1956 Detroit at Chicago

[Saban1]

The 1956 Western Conference race came down to the last regular season game with the winner going to the NFL Championship game. Detroit (9-2) also would have won the conference title with a tie, as Chicago's record was 8-2-1. The Bears won 38 to 21, but there was a late hit on HOF quarterback Bobby Layne early in the 2nd quarter that knocked him out of the game. Backup quarterback Harry Gilmer played the rest of the game at quarterback for Detroit and passed for two TD's and completed another pass to the one yard line that resulted in another six points for the Lions. He also threw a pick 6.

After the game, some Detroit coaches, players, and fans blamed Layne's injury and the late hit on Bobby by Bears defensive end Ed Meadows for the loss. Bobby Layne was known for leading Detroit to last minute comebacks. Chicago played well on offense gaining 309 yards rushing (190 yards alone by fullback Rick Casares) and end Harlon Hill caught a long pass for a TD.

So, would the Detroit Lions have won that game if Layne did not get injured and played the whole game? Would a healthy Layne have made that much difference? Opinions are welcome.

[Saban1]

Apparently. most here are too young to remember what happened in 1956, but I remember that it was big at the time.

Just my opinion, but i think that Chicago wins even if Layne did not get hurt and played the entire game. Anything is possible, but as great as Bobby was, I think that Chicago was up for that game, really up. The Lions president even said that Detroit was up for the game, but Chicago was higher. He also said that Ed Meadows should be barred from football.

One thing is that the game was played in Wrigley Field in Chicago, where the Bears were always tough to beat. In fact, despite playing the Bears twice a year, home and away, Detroit had only beaten Chicago twice in Chicago (1951 and 1953) since 1945, even though Detroit had won three Western Conference titles during the early 1950's.

It wasn't like Chicago was just on the verge of becoming a good football team and contender. The Bears had finished 2nd in the West in both 1954 and 1955, and the 1956 team was their best of the 50's. Their fullback, Rick Casares, led the league in rushing in 1956, gaining over 1,000 yards and one of their ends, Harlon Hill was arguably the best receiver in pro football. Their quarterback, Ed Brown, was having a sensational year averaging over 9 yards per pass attempt.

Layne's injury should not have effected their defense, yet Chicago was very successful with their offense against the Lions defense that day and it was the first time all season that Detroit's defense had been so vulnerable. Casares alone gained 190 yards rushing including a 68 yard run for a TD. The Bears gained over 300 yards rushing overall. Harlon Hill also scored a TD on a 48 yard pass.

Yes, Bobby Layne was one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, but I believe that the Detroit Lions had met their match on that particular December day.

[Jay Z]

I agree with you, Bears win anyway.

Certainly was one of the big win or go home season finale games.

[sluggermatt15]

I agree with you both. Chicago still probably would have won. Harry Gilmer still accounted for Detroit offense and points. It's not like he came in and did nothing. The Detroit defense's inability to stop Chicago I think ultimately sealed the game. Take the pick six away, and it's a 10 point game, and maybe Detroit gets a score out of it. Then it's still a 3 or 7 point game and eh, the Bears likely still even come out on top.

[Saban1]

Thanks for the responses.

Another thing about that game was that Detroit only gained 47 yards rushing in 27 carries, which is less than an average of 2 yards per rush. So, evidently the Lions running game wasn't really working that day. During the season, Detroit's running game had worked pretty well for the most part.

The Bears must have won the battle on the line of scrimmage that day, both on offense and defense. As Sluggermatt15 said, Harry Gilmer was the Detroit Lions offense that day.

If Bobby Layne was to win that game for Detroit, then he probably would have had to win it all by himself.

[JuggernautJ]

If Bobby Layne was to win that game for Detroit, then he probably would have had to win it all by himself.

Remember, Bobby Layne never lost a game. He only ran out of time....

I am a fan of those Lions teams. And I can't claim to have ever seen the game.
So mine is neither the most objective nor educated opinion.

But a couple of points in favor of the Lions:
1. They had been champions twice already in the 1950's and would be champions again next year. That was a good team.
2. And we've all seen teams fall apart after an injury to their best player. I'm not making excuses, I haven't seen the game. But I have seen teams come unglued after an especially cheap hit injures a beloved teammate.

