) for doing all the work involved in your project and for having a great attitude about so doing.
You are a rarity in today's world.

Now, can I introduce you to my boss (and wife)?

I second that. The interest and effort to do that is outstanding and I appreciate the work and their views. To put it out there and be willing to take cheap shots is remarkable and they should be complimented for it.

JohnTurney wrote:

JuggernautJ wrote:

Ken Crippen wrote: I second that. The interest and effort to do that is outstanding and I appreciate the work and their views. To put it out there and be willing to take cheap shots is remarkable and they should be complimented for it.

Hey John, were there any cheap shots in this thread? I'd definitely like to address it if that comment was directed at me. At a high level, I feel I complemented Ken's work, but did take some issue with the implication that Bill Hewitt was among the worst HOFers based on a game in 36 and a game in 43. I don't feel that's the implication Ken was trying to make, so I hardly see that as a cheap shot at Ken's work. I believe he said so himself.

I simply pointed out that I noticed posters comparing the ratings as if any two player ratings could be compared when in reality there may be drastic differences in numbers of games evaluated and years evaluated.

And I thanked Ken for jumping into the thread.

I still stand by my position and its one I take at work and my personal life, etc. Blindly taking a number and not looking at what's behind is never a good thing. I don't think that's a cheap shot. For this type of analysis, Ken can only analyze the film that's out there and for the 20s and 30s - its pretty limited.

I did not see any cheap shots taken by anyone in this thread. I read the particular comment as a reference to people elsewhere on the internet who like to rip others' hard work just because it wasn't exactly complete enough or good enough or whatever.

Got it - thanks John.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:Got it - thanks John.

JWL is right, had nothing at all to do with your comments. It seems there are one or two out there that do attack Ken and his groups hard work, for whatever reaso and I was simply complimenting Ken's efforts, as I would anyone who does research and gives it their best efforts.

So, sorry if you thought it was about your comments, not at all. You are a great contributer to this forum