Historical Misconceptions that "grind your gears" Started by
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:12 pm
Historical Misconceptions that "grind your gears"
Started by Hail Casares, Jun 18 2014 04:49 PM
This thread has been ready for a couple of days but it was held until this evening.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING
Most Replied To Thread of PFRAForum v.2
Started by ronfitch, Yesterday, 04:11 PM
#1 ronfitch
Forum Visitors
Posted Yesterday, 04:11 PM
As this version of the forum closes down tomorrow, if you check to see which thread had the most replies it is Hail Casares' somewhat recent "Historical Misconceptions that 'grind your gears'" thread:
http://www.pfraforum...?showtopic=3596
Began in June of this year, the thread went 13 pages. Seems fitting for the group - nice work, all y'all.
Page 1 of 13
NOTE: Page 2 Missing - continues with
Page 3 of 13
NOTE: Page 11 Missing - continues with
Page 12 of 13
I wonder? Did our bored decide to ravage this thread so that someone might not be able to save it in its entirety?
Only a bored member would have access to an entire thread. We can only edit our own posts - or so I thought?
The entire conjunction of events leading to the notification and then trashing of the archives is quite mysterious -
especially when you realize how long others were playing with the new site.
Archive
247 replies to this topic
#1 Hail Casares
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:49 PM
One of mine is this idea that the 1985 Bears defense was this "flash in the pan" and one year wonder. That's not even close to being true.
Starting in 1983 the Bears defense began to make a run into the top 5 and 10 ranks of the NFL:
Year: Rnk in Pts/Rank in Yds/Defenseive SRS via PFR.com (0.0 is average)
1983: 5/8/ 1.5
1984: 3/1/ 6.4
1985: 1/1/ 9.4
1986: 1/1/ 7.7
1987: 4/2/ 2.3
1988: 1/2/ 6.6
1989: 20/25/ -1.8 (Injury plagued year. Singletary and McMichael missed major time)
1990: 9/6/ 3.3
1991: 9/4/ 2.0
1992: 22/17/ -3.3 (Ditka fired)
Even with the departure of Buddy Ryan the Bears defense stayed an elite unit for another 3-5 years after his departure and at the very least a very good unit with the exception of the injury marred 1989 season prior to it all falling apart in 1992.
Too often the '85 defense gets lumped in with the unmet expectations of the Bears in general following that Super Bowl winning season and I'm sure that clouds the perception of them.
The Bears overall average ranks for the decade of 1983-1992:
7.5/6.7/ 3.41
Taking out the two huge anomalies in that 10('89 and '92) year period you have a defense that for 80% of this time period was ranked on average:
4.1/3.1/ 4.9
The Bears defense was really good for a pretty long time.
What are some of you guys'?
#2 james
PFRA Member
Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:53 PM
That the 1972 Dolphins were the ONLY Undefeated team in history. The 1948 Cleveland Browns were 14-0. That just makes me mad that the 1948 Browns are not even ackowledged.
#3 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 June 2014 - 05:10 PM
Georgia Frontiere was often called "the first female owner of a pro football team" when in fact, Violet Bidwill Wolfner was majority owner of the Chicago-St. Louis Cardinals from 1947 until her death in 1962.
#4 Todd Pence
Forum Visitors
621 posts
Posted 18 June 2014 - 05:14 PM
That the 1980 Oakland Raiders were the "first wild card team to win a Super Bowl", when, in point of fact, it was the 1969 Kansas City Chiefs.
#5 mark22
PFRA Member
Posted 18 June 2014 - 06:24 PM
Mike Garrett is often mentioned as the 1966 AFL ROY...when it was Bobby Burnett!
#6 smith03
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 June 2014 - 06:52 PM
how about this Kansas city in 69 was the first non division winner to win the super bowl and Oakland was the first wild card in 80? I don't believe the term wild card was used in the 69 afl play-offs, does anyone know why the afl expanded the playoffs the last season? was it just to have as many games as the nfl?
#7 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 18 June 2014 - 07:05 PM
That anything in the past 15 years (maybe more) has ever been done for "the sake of" or for "the benefit of" or in "the interest of" those poor critters known as "the fans."
Hogwash!!! is far too mild...
#8 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 19 June 2014 - 10:05 AM
smith03, on 18 Jun 2014 - 6:52 PM, said:
how about this Kansas city in 69 was the first non division winner to win the super bowl and Oakland was the first wild card in 80? I don't believe the term wild card was used in the 69 afl play-offs, does anyone know why the afl expanded the playoffs the last season? was it just to have as many games as the nfl?
That's true, the "wild card" concept didn't come about until 1970. The 1969 playoffs simply included the second place finishers in each division, competing against the winners of the other division, nothing more, nothing less.
I've heard it argued that a wild card means any team that doesn't win its division but still gets in the playoffs. I just haven't ever seen that written down anywhere. Specifically, a wild card is the non-division winner that has a better overall record in the conference than the other non-division winners. Under the first definition, one could say that the Cleveland Browns were the first "wild card" team to win the NFL title, since they didn't win their division either-- they finished with the same record as the New York Giants in 1950, so there was a playoff. As for 1969, the non-division winner with the fourth best overall record was the San Diego Chargers, whose record was better than the Houston Oilers, but the Oilers went to the playoffs as the fourth team because they were the #2 team in their division.
The reason I've read for 4 teams in the 1969 playoffs (in The $400,000 Quarterback) was that it had been forced on the AFL by Pete Rozelle after the Jets won the Super Bowl, as part of the "they shouldn't have been there in the first place" mentality that the Giants would get decades later. The Raiders and Chiefs had both finished 12-2-0 in 1968 and had to have a playoff while the 11-3-0 Jets got to the title game automatically, and the logic was that the Jets might not have made it to the Super Bowl if they re had been a playoff. Under the 4-team playoff, of course, the Jets did lose to the Chiefs and the AFL title matched the Chiefs against the Raiders, supposedly (not sure I agree with the author) Rozelle's revenge on Broadway Joe.
#9 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 June 2014 - 10:39 AM
Mark L. Ford, on 19 Jun 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:
That's true, the "wild card" concept didn't come about until 1970. The 1969 playoffs simply included the second place finishers in each division, competing against the winners of the other division, nothing more, nothing less.
I've heard it argued that a wild card means any team that doesn't win its division but still gets in the playoffs. I just haven't ever seen that written down anywhere. Specifically, a wild card is the non-division winner that has a better overall record in the conference than the other non-division winners. Under the first definition, one could say that the Cleveland Browns were the first "wild card" team to win the NFL title, since they didn't win their division either-- they finished with the same record as the New York Giants in 1950, so there was a playoff. As for 1969, the non-division winner with the best overall record was the San Diego Chargers, whose record was better than the Houston Oilers, but the Oilers went to the playoffs because they were the #2 team in their division.
