Yup, just phrasing. A nickname, if you will. Not meant as derogatory. The AP was selecting combined All-Pro teams, obviously. So that suggests something of an equal view.Saban wrote:I have heard the American League in baseball referred to as the junior circuit. All it means is that the other league (National League,NFL) started earlier.
Continuation of Discussion Under Cam Newton
Re: Continuation of Discussion Under Cam Newton
Re: Continuation of Discussion Under Cam Newton
Yup, and it doesn't makes sense, right? Presnell didn't all of a sudden become "NFL quality" or a good/great football player in '31. Even worse because he was playing in games against NFL teams and still, 'never happened'.TanksAndSpartans wrote:Some of my favorite players (Presnell, Latone) put in seasons with non-NFL pro football teams, and a lot of my favorite players were at their best pre-NFL, but I pretty much accept no one is going to count those seasons
People don't take the time -or even if told don't acknowledge- to see how things were in the era these things happened in.
The "NFL" isn't a straight line of it started, 100% of the best football players joined 100% of the best football teams in 1920 and it's been that way for 100 years. Shoot, outside of places like this a lot of people only acknowledge there was a NFL and a AFL and they merged and nothing prior to Super Bowl I counts and it was all minor league before that.
It's really bad for pre-1920, other than Thorpe nothing counts and no good players or teams because there was no "NFL" ...
-
JameisLoseston
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:39 am
Re: Continuation of Discussion Under Cam Newton
I think the lack of stats is the biggest problem. Sure, there's a perceived difference in quality between NFL and other teams of the time, but dig up someone who ran for 1500 yards in the Ohio or Grange League and I'm sure people would be duly impressed.
Re: Continuation of Discussion Under Cam Newton
Reaser wrote:Yup, just phrasing. A nickname, if you will. Not meant as derogatory. The AP was selecting combined All-Pro teams, obviously. So that suggests something of an equal view.
Right. At least one organization picked a combined NFL/AAFC all-pro team in each of the four years. I believe the first combined NFL/AFL team wasn't picked until about 1968, which provides some evidence about how the rival leagues were regarded in their own eras.
I just came across this discussion, and I have to say it's been pretty interesting.
Re: Continuation of Discussion Under Cam Newton
JameisLoseston wrote:I think the lack of stats is the biggest problem. Sure, there's a perceived difference in quality between NFL and other teams of the time, but dig up someone who ran for 1500 yards in the Ohio or Grange League and I'm sure people would be duly impressed.
That's probably true, but the thing is, NOBODY was piling up numbers remotely like that in those days. And even if we had complete stats for guys who were really outstanding -- Benny Friedman, for instance -- they wouldn't impress most football people today. Sure, Friedman probably led the league in everything four years in a row, but if you put those numbers up on TV virtually everybody who saw them would think, "What's the big deal? Kirk Cousins is twice as good as this guy."
-
JameisLoseston
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:39 am
Re: Continuation of Discussion Under Cam Newton
If you put up the top 3 league leaders in each of Friedman's big years, however, things get pretty legit real quick with him doubling up on second place. I think it's very hard to know where place him among the greatest QBs ever because he was the ONLY great one of his era, but he definitely belongs in there, he was the undisputed GOAT at his retirement. Tim Mara bought a whole team to get him. Do we think passing in the late 20s was legitimately that much harder than passing in the early 40s, or did all the late 20s QBs besides Friedman just barely know how to pass?Bob Gill wrote:JameisLoseston wrote:I think the lack of stats is the biggest problem. Sure, there's a perceived difference in quality between NFL and other teams of the time, but dig up someone who ran for 1500 yards in the Ohio or Grange League and I'm sure people would be duly impressed.
That's probably true, but the thing is, NOBODY was piling up numbers remotely like that in those days. And even if we had complete stats for guys who were really outstanding -- Benny Friedman, for instance -- they wouldn't impress most football people today. Sure, Friedman probably led the league in everything four years in a row, but if you put those numbers up on TV virtually everybody who saw them would think, "What's the big deal? Kirk Cousins is twice as good as this guy."
Re: Continuation of Discussion Under Cam Newton
One of the reasons that I believe that the All-America Conference (AAFC) was about even with the NFL or maybe even a little better during those days was because I think that the AAFC had the majority of the best players. The reason the AAFC was more talented is because they were signing the best players coming out of college as Andy Piascik said and also signed many good players who were returning from the war.
While the NFL had owners who made their living from their teams like George Halas, the AAFC had owners that were known at the time as "the Millionaires Coffee Klatch." Every original team except for the 1946 Miami Seahawks had millionaire owners from other businesses, like the 49ers owner, for instance, that owned a very lucrative lumber company.
Most people that don't study or read much about pro football at that time probably think of the AAFC as a league like other football leagues that competed against the NFL. Not true. The AAFC did not start out with a draft like say, the 1960 AFL. The teams just went out and signed the best players that they could that were not under contract to another football team and were not restricted by any draft. The Browns, Yankees, and 49ers did it better than the rest of the teams, but I believe that this is one of the reasons that the AAFC in 1946 was a stronger league for their time in terms of talent than the AFL was in 1960.
