AFL Receivers

[TanksAndSpartans]

Reminds me of '47 where you have 5 AAFC rushers with 700+ yards and a ypc over 6.0. Good players, one HOFer, but I can't help but feel its also telling me the defenses were below NFL level.

[Brian wolf]

Good call T&S ... bad defenses, lack of talent didnt keep Lavelli, Motley and Speedie from making the HOF ... Willis on defense also made the HOF despite being equally in both leagues.

[JohnTurney]

Why is it blasphemous to think so? The truth is the AFL was far inferior to the NFL in the early 1960s. The AFL was a new league and did not have access to the top players and talent that the NFL did.

Ange Coniglio is going to blow a gasket!

[Brian wolf]

Valid points by everybody, but in 1966 with more team talent and defenses playing better, Art Powell still had over 1000 yrds, 11 TDs and nearly 20 yrds per catch in the AFL's toughest division. In 1967, he had 4 TDs off 20 catches before getting hurt ... he has a great HOF case and Hennigan was too much for Willie Brown in Houston, which forced him to try and make it with the Broncos, becoming a great player. Those two receivers would have been superstars in the NFL but injuries shortened their AFL years.

Besides, the NFL absorbed the entire league, not just three teams from the AAFC, so the numbers and early mediocrity come with it ...

[rewing84]

My Question is what timeframe of afl receiving stats do you take with a grain a salt?

I was going to say something pithy like "whenever Dainard Paulson stopped making the pro bowl", but upon further inspection that isn't accurate. I would say anything between 1960-1964 is suspect. If you look at 1964, you still had some ridiculous numbers being put up. Henningan had over 100 catches, Dubenion had over 1000 yards on just 42 catches, 5 of the top receivers had over 20 YPC (including Fred Arbanas). When you turn the page to 1965, the only guy with crazy numbers is Lance Alworth. It seems like the DB quality of in 1965 also got better...you had guys like Butch Byrd and Willie Brown at CB, and then in later years you are adding Kent McGloughan, Johnny Sample, Kenny Graham, Miller Farr, etc. Of course in some ways this was just gradual, but if you are looking for a clear delineation, I would say 60-64 was 'sus' and 65-69 can be taken at face value.

Ok i can see that fully now thanks for the clarification bryan

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

I agree somewhat with early AFL receiving stats, but at the same time, there were still only 21 pro teams. A lot of good players out there - the AFL signed some really good talent in those first few years, and you might also make the case that somewhat thinned out the NFL a bit as well. I don't think there is hardly any question that the NFL was better than the AFL for the first few years. But these were all pro players. Some called them "castoffs," but in a lot of cases, there wasn't any room for them or, like in Len Dawson's case, some coaches may have made poor decisions or not recognized potential. As stated before, there wasn't any room for Art Powell on the Eagles with Retzlaff and McDonald already there. A lot of these guys probably would have done well in the NFL if there were more available opportunities. They found them in the AFL.

And then, if you're going to discount AFL stats, by how much are you going to do that? Maybe Taylor has 80 catches instead of 92 in 1960? 70? Would Hennigan had maybe 95 instead of 100? 85? It's not like these guys would have only had 50 catches in the NFL if they were thrown to that much.

Then you start to think about, okay, well, the (at least somewhat) famous story of Raymond Berry's day with Don Shula covering him. I'm not picking on Shula, I'm just using an example many of us would know. Are we going to have to discount stats against subpar DB's/pass defenses in the NFL? Jerry Rice racked up quite a bit of yardage and touchdowns against some lackluster pass defense. It doesn't diminish what he did.

I'm not debating anybody here but just pointing out that while the AFL wasn't an established league like the NFL the first few years, I think there's a danger in worrying too much about excellent AFL stats and putting an asterisk next to them. This is just my opinion, and maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see average to second-division NFL teams having a considerably much better of a pass defense than AFL teams that it would ridiculously skew stats. Somewhat, yes perhaps, but I'm not convinced it would be a monumental difference.

Again, not trying to argue with or debate anybody, but simply raising the question of how much do we really want to discount early AFL stats?

[Bryan]

And then, if you're going to discount AFL stats, by how much are you going to do that? Maybe Taylor has 80 catches instead of 92 in 1960? 70? Would Hennigan had maybe 95 instead of 100? 85? It's not like these guys would have only had 50 catches in the NFL if they were thrown to that much.