The reason I've read for 4 teams in the 1969 playoffs (in The $400,000 Quarterback) was that it had been forced on the AFL by Pete Rozelle after the Jets won the Super Bowl, as part of the "they shouldn't have been there in the first place" mentality that the Giants would get decades later. The Raiders and Chiefs had both finished 12-2-0 in 1968 and had to have a playoff while the 11-3-0 Jets got to the title game automatically, and the logic was that the Jets might not have made it to the Super Bowl if they re had been a playoff. Under the 4-team playoff, of course, the Jets did lose to the Chiefs and the AFL title matched the Chiefs against the Raiders, supposedly (not sure I agree with the author) Rozelle's revenge on Broadway Joe.
This is just my opinion, but letting the second place teams in the playoffs resulted in two more games and extra TV revenue. This has always been the primary aim of those who run pro football.
#10 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 June 2014 - 10:44 AM
Historical misconceptions that "grind your gears?" As someone who first followed pro football in 1958, there are a lot of them. One, favored by some Dallas Cowboy partisans, is that the Long Bomb didn't exist prior to Bob Hayes.
#11 bachslunch
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 June 2014 - 03:24 PM
SixtiesFan, on 19 Jun 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:
Historical misconceptions that "grind your gears?" As someone who first followed pro football in 1958, there are a lot of them. One, favored by some Dallas Cowboy partisans, is that the Long Bomb didn't exist prior to Bob Hayes.
Agreed. Related to this are the ideas that Hayes was the first deep speed threat receiver and that the zone defense was invented to stop Hayes.
Others:
-Ray Guy was the Greatest Punter Ever, End Of Discussion.
-two Super Bowl wins alone automatically make Jim Plunkett and Tom Flores HoF worthy, regardless of any other considerations.
-5 ringzzz alone automatically makes Charles Haley HoF worthy, regardless of any other considerations.
-meaningful pro football history doesn't exist prior to the Super Bowl years.
.
#12 smith03
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 June 2014 - 03:58 PM
excellent point about pre Super Bowl history
#13 james
PFRA Member
Pro Football 1920's-1970's, collecting football cards, collecting and reading football books.
Posted 19 June 2014 - 04:02 PM
bachslunch, on 19 Jun 2014 - 3:24 PM, said:
-meaningful pro football history doesn't exist prior to the Super Bowl years.
.
Agreed. The NFL does NOT acknowledge anything pre-Super Bowl nor do any of the networks. Makes me mad as most people have NO CLUE!
#14 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 June 2014 - 04:25 PM
*Paul Brown helped turn Otto Graham into a HOF quarterback, and that he pioneered film grading. Graham said himself that it was Blanton Collier who "taught me everything I know.” Collier also spent the offseason after the Browns' first year in the AAFC breaking down every play and every player. In the latter case, Brown's HOF web page actually states, "he became the first to ... grade his own players based on film study."
#15 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 19 June 2014 - 05:03 PM
Mark L. Ford
Posted Today, 09:05 AM
"... I've heard it argued that a wild card means..."
It has always been my understanding that a "wild card" is a changeable item varying from game to game or hand to hand and declared at the discretion of the dealer?
If there is any validity in that theory, a "wild card" can be anything that suits the whim (or hopefully need) of the system in any given year.
Since the playoff format is known at the start of each season, there is little or no opportunity for a "preferred" team to receive a playoff berth.
#16 Jagade
PFRA Member
Posted 19 June 2014 - 09:10 PM
That teams did not blitz until the 1960's. I have seen teams blitz in games from the early 1950's.
Also not right is that almanacs often do not include the All-America Conference in their pro football history, as if the league never existed. They will have the NFL championships from 1933 on, and the AFL from 1960 through 1969, and no AAFC.
#17 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 19 June 2014 - 10:42 PM
oldecapecod 11, on 19 Jun 2014 - 5:03 PM, said:
Mark L. Ford
Posted Today, 09:05 AM
"... I've heard it argued that a wild card means..."
It has always been my understanding that a "wild card" is a changeable item varying from game to game or hand to hand and declared at the discretion of the dealer?
If there is any validity in that theory, a "wild card" can be anything that suits the whim (or hopefully need) of the system in any given year.
Since the playoff format is known at the start of each season, there is little or no opportunity for a "preferred" team to receive a playoff berth.
The best definition I've heard is that it's a playoff spot that isn't determined by a team's divisional ranking. Seems to fit how the NFL, NHL, and MLB have always used it. (Can't comment on hoops, don't follow it.)
#18 smith03
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 June 2014 - 11:12 PM
it would also be nice if those almanacs included APFA/NFL champs 1920-32
#19 Jagade
PFRA Member
Posted 20 June 2014 - 01:41 AM
smith03, on 19 Jun 2014 - 11:12 PM, said:
it would also be nice if those almanacs included APFA/NFL champs 1920-32
True, but for some reason, many of the almanacs only want to go back to 1933, when they started having championship games. Apparently, they consider 1933 the start of the "modern era."
The thing about the AAFC being left out is that it is very likely that the Cleveland Browns, who were the champions of the All-America Conference during its entire 4 year existence (1946-49), were the best team in all of football during most or all of the AAFC years. The Browns also became the most dominant team in the NFL for 6 years after entering that league in 1950, and also won the NFL Championship in 1950, their first year in the NFL. So, it seems like a farce that the AAFC is not even recognized as a major pro football league by these almanacs.
#20 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 20 June 2014 - 08:57 AM
Most almanacs will only acknowledge the American Football League as the only one whose title games rate a mention with the NFL, but the AFL was one of those rare instances of a competitor completing its run with all of its teams intact. Baseball's American League is the only other example I can think of, playing the World Series against the more established guys after only three seasons, and later serving under one Commissioner. The AAFC, like the ABA and the WHA, contributed only a few of its members after a merger agreement.
Page 1 of 13
oldecapecod 11
Historical Misconceptions that "grind your gears"
Started by Hail Casares, Jun 18 2014 04:49 PM
NOTE: Page 2 Missing - continues with
Page 3 of 13
Page 3 of 13
#41 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 June 2014 - 03:51 PM
Versatile John, on 21 Jun 2014 - 3:27 PM, said:
"Historical misconceptions" on the collegiate level about one guy:
When these morons claim that Joe Montana was a legend at Notre Dame and was one of the all-time greats in college football history. They base it off his NFL career. I watched every Domer game that Montana played in as a starter (live games and the replays with Nelson and Connor) and NOT one time did they say Montana was this legendary performer.