Certainly the hit by Meadows was, by all evidence and contemporary opinion, late and egregiously "cheap."
http://www.profootballresearchers.org/c ... 12-048.pdf

Picture right before the hit:
https://www.detroitathletic.com/blog/wp ... -layne.jpg

Maybe it was the Bears year.
But I think it likely the Lions would've fared much better had Bobby Layne not been injured in the 2nd Quarter.

[Saban1]

If Bobby Layne was to win that game for Detroit, then he probably would have had to win it all by himself.

Remember, Bobby Lane never lost a game. He only ran out of time....

I am a fan of those Lions teams. And I can't claim to have ever seen the game.
So mine is neither the most objective nor educated opinion.

But a couple of points in favor of the Lions:
1. They had been champions twice already in the 1950's and would be champions again next year. That was a good team.
2. And we've all seen teams fall apart after an injury to their best player. I'm not making excuses, I haven't seen the game. But I have seen teams come unglued after an especially cheap hit injures a beloved teammate.

Certainly the hit by Meadows was, by all evidence and contemporary opinion, late and egregiously "cheap."
http://www.profootballresearchers.org/c ... 12-048.pdf

Picture right before the hit:
https://www.detroitathletic.com/blog/wp ... -layne.jpg

Maybe it was the Bears year.
But I think it likely the Lions would've fared much better had Bobby Lane not been injured in the 2nd Quarter.

I am glad to see that fans of those great Detroit teams of the 50's are still around. There used to be many including my own father.

I agree that Bobby Layne was a great quarterback, but there was more to those Lions teams than Bobby. There were great players on both sides of the lines. Detroit had a very tough defensive team, the best defensive secondary of that era (Chris' Crew), and a great offensive line with guys like Lou Creekmur, Harley Sewell, Vince Banonis, Dick Stanfel, and Charlie Ane, linebackers Joe Schmidt and Lavern Torgeson, running backs Doak Walker, Hunchy Hoernschemeyer, Jug Girard, receivers like Cloyce Box, Dorne Dibble, Jim Doran, Leon Hart, Dave Middleton, and Doak Walker who also played flanker, etc. Their head coach, Buddy Parker, was one of the best of his time.

They were tough.

[JuggernautJ]

I am glad to see that fans of those great Detroit teams of the 50's are still around....

Well, technically, I am not "still around" from being a fan of the 1950's Lions.
I was born in 1959.

But from studying their history the 1950's Lions have become one of my all-time favorite teams.
My initial interest was sparked from reading about those Lions and some of their great players (many of whom you mentioned above). Also, Joe Schmidt was a personal favorite of my father's as they went to Pitt at the same time.

Likewise, having been born in Pittsburgh and raised to be a Steelers fan Bobby Layne was something of a hero in our house.
Even though he retired before I started watching football I remember my dad saying he and Ernie Stautner were the best Steelers to ever play the game... at least until 1974...

[Saban1]

I am glad to see that fans of those great Detroit teams of the 50's are still around....

Well, technically, I am not "still around" from being a fan of the 1950's Lions.
I was born in 1959.

But from studying their history the 1950's Lions have become one of my all-time favorite teams.
My initial interest was sparked from reading about those Lions and some of their great players (many of whom you mentioned above). Also, Joe Schmidt was a personal favorite of my father's as they went to Pitt at the same time.

Likewise, having been born in Pittsburgh and raised to be a Steelers fan Bobby Layne was something of a hero in our house.
Even though he retired before I started watching football I remember my dad saying he and Ernie Stautner were the best Steelers to ever play the game... at least until 1974...

That's OK. I am glad that there are new Lions fans to take the place of old fans who are no longer around. The 50's was one of my favorite eras in sports, and I think it is a good thing to keep the memories of it alive as long as possible. That Stautner was a good one.

[Saban1]

Here might be something. Sometimes a game is closer than the score indicates, and other times the score isn't as close as the score indicates.

Sometime in the 4th quarter, after a couple of TD's, Chicago was leading 38 to 14 over Detroit in that 1956 game. So Gilmer threw another TD pass after that to make the final score 38 to 21. I don't know how late in the 4th quarter that it was that Gilmer passed for the last score of the game. There is a good chance that Chicago had their subs in as a 38 to 14 score in the 4th quarter usually means that a win is pretty much wrapped up by the team that is ahead.

So, maybe the game was not as close as the score indicated. Could be that both teams were just trying to finish the game and Detroit just happened to score again as Chicago's defense was just going though the motions in a game that they considered to be basically over. A 38 to 14 game is considered a rout by some people.

Could mean something. Maybe not.