There is no right or wrong answer, as it is all conjecture. I guess I never really thought about it terms of actual numbers, except when someone like Ange hypes up Abner Haynes or Charley Hennigan for the HOF and the numbers simply aren’t there regardless of competition level. I loved the USFL back in the day, and I think the USFL was better than the AFL in years 1-3 of its existence. That said, how much stock can you put in a league where Cliff Stoudt can go from being the worst starting QB in the NFL to immediately one of the best in the USFL? The USFL was dominated by RBs. The top 5 RBs in the USFL in 1985 were Herschel Walker, Bill Johnson, Gary Anderson, Kelvin Bryant (arguably best USFL player ever) and Mike Rozier. Lets look at their combined 1985 USFL stats versus their combined 1986 NFL stats:

USFL = 1484 carries, 7447 yards, 5.0 YPC, 76 TDs
NFL = 585 carries, 2325 yards, 3.9 YPC, 20 TDs

The drop off is startling. The production is less than 1/3 of the USFL rate. My (roundabout) point is that while we can guess that Lionel Taylor would have had 80 catches in the NFL instead of 92 in the AFL, you can equally guess that Taylor would have had 30 catches in the NFL instead of 92.

Then you start to think about, okay, well, the (at least somewhat) famous story of Raymond Berry's day with Don Shula covering him. I'm not picking on Shula, I'm just using an example many of us would know. Are we going to have to discount stats against subpar DB's/pass defenses in the NFL? Jerry Rice racked up quite a bit of yardage and touchdowns against some lackluster pass defense. It doesn't diminish what he did.

Guys like Berry and Rice produced consistently over the course of a long career. They didn’t just bum slay. I think that is a very tough slippery-slope to prove, but I get your point. I had a similar conversation with Bob Carroll about 30 years ago over Anthony Allen holding the Redskins single-game receiving record. Allen IIRC was with the Denver Gold in the USFL, became a backup with the Falcons, then was a scab in the 1987 season and had 255 yards receiving in a replacement game. I thought that was a bit misleading and should have been ‘asterisked’, but Bob said “it was an NFL game played by NFL players so it all counts the same”. Not really sure about that, even now.

[Bob Gill]

I guess I never really thought about it terms of actual numbers, except when someone like Ange hypes up Abner Haynes or Charley Hennigan for the HOF and the numbers simply aren’t there regardless of competition level. I loved the USFL back in the day, and I think the USFL was better than the AFL in years 1-3 of its existence. That said, how much stock can you put in a league where Cliff Stoudt can go from being the worst starting QB in the NFL to immediately one of the best in the USFL?

I'll second the comment about the USFL being better than the 1960-62 AFL. The AFL's advantage -- and it's a big one -- is that it managed to survive long enough to grow into a league that was on reasonably equal footing with the NFL, which the USFL failed to do.

Also, Cliff Stoudt's transformation in the new league finds a pretty good analogy in the stories of Frank Tripucka, Al Dorow and George Blanda.

[JohnTurney]

The drop off is startling. The production is less than 1/3 of the USFL rate. My (roundabout) point is that while we can guess that Lionel Taylor would have had 80 catches in the NFL instead of 92 in the AFL, you can equally guess that Taylor would have had 30 catches in the NFL instead of 92.

The stats are one thing and as you point out who knows what the proper way to adjust might be and several was could be justified but the AFL and also AAFC
for that matter pose a "All" problem in that honors were duplicated and not often separated.

The NFL and AFL had separate all-star games... approximately twice as many "Pro Bowlers" in the 60s as opposed to 50s and 70s and beyond.

Same with "All-Pro" - You have All-AAFC and All-NFL, All-AFL and All-NFL and at the end of each of the new leagues you had "All-Pro" choosing from
both leagues . . .

Bottom line a lot more "alls" to go around in the 1960s and late 1940s yet they are usually treated the same but some folks in media or fans. In my mind, just like with
AAFC, AFL, USFL, WFL there is a mental adjustment to the numbers . . . but also in terms of the honors I do a bit of an adjustment there, too.

As with stats, no real "right" answer but just something I keep in my mind...

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

Yeah, that's the thing - there really isn't any right or wrong answer to any of this. I'm not old enough to remember the AFL. I remember the USFL and remember thinking it was nowhere near the NFL in terms of quality. But Herschel Walker, Anthony Carter, Mike Rozier, Jim Kelly, Reggie White - obviously good players, two are legendary. My guess is the upper crust of the AFL would have done quite well in the NFL also, but it's also just as likely that several of them wouldn't have, but I tend to give most early AFL players the benefit of the doubt with their stats and think of them as good players. Although, hearing that the USFL was likely better than the early AFL concerns me because I remember the USFL being very disappointing to watch. Some of the individual players were really good, but overall play -- I remember it being much slower than NFL play.