Plus, they will tell you Montana led ND to a helluva lot of come from behind victories......
NONE of this is true.
The fact that his last game with Notre Dame was a tremendous comeback while he was under the weather (to say the least), and that the game is on video that ESPN (and others) seemingly show all the time is what sticks in people's minds about his entire career with the Irish. It fits perfectly with the narrative they want to push about the superstar who wills his team to victory against tremendous odds.
#42 Versatile John
PFRA Member
Posted 21 June 2014 - 04:13 PM
Very true, Sullivan.
Yes, "The Chicken Soup" game was very impressive, no doubt. But, he was not this collegiate phenom that folks will have you believe.
Every year the legend of Joe Montana grows....and grows...and grows......
If you watch college games, everyone makes a reference to a Notre Dame QB as being "the next Joe Montana" as a player South Bend, not in the NFL. There were SO many other Domer QB's that were WAY more decorated than Montana. It is very comical. And I am not really talking about Fighting Irish fans, either. They know the facts.
In "Rudy," they even had a scene, where Rudy is sitting in a locker room and is looking at #3 walking through there as if it was a bat boy staring at Babe Ruth in 1927 with such hero worship. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Again, Montana was NEVER all of that. If he had never been a phenom in the NFL, his collegiate career would barely be remembered. But, yet, people will have you believe he was this college superstar. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In fact, that is my broad point about historical misconceptions: Basing a guy's collegiate career on his NFL career; they are two different things entirely. Ron Dayne, Ryan Leaf, Brian Bosworth, Tony Mandarich (last two aided by steroids) were college superstars.....Montana, Tom Brady, Willie Wood were not.
#43 JuggernautJ
PFRA Member
Posted 21 June 2014 - 04:53 PM
Versatile John, on 21 Jun 2014 - 4:13 PM, said:
Every year the legend of Joe Montana grows....and grows...and grows......
Hence the term "legend".
(It's kind of in the definition of the word)
My gears grind pretty easily but I think if I had to put the majority of my objections into a single category it would fall generally under the summary statement of "people judging something to be the 'best ever' without any reference to historical perspective."
#44 Versatile John
PFRA Member
Posted 21 June 2014 - 06:09 PM
I should have put quotations around the word in reference to Montana as in, the "legend" of Joe Montana at Notre Dame grows.....meaning it sarcastically.
Point: Montana was NOT the "legend" hs is cracked up to be as far as Notre Dame greats. Angelo Bertelli, Leon Hart, Tim Brown (better as a junior), Raghib Ismail, Paul Hornung (should not have won the Heisman in 1956, IMO), Ross Browner, Johnny Lujack, Johnny Lattner, George Gipp, Mike McCoy, the Four Horsemen, etc....Those people were true legends at Notre Dame; Montana was FAR from that.
#45 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 21 June 2014 - 06:30 PM
TouchdownTimmy, on 21 Jun 2014 - 03:17 AM, said:
I don't know if this should "grind my gears" or not. If I'm wrong then it shouldn't:
Mine is that the league we know as the National Football League was founded in 1920.
As a child I always read that the league began in 1919 as the American Pofessional Football Association. I also read that the Chicago Staleys were not one of the original members. Which means George Halas was not one of the NFL's founding fathers.
I don't know if this is fact, but it's what I have read in many older publications.
I remember reading that same thing about the APFA being founded in 1919 rather than 1920 and that "no records remain from that first season" or something equally mysterious-- and it was in the 1977 edition of Roger M. Treat's Encyclopedia of Pro Football, no less, so it had the weight of authority with it. I had an interesting discussion with Bob Carroll years later about that, and he said that there were so many misconceptions and legends that had been perpetuated that historians referred to them as "Treatisms". He added that it was regrettable, because Treat had done so much to preserve the early history of pro football back in the early 1950s, when so many of the original participants were still alive, and probably prevented quite a bit of the records from getting thrown away.
The 1919 thing was probably the most avoidable of blunders, though, because newspapers like the Canton Repository were saved in bound volumes during those pre-microfilm days. Regardless, that's something that shouldn't have been printed without first being attributed to a source.
#46 smith03
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 June 2014 - 07:29 PM
I have a theory and it only a theory, the reason why akron winning the 1920 championship was lost for so long and only seemed to surface after George halas died, was because without a 1920 champion, that made his 1921 Chicago team the "first" champion. like I said it just a theory. To put it another way had Decatur won the 1920 championship it wouldn't have been lost.
#47 74_75_78_79_
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 June 2014 - 07:56 PM
This one is way too obvious, which is why no one has posted it yet, but that the '80s Niners were a...'finesse' team. Many gritty tough SOBs on that team but, somehow, it seems to be lost amongst even the above-casual football fans (even if one of them....cut their finger off to keep on playing in a game or had a nickname like....'Hacksaw'). Their late-'80s backfield was literally a Nebraska Cornhusker backfield! Can't get any more smash-mouth/blue-collar than that! All those stupid, ignorant stereotypes against Joe not being a 'tough' QB, only throwing 'short' passes; simply all that SBXIX pre-game anti-hype against him in favor of Marino. Not that this is the first example of this (not even close), but playing in the cold against Ditka's Bears in the '88 NFCC (arguably his best performance ever)! And not that this is the first (not even close) example but being beaten almost to a pulp vs Philly at the Vet in '89, Week #3, Buddy still deciding to keep blitzing in the 4th Q against then-assistant Jeff Fisher's suggestion and Joe GETS UP (and you know the rest). Bill Walsh a 'wimp' as Paul Brown, actually, tried to depict him to aspiring employers who sought after him for a reference. Obviously, Brown didn't want to see him go. The 'white wine-drinking' 'Genius' (having a history of being a boxer) could be just as much a 'tough guy' as the Ditkas and Tunas and what not. Just about every starting defender on those '80s Niners teams would have very well fit-in with the Andy Russells, Mean Joes, Blounts, Hams, Lamberts, etc! They technically didn't really need MATT MILLEN to...'toughen them up' but he came onboard and - with Lott's permission - did just that anyway! Toughened them up even MORE! And that very added leadership of his (wrinkle) was definitely integral to how amazing and special that Classic '89 squad was! And while we're on this very subject, how about how Seifert 'inherited' his SBXXIV Ring as HC? Yes, Walsh should still get more of the credit simply being that he built the whole thing in the first place, but who knows (if however not too likely) that maybe, just maybe what made '89 work as it did was the sudden different setting? Hey, you never know! Walsh was ticked off all through '88 about the "what have you done for me lately" heat that DeBartolo was giving him and then after winning the Super Bowl after all, he (like Pacino's character in 'Any Given Sunday') resigned. Perhaps if he would have pondered the decision a bit longer then decided to sweep it under the rug and go-through-the-motions, maybe (just maybe) it may have not worked out. That is, however, doubtful so I'll just say this...though Walsh gets more credit for '89 either way, who else would have been as good a defensive guy behind to help him win those SBs in the first place (let's face it, the defense was the 'main character' in those '80s titles)? I know that 1-15 season at Carolina (along with, very unfairly, the help of his unassuming - actually Noll-like - stoic nature) will never be overlooked by the HOF-voters but it really should be! Heck, on both occasions in '89 & '94, he never got carried off the field by any TWO players from his team (what the...??). In addition to all that was said, THAT should place him in the Hall!
Heck, and I'm not even a Niners-fan (hated them when they were 'catching-up' to my Steelers in the '80s and some 'experts' were actually placing them as '#1 all-time'), but give due it's due!
#48 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 21 June 2014 - 09:09 PM
The Jets winning Super Bowl 3 caused the AFL-NFL merger. You will see or hear this from casual fans.
Joe Namath sucked. Most people write or say this.
#49 ronfitch
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 June 2014 - 09:10 PM
Not sure if this isp a misconception is simply factually wrong, but it bugs me that so many journalists and fans - even longtime Viking fans living here - don't know that the Vikings won the '69 NFL championship. And the Colts won the '68 NFL championship.
That and the whole Dan Devine dog story in Green Bay, which Devine fueled and half-assed admitted did not happen the he suggested it had in his autobiograhy.
#50 smith03
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 June 2014 - 09:42 PM
this Vikings fan knows and tries to educate, actually I do think the local media in town (MSP) does a good job of pointing out Bud Grant won 1 NFL and 3 NFC championships for example, heck in 1989 the Viking wore a patch honoring the 69 NFL champs 40 for 60
#51 JohnH19
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 June 2014 - 10:05 PM
Versatile John, on 21 Jun 2014 - 3:27 PM, said:
Also, not an historical misconception, but a philosophical misconception: This horse manure that QB's win championships and everyone else is just along for the ride.
There's also the somewhat larger camp that says defense wins championships.
#52 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 21 June 2014 - 10:19 PM
1. Using stats over actually watching the games to rate or judge players, especially historically.
probably thousands of examples but here's two real quick;
At least once a year there's a "Bobby Layne was bad" post or comment, then someone who never saw him play, has seen zero film or anything, goes on to post meaningless stats to 'prove' how poor of a player he was.
The stats thing happens with Paul Warfield, too. Whether on these forums in the past or articles online somewhere, sure everyone's see it. Many more examples, whether it's using career stats or single-season stats, but point is made.
2. That the Associated Press All-Pro team is the only all-pro team.
3. Not so much a misconception but play-calling is completely ignored (less and less here since a handful of us point it out everytime) in the evaluation of past QB's.
4. All premature or flawed discussion of current players 'legacies' ... along with that is labeling players who aren't even a third of the way through their career as "future HOFers" ...
#53 JohnH19
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 June 2014 - 10:28 PM
Reaser, on 21 Jun 2014 - 10:19 PM, said:
4. All premature or flawed discussion of current players 'legacies' ... along with that is labeling players who aren't even a third of the way through their career as "future HOFers" ...
The whole media obsession with future HOFers in the big four North American team sports is annoying as hell.
#54 Teo
PFRA Member
Posted 21 June 2014 - 11:00 PM
Two from the Cowboys:
- Tom Landry had finished with a winning sesson when he was fired.
-Michael Irvin was drafted by Jimmy Johnson, his college coach.
#55 Teo
PFRA Member
Posted 21 June 2014 - 11:14 PM
Others relating to the PFRA Meeting in Cleveland:
-That pro football was born in Canton, Ohio, not in Western Pennsylvania.
-That Fawcett Stadium was home of the 1920s Canton Bulldogs.
#56 Teo
PFRA Member
Posted 21 June 2014 - 11:23 PM
Amongst uniform colors:
-The Green Bay Packers have always wore green, they have never worn blue.
-The Chicago Bears' colors are black and red ( as opposed to navy blue and orange).
#57 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 June 2014 - 11:35 PM
Teo, on 21 Jun 2014 - 11:23 PM, said:
Amongst uniform colors:
-The Green Bay Packers have always wore green, they have never worn blue.
-The Chicago Bears' colors are black and red ( as opposed to navy blue and orange).
In that same vein, that the Lions colors have always been Honolulu Blue. In 1948, they had either red or black jerseys with red helmets, then wore the red/maroon jerseys for at least one game in 1950. The reason? Their new coach, Bo McMillin, came from Indiana U., which wore those colors. Not sure why they went back to strictly blue in '49.
Also, that the Browns have always worn orange helmets--in their AAFC years, they wore white, then mixed and matched them in 1950-51.
#58 smith03
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 June 2014 - 12:19 AM
how about the browns have never had anything on their helmets? they wore numbers for a while
#59 3243
Forum Visitors
301 posts
Posted 22 June 2014 - 01:27 AM
"In that same vein, that the Lions' colors have always been Honolulu blue."
In 1966, the Lions wore a darker shade of blue, more like royal blue. To me, they look better in royal blue and silver than in Honolulu blue and silver, because silver numbers show up a lot better on royal blue jerseys. And the Lions look better with silver block numbers than with white stylized numbers anyway.
Don't forget those who think the Raiders have always worn silver-and-black or were even the first pro football team to do so (the Eagles, I think, wore that combination for one season in the late 1930s or early '40s) or that the Chargers were wearing the legendary powder blue jerseys from their beginning (in the early '60s they wore Collegiate blue, which was a shade below [but closer to] royal blue; heck, they wore navy blue jerseys in 1967).
#60 JuggernautJ
PFRA Member
Posted 22 June 2014 - 02:06 AM
ronfitch, on 21 Jun 2014 - 9:10 PM, said:
...many journalists and fans - even longtime Viking fans living here - don't know that the Vikings won the '69 NFL championship. And the Colts won the '68 NFL championship.
Somehow, I think of this as a secret bit of information that only we who study football history acknowledge and understand.
It's kind of like our secret handshake or something... one of those topics that only one of "us" knows.
Page 3 of 13
oldecapecod 11
Started by Hail Casares, Jun 18 2014 04:49 PM
This thread has been ready for a couple of days but it was held until this evening.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING
Most Replied To Thread of PFRAForum v.2
Started by ronfitch, Yesterday, 04:11 PM
#1 ronfitch
Forum Visitors
Posted Yesterday, 04:11 PM
As this version of the forum closes down tomorrow, if you check to see which thread had the most replies it is Hail Casares' somewhat recent "Historical Misconceptions that 'grind your gears'" thread:
http://www.pfraforum...?showtopic=3596
Began in June of this year, the thread went 13 pages. Seems fitting for the group - nice work, all y'all.
Page 1 of 13
NOTE: Page 2 Missing - continues with
Page 3 of 13
NOTE: Page 11 Missing - continues with
Page 12 of 13
I wonder? Did our bored decide to ravage this thread so that someone might not be able to save it in its entirety?
Only a bored member would have access to an entire thread. We can only edit our own posts - or so I thought?
The entire conjunction of events leading to the notification and then trashing of the archives is quite mysterious -
especially when you realize how long others were playing with the new site.
Archive
247 replies to this topic
#1 Hail Casares
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:49 PM
One of mine is this idea that the 1985 Bears defense was this "flash in the pan" and one year wonder. That's not even close to being true.
Starting in 1983 the Bears defense began to make a run into the top 5 and 10 ranks of the NFL:
Year: Rnk in Pts/Rank in Yds/Defenseive SRS via PFR.com (0.0 is average)
1983: 5/8/ 1.5
1984: 3/1/ 6.4
1985: 1/1/ 9.4
1986: 1/1/ 7.7
1987: 4/2/ 2.3
1988: 1/2/ 6.6
1989: 20/25/ -1.8 (Injury plagued year. Singletary and McMichael missed major time)
1990: 9/6/ 3.3
1991: 9/4/ 2.0
1992: 22/17/ -3.3 (Ditka fired)
Even with the departure of Buddy Ryan the Bears defense stayed an elite unit for another 3-5 years after his departure and at the very least a very good unit with the exception of the injury marred 1989 season prior to it all falling apart in 1992.
Too often the '85 defense gets lumped in with the unmet expectations of the Bears in general following that Super Bowl winning season and I'm sure that clouds the perception of them.
The Bears overall average ranks for the decade of 1983-1992:
7.5/6.7/ 3.41
Taking out the two huge anomalies in that 10('89 and '92) year period you have a defense that for 80% of this time period was ranked on average:
4.1/3.1/ 4.9
The Bears defense was really good for a pretty long time.
What are some of you guys'?
#2 james
PFRA Member
Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:53 PM
That the 1972 Dolphins were the ONLY Undefeated team in history. The 1948 Cleveland Browns were 14-0. That just makes me mad that the 1948 Browns are not even ackowledged.
#3 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 June 2014 - 05:10 PM
Georgia Frontiere was often called "the first female owner of a pro football team" when in fact, Violet Bidwill Wolfner was majority owner of the Chicago-St. Louis Cardinals from 1947 until her death in 1962.
#4 Todd Pence
Forum Visitors
621 posts
Posted 18 June 2014 - 05:14 PM
That the 1980 Oakland Raiders were the "first wild card team to win a Super Bowl", when, in point of fact, it was the 1969 Kansas City Chiefs.
#5 mark22
PFRA Member
Posted 18 June 2014 - 06:24 PM
Mike Garrett is often mentioned as the 1966 AFL ROY...when it was Bobby Burnett!
#6 smith03
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 June 2014 - 06:52 PM
how about this Kansas city in 69 was the first non division winner to win the super bowl and Oakland was the first wild card in 80? I don't believe the term wild card was used in the 69 afl play-offs, does anyone know why the afl expanded the playoffs the last season? was it just to have as many games as the nfl?
#7 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 18 June 2014 - 07:05 PM
That anything in the past 15 years (maybe more) has ever been done for "the sake of" or for "the benefit of" or in "the interest of" those poor critters known as "the fans."
Hogwash!!! is far too mild...
#8 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 19 June 2014 - 10:05 AM
smith03, on 18 Jun 2014 - 6:52 PM, said:
how about this Kansas city in 69 was the first non division winner to win the super bowl and Oakland was the first wild card in 80? I don't believe the term wild card was used in the 69 afl play-offs, does anyone know why the afl expanded the playoffs the last season? was it just to have as many games as the nfl?
That's true, the "wild card" concept didn't come about until 1970. The 1969 playoffs simply included the second place finishers in each division, competing against the winners of the other division, nothing more, nothing less.
I've heard it argued that a wild card means any team that doesn't win its division but still gets in the playoffs. I just haven't ever seen that written down anywhere. Specifically, a wild card is the non-division winner that has a better overall record in the conference than the other non-division winners. Under the first definition, one could say that the Cleveland Browns were the first "wild card" team to win the NFL title, since they didn't win their division either-- they finished with the same record as the New York Giants in 1950, so there was a playoff. As for 1969, the non-division winner with the fourth best overall record was the San Diego Chargers, whose record was better than the Houston Oilers, but the Oilers went to the playoffs as the fourth team because they were the #2 team in their division.
The reason I've read for 4 teams in the 1969 playoffs (in The $400,000 Quarterback) was that it had been forced on the AFL by Pete Rozelle after the Jets won the Super Bowl, as part of the "they shouldn't have been there in the first place" mentality that the Giants would get decades later. The Raiders and Chiefs had both finished 12-2-0 in 1968 and had to have a playoff while the 11-3-0 Jets got to the title game automatically, and the logic was that the Jets might not have made it to the Super Bowl if they re had been a playoff. Under the 4-team playoff, of course, the Jets did lose to the Chiefs and the AFL title matched the Chiefs against the Raiders, supposedly (not sure I agree with the author) Rozelle's revenge on Broadway Joe.
#9 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 June 2014 - 10:39 AM
Mark L. Ford, on 19 Jun 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:
That's true, the "wild card" concept didn't come about until 1970. The 1969 playoffs simply included the second place finishers in each division, competing against the winners of the other division, nothing more, nothing less.
I've heard it argued that a wild card means any team that doesn't win its division but still gets in the playoffs. I just haven't ever seen that written down anywhere. Specifically, a wild card is the non-division winner that has a better overall record in the conference than the other non-division winners. Under the first definition, one could say that the Cleveland Browns were the first "wild card" team to win the NFL title, since they didn't win their division either-- they finished with the same record as the New York Giants in 1950, so there was a playoff. As for 1969, the non-division winner with the best overall record was the San Diego Chargers, whose record was better than the Houston Oilers, but the Oilers went to the playoffs because they were the #2 team in their division.
The reason I've read for 4 teams in the 1969 playoffs (in The $400,000 Quarterback) was that it had been forced on the AFL by Pete Rozelle after the Jets won the Super Bowl, as part of the "they shouldn't have been there in the first place" mentality that the Giants would get decades later. The Raiders and Chiefs had both finished 12-2-0 in 1968 and had to have a playoff while the 11-3-0 Jets got to the title game automatically, and the logic was that the Jets might not have made it to the Super Bowl if they re had been a playoff. Under the 4-team playoff, of course, the Jets did lose to the Chiefs and the AFL title matched the Chiefs against the Raiders, supposedly (not sure I agree with the author) Rozelle's revenge on Broadway Joe.
This is just my opinion, but letting the second place teams in the playoffs resulted in two more games and extra TV revenue. This has always been the primary aim of those who run pro football.
#10 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 June 2014 - 10:44 AM
Historical misconceptions that "grind your gears?" As someone who first followed pro football in 1958, there are a lot of them. One, favored by some Dallas Cowboy partisans, is that the Long Bomb didn't exist prior to Bob Hayes.
#11 bachslunch
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 June 2014 - 03:24 PM
SixtiesFan, on 19 Jun 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:
Historical misconceptions that "grind your gears?" As someone who first followed pro football in 1958, there are a lot of them. One, favored by some Dallas Cowboy partisans, is that the Long Bomb didn't exist prior to Bob Hayes.
Agreed. Related to this are the ideas that Hayes was the first deep speed threat receiver and that the zone defense was invented to stop Hayes.
Others:
-Ray Guy was the Greatest Punter Ever, End Of Discussion.
-two Super Bowl wins alone automatically make Jim Plunkett and Tom Flores HoF worthy, regardless of any other considerations.
-5 ringzzz alone automatically makes Charles Haley HoF worthy, regardless of any other considerations.
-meaningful pro football history doesn't exist prior to the Super Bowl years.
.
#12 smith03
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 June 2014 - 03:58 PM
excellent point about pre Super Bowl history
#13 james
PFRA Member
Pro Football 1920's-1970's, collecting football cards, collecting and reading football books.
Posted 19 June 2014 - 04:02 PM
bachslunch, on 19 Jun 2014 - 3:24 PM, said:
-meaningful pro football history doesn't exist prior to the Super Bowl years.
.
Agreed. The NFL does NOT acknowledge anything pre-Super Bowl nor do any of the networks. Makes me mad as most people have NO CLUE!
#14 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 June 2014 - 04:25 PM
*Paul Brown helped turn Otto Graham into a HOF quarterback, and that he pioneered film grading. Graham said himself that it was Blanton Collier who "taught me everything I know.” Collier also spent the offseason after the Browns' first year in the AAFC breaking down every play and every player. In the latter case, Brown's HOF web page actually states, "he became the first to ... grade his own players based on film study."
#15 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 19 June 2014 - 05:03 PM
Mark L. Ford
Posted Today, 09:05 AM
"... I've heard it argued that a wild card means..."
It has always been my understanding that a "wild card" is a changeable item varying from game to game or hand to hand and declared at the discretion of the dealer?
If there is any validity in that theory, a "wild card" can be anything that suits the whim (or hopefully need) of the system in any given year.
Since the playoff format is known at the start of each season, there is little or no opportunity for a "preferred" team to receive a playoff berth.
#16 Jagade
PFRA Member
Posted 19 June 2014 - 09:10 PM
That teams did not blitz until the 1960's. I have seen teams blitz in games from the early 1950's.
Also not right is that almanacs often do not include the All-America Conference in their pro football history, as if the league never existed. They will have the NFL championships from 1933 on, and the AFL from 1960 through 1969, and no AAFC.
#17 Jeremy Crowhurst
PFRA Member
Posted 19 June 2014 - 10:42 PM
oldecapecod 11, on 19 Jun 2014 - 5:03 PM, said:
Mark L. Ford
Posted Today, 09:05 AM
"... I've heard it argued that a wild card means..."
It has always been my understanding that a "wild card" is a changeable item varying from game to game or hand to hand and declared at the discretion of the dealer?
If there is any validity in that theory, a "wild card" can be anything that suits the whim (or hopefully need) of the system in any given year.
Since the playoff format is known at the start of each season, there is little or no opportunity for a "preferred" team to receive a playoff berth.
The best definition I've heard is that it's a playoff spot that isn't determined by a team's divisional ranking. Seems to fit how the NFL, NHL, and MLB have always used it. (Can't comment on hoops, don't follow it.)
#18 smith03
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 June 2014 - 11:12 PM
it would also be nice if those almanacs included APFA/NFL champs 1920-32
#19 Jagade
PFRA Member
Posted 20 June 2014 - 01:41 AM
smith03, on 19 Jun 2014 - 11:12 PM, said:
it would also be nice if those almanacs included APFA/NFL champs 1920-32
True, but for some reason, many of the almanacs only want to go back to 1933, when they started having championship games. Apparently, they consider 1933 the start of the "modern era."
The thing about the AAFC being left out is that it is very likely that the Cleveland Browns, who were the champions of the All-America Conference during its entire 4 year existence (1946-49), were the best team in all of football during most or all of the AAFC years. The Browns also became the most dominant team in the NFL for 6 years after entering that league in 1950, and also won the NFL Championship in 1950, their first year in the NFL. So, it seems like a farce that the AAFC is not even recognized as a major pro football league by these almanacs.
#20 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 20 June 2014 - 08:57 AM
Most almanacs will only acknowledge the American Football League as the only one whose title games rate a mention with the NFL, but the AFL was one of those rare instances of a competitor completing its run with all of its teams intact. Baseball's American League is the only other example I can think of, playing the World Series against the more established guys after only three seasons, and later serving under one Commissioner. The AAFC, like the ABA and the WHA, contributed only a few of its members after a merger agreement.
Page 1 of 13
oldecapecod 11
Historical Misconceptions that "grind your gears"
Started by Hail Casares, Jun 18 2014 04:49 PM
NOTE: Page 2 Missing - continues with
Page 3 of 13
Page 3 of 13
#41 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 June 2014 - 03:51 PM
Versatile John, on 21 Jun 2014 - 3:27 PM, said:
"Historical misconceptions" on the collegiate level about one guy:
When these morons claim that Joe Montana was a legend at Notre Dame and was one of the all-time greats in college football history. They base it off his NFL career. I watched every Domer game that Montana played in as a starter (live games and the replays with Nelson and Connor) and NOT one time did they say Montana was this legendary performer.
Plus, they will tell you Montana led ND to a helluva lot of come from behind victories......
NONE of this is true.
The fact that his last game with Notre Dame was a tremendous comeback while he was under the weather (to say the least), and that the game is on video that ESPN (and others) seemingly show all the time is what sticks in people's minds about his entire career with the Irish. It fits perfectly with the narrative they want to push about the superstar who wills his team to victory against tremendous odds.
#42 Versatile John
PFRA Member
Posted 21 June 2014 - 04:13 PM
Very true, Sullivan.
Yes, "The Chicken Soup" game was very impressive, no doubt. But, he was not this collegiate phenom that folks will have you believe.
Every year the legend of Joe Montana grows....and grows...and grows......
If you watch college games, everyone makes a reference to a Notre Dame QB as being "the next Joe Montana" as a player South Bend, not in the NFL. There were SO many other Domer QB's that were WAY more decorated than Montana. It is very comical. And I am not really talking about Fighting Irish fans, either. They know the facts.
In "Rudy," they even had a scene, where Rudy is sitting in a locker room and is looking at #3 walking through there as if it was a bat boy staring at Babe Ruth in 1927 with such hero worship. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Again, Montana was NEVER all of that. If he had never been a phenom in the NFL, his collegiate career would barely be remembered. But, yet, people will have you believe he was this college superstar. HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In fact, that is my broad point about historical misconceptions: Basing a guy's collegiate career on his NFL career; they are two different things entirely. Ron Dayne, Ryan Leaf, Brian Bosworth, Tony Mandarich (last two aided by steroids) were college superstars.....Montana, Tom Brady, Willie Wood were not.
#43 JuggernautJ
PFRA Member
Posted 21 June 2014 - 04:53 PM
Versatile John, on 21 Jun 2014 - 4:13 PM, said:
Every year the legend of Joe Montana grows....and grows...and grows......
Hence the term "legend".
(It's kind of in the definition of the word)
My gears grind pretty easily but I think if I had to put the majority of my objections into a single category it would fall generally under the summary statement of "people judging something to be the 'best ever' without any reference to historical perspective."
#44 Versatile John
PFRA Member
Posted 21 June 2014 - 06:09 PM
I should have put quotations around the word in reference to Montana as in, the "legend" of Joe Montana at Notre Dame grows.....meaning it sarcastically.
Point: Montana was NOT the "legend" hs is cracked up to be as far as Notre Dame greats. Angelo Bertelli, Leon Hart, Tim Brown (better as a junior), Raghib Ismail, Paul Hornung (should not have won the Heisman in 1956, IMO), Ross Browner, Johnny Lujack, Johnny Lattner, George Gipp, Mike McCoy, the Four Horsemen, etc....Those people were true legends at Notre Dame; Montana was FAR from that.
#45 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 21 June 2014 - 06:30 PM
TouchdownTimmy, on 21 Jun 2014 - 03:17 AM, said:
I don't know if this should "grind my gears" or not. If I'm wrong then it shouldn't:
Mine is that the league we know as the National Football League was founded in 1920.
As a child I always read that the league began in 1919 as the American Pofessional Football Association. I also read that the Chicago Staleys were not one of the original members. Which means George Halas was not one of the NFL's founding fathers.
I don't know if this is fact, but it's what I have read in many older publications.
I remember reading that same thing about the APFA being founded in 1919 rather than 1920 and that "no records remain from that first season" or something equally mysterious-- and it was in the 1977 edition of Roger M. Treat's Encyclopedia of Pro Football, no less, so it had the weight of authority with it. I had an interesting discussion with Bob Carroll years later about that, and he said that there were so many misconceptions and legends that had been perpetuated that historians referred to them as "Treatisms". He added that it was regrettable, because Treat had done so much to preserve the early history of pro football back in the early 1950s, when so many of the original participants were still alive, and probably prevented quite a bit of the records from getting thrown away.
The 1919 thing was probably the most avoidable of blunders, though, because newspapers like the Canton Repository were saved in bound volumes during those pre-microfilm days. Regardless, that's something that shouldn't have been printed without first being attributed to a source.
#46 smith03
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 June 2014 - 07:29 PM
I have a theory and it only a theory, the reason why akron winning the 1920 championship was lost for so long and only seemed to surface after George halas died, was because without a 1920 champion, that made his 1921 Chicago team the "first" champion. like I said it just a theory. To put it another way had Decatur won the 1920 championship it wouldn't have been lost.
#47 74_75_78_79_
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 June 2014 - 07:56 PM
This one is way too obvious, which is why no one has posted it yet, but that the '80s Niners were a...'finesse' team. Many gritty tough SOBs on that team but, somehow, it seems to be lost amongst even the above-casual football fans (even if one of them....cut their finger off to keep on playing in a game or had a nickname like....'Hacksaw'). Their late-'80s backfield was literally a Nebraska Cornhusker backfield! Can't get any more smash-mouth/blue-collar than that! All those stupid, ignorant stereotypes against Joe not being a 'tough' QB, only throwing 'short' passes; simply all that SBXIX pre-game anti-hype against him in favor of Marino. Not that this is the first example of this (not even close), but playing in the cold against Ditka's Bears in the '88 NFCC (arguably his best performance ever)! And not that this is the first (not even close) example but being beaten almost to a pulp vs Philly at the Vet in '89, Week #3, Buddy still deciding to keep blitzing in the 4th Q against then-assistant Jeff Fisher's suggestion and Joe GETS UP (and you know the rest). Bill Walsh a 'wimp' as Paul Brown, actually, tried to depict him to aspiring employers who sought after him for a reference. Obviously, Brown didn't want to see him go. The 'white wine-drinking' 'Genius' (having a history of being a boxer) could be just as much a 'tough guy' as the Ditkas and Tunas and what not. Just about every starting defender on those '80s Niners teams would have very well fit-in with the Andy Russells, Mean Joes, Blounts, Hams, Lamberts, etc! They technically didn't really need MATT MILLEN to...'toughen them up' but he came onboard and - with Lott's permission - did just that anyway! Toughened them up even MORE! And that very added leadership of his (wrinkle) was definitely integral to how amazing and special that Classic '89 squad was! And while we're on this very subject, how about how Seifert 'inherited' his SBXXIV Ring as HC? Yes, Walsh should still get more of the credit simply being that he built the whole thing in the first place, but who knows (if however not too likely) that maybe, just maybe what made '89 work as it did was the sudden different setting? Hey, you never know! Walsh was ticked off all through '88 about the "what have you done for me lately" heat that DeBartolo was giving him and then after winning the Super Bowl after all, he (like Pacino's character in 'Any Given Sunday') resigned. Perhaps if he would have pondered the decision a bit longer then decided to sweep it under the rug and go-through-the-motions, maybe (just maybe) it may have not worked out. That is, however, doubtful so I'll just say this...though Walsh gets more credit for '89 either way, who else would have been as good a defensive guy behind to help him win those SBs in the first place (let's face it, the defense was the 'main character' in those '80s titles)? I know that 1-15 season at Carolina (along with, very unfairly, the help of his unassuming - actually Noll-like - stoic nature) will never be overlooked by the HOF-voters but it really should be! Heck, on both occasions in '89 & '94, he never got carried off the field by any TWO players from his team (what the...??). In addition to all that was said, THAT should place him in the Hall!
Heck, and I'm not even a Niners-fan (hated them when they were 'catching-up' to my Steelers in the '80s and some 'experts' were actually placing them as '#1 all-time'), but give due it's due!
#48 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 21 June 2014 - 09:09 PM
The Jets winning Super Bowl 3 caused the AFL-NFL merger. You will see or hear this from casual fans.
Joe Namath sucked. Most people write or say this.
#49 ronfitch
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 June 2014 - 09:10 PM
Not sure if this isp a misconception is simply factually wrong, but it bugs me that so many journalists and fans - even longtime Viking fans living here - don't know that the Vikings won the '69 NFL championship. And the Colts won the '68 NFL championship.
That and the whole Dan Devine dog story in Green Bay, which Devine fueled and half-assed admitted did not happen the he suggested it had in his autobiograhy.
#50 smith03
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 June 2014 - 09:42 PM
this Vikings fan knows and tries to educate, actually I do think the local media in town (MSP) does a good job of pointing out Bud Grant won 1 NFL and 3 NFC championships for example, heck in 1989 the Viking wore a patch honoring the 69 NFL champs 40 for 60
#51 JohnH19
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 June 2014 - 10:05 PM
Versatile John, on 21 Jun 2014 - 3:27 PM, said:
Also, not an historical misconception, but a philosophical misconception: This horse manure that QB's win championships and everyone else is just along for the ride.
There's also the somewhat larger camp that says defense wins championships.
#52 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 21 June 2014 - 10:19 PM
1. Using stats over actually watching the games to rate or judge players, especially historically.
probably thousands of examples but here's two real quick;
At least once a year there's a "Bobby Layne was bad" post or comment, then someone who never saw him play, has seen zero film or anything, goes on to post meaningless stats to 'prove' how poor of a player he was.
The stats thing happens with Paul Warfield, too. Whether on these forums in the past or articles online somewhere, sure everyone's see it. Many more examples, whether it's using career stats or single-season stats, but point is made.
2. That the Associated Press All-Pro team is the only all-pro team.
3. Not so much a misconception but play-calling is completely ignored (less and less here since a handful of us point it out everytime) in the evaluation of past QB's.
4. All premature or flawed discussion of current players 'legacies' ... along with that is labeling players who aren't even a third of the way through their career as "future HOFers" ...
#53 JohnH19
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 June 2014 - 10:28 PM
Reaser, on 21 Jun 2014 - 10:19 PM, said:
4. All premature or flawed discussion of current players 'legacies' ... along with that is labeling players who aren't even a third of the way through their career as "future HOFers" ...
The whole media obsession with future HOFers in the big four North American team sports is annoying as hell.
#54 Teo
PFRA Member
Posted 21 June 2014 - 11:00 PM
Two from the Cowboys:
- Tom Landry had finished with a winning sesson when he was fired.
-Michael Irvin was drafted by Jimmy Johnson, his college coach.
#55 Teo
PFRA Member
Posted 21 June 2014 - 11:14 PM
Others relating to the PFRA Meeting in Cleveland:
-That pro football was born in Canton, Ohio, not in Western Pennsylvania.
-That Fawcett Stadium was home of the 1920s Canton Bulldogs.
#56 Teo
PFRA Member
Posted 21 June 2014 - 11:23 PM
Amongst uniform colors:
-The Green Bay Packers have always wore green, they have never worn blue.
-The Chicago Bears' colors are black and red ( as opposed to navy blue and orange).
#57 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 21 June 2014 - 11:35 PM
Teo, on 21 Jun 2014 - 11:23 PM, said:
Amongst uniform colors:
-The Green Bay Packers have always wore green, they have never worn blue.
-The Chicago Bears' colors are black and red ( as opposed to navy blue and orange).
In that same vein, that the Lions colors have always been Honolulu Blue. In 1948, they had either red or black jerseys with red helmets, then wore the red/maroon jerseys for at least one game in 1950. The reason? Their new coach, Bo McMillin, came from Indiana U., which wore those colors. Not sure why they went back to strictly blue in '49.
Also, that the Browns have always worn orange helmets--in their AAFC years, they wore white, then mixed and matched them in 1950-51.
#58 smith03
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 June 2014 - 12:19 AM
how about the browns have never had anything on their helmets? they wore numbers for a while
#59 3243
Forum Visitors
301 posts
Posted 22 June 2014 - 01:27 AM
"In that same vein, that the Lions' colors have always been Honolulu blue."
In 1966, the Lions wore a darker shade of blue, more like royal blue. To me, they look better in royal blue and silver than in Honolulu blue and silver, because silver numbers show up a lot better on royal blue jerseys. And the Lions look better with silver block numbers than with white stylized numbers anyway.
Don't forget those who think the Raiders have always worn silver-and-black or were even the first pro football team to do so (the Eagles, I think, wore that combination for one season in the late 1930s or early '40s) or that the Chargers were wearing the legendary powder blue jerseys from their beginning (in the early '60s they wore Collegiate blue, which was a shade below [but closer to] royal blue; heck, they wore navy blue jerseys in 1967).
#60 JuggernautJ
PFRA Member
Posted 22 June 2014 - 02:06 AM
ronfitch, on 21 Jun 2014 - 9:10 PM, said:
...many journalists and fans - even longtime Viking fans living here - don't know that the Vikings won the '69 NFL championship. And the Colts won the '68 NFL championship.
Somehow, I think of this as a secret bit of information that only we who study football history acknowledge and understand.
It's kind of like our secret handshake or something... one of those topics that only one of "us" knows.
Page 3 of 13
oldecapecod 11