The AAFC had three of the best coaches in pro football in Paul Brown, Ray Flaherty, who coached the Redskins to 2 NFL titles, and Lawrence "Buck" Shaw. This also helped make the Browns, Yankees, and 49ers the best teams in the All-America Conference.
Of course, there were some weak sisters in the AAFC, as there was in the NFL. Detroit was terrible during most of the 40's. Green Bay was so bad in the late 40's that their legendary coach Curly Lambeau resigned and the Boston Yanks/New York Bulldogs actually kept cutting players in 1949 to save money and by the end of the year had only 17 players suiting up for games. They also ended up selling Bobby Layne and the rights to Doak Walker to the Detroit Lions which helped turn the Lions into the powerhouse that they became.
The AAFC Los Angeles Dons could be tough at times and the Buffalo Bisons/Bills were also tough by 1949.
I don't expect anyone to change their opinions about these things as a result of this post, but I think that some of these things have not yet been mentioned in this thread.
While the NFL had owners who made their living from their teams like George Halas, the AAFC had owners that were known at the time as "the Millionaires Coffee Klatch." Every original team except for the 1946 Miami Seahawks had millionaire owners from other businesses, like the 49ers owner, for instance, that owned a very lucrative lumber company.
Most people that don't study or read much about pro football at that time probably think of the AAFC as a league like other football leagues that competed against the NFL. Not true. The AAFC did not start out with a draft like say, the 1960 AFL. The teams just went out and signed the best players that they could that were not under contract to another football team and were not restricted by any draft. The Browns, Yankees, and 49ers did it better than the rest of the teams, but I believe that this is one of the reasons that the AAFC in 1946 was a stronger league for their time in terms of talent than the AFL was in 1960.
The AAFC had three of the best coaches in pro football in Paul Brown, Ray Flaherty, who coached the Redskins to 2 NFL titles, and Lawrence "Buck" Shaw. This also helped make the Browns, Yankees, and 49ers the best teams in the All-America Conference.
Of course, there were some weak sisters in the AAFC, as there was in the NFL. Detroit was terrible during most of the 40's. Green Bay was so bad in the late 40's that their legendary coach Curly Lambeau resigned and the Boston Yanks/New York Bulldogs actually kept cutting players in 1949 to save money and by the end of the year had only 17 players suiting up for games. They also ended up selling Bobby Layne and the rights to Doak Walker to the Detroit Lions which helped turn the Lions into the powerhouse that they became.
The AAFC Los Angeles Dons could be tough at times and the Buffalo Bisons/Bills were also tough by 1949.
I don't expect anyone to change their opinions about these things as a result of this post, but I think that some of these things have not yet been mentioned in this thread.
Re: Continuation of Discussion Under Cam Newton
Along the lines of signing players, and not that the PFHOF is the be all and end all -since the PFHOF isn't that great at selecting HOF'rs- but since it's "official" and thus objective. Also, something I don't think has been mentioned. HOF players who's career's began during the years both leagues existed (1946-1949). That's 20 HOF players who's pro careers began in one of those four seasons.
11 of them began their careers in the AAFC, with 6 different AAFC teams having at least one player who's HOF career started with them.
9 of them began their careers in the NFL, with only 4 different NFL teams having at least one player who's HOF career started with them.
Keeping in mind the NFL had 10 teams every season and the AAFC had 8, then 7 in '49.
Also interesting that in 1946 there was 20 active players who were eventual PFHOF'rs and 9 of them were in the AAFC. In the FIRST season of the AAFC they had 45% of the eventual HOF players, which they had 44% of the major pro American football teams in their league -- the NFL had 55% of the HOF players and 56% of the pro teams between the two leagues. Keeping in mind the NFL had already existed for 26 seasons and had all 11 of their active would-be HOF players in their league before the AAFC ever played it's first game.
Even for the two 1946 Championships. The two teams that played in the AAFC Championship had a combined 8 eventual PFHOF players on their rosters. The two teams that played in the NFL Championship had a combined 5 eventual PFHOF players. For the two NY teams that lost, the Yankees had two HOF'rs, the Giants had one. Obviously the Browns didn't have to play against any good players in their championship games while the NFL champions were evidently facing murderers' row.
11 of them began their careers in the AAFC, with 6 different AAFC teams having at least one player who's HOF career started with them.
9 of them began their careers in the NFL, with only 4 different NFL teams having at least one player who's HOF career started with them.
Keeping in mind the NFL had 10 teams every season and the AAFC had 8, then 7 in '49.
Also interesting that in 1946 there was 20 active players who were eventual PFHOF'rs and 9 of them were in the AAFC. In the FIRST season of the AAFC they had 45% of the eventual HOF players, which they had 44% of the major pro American football teams in their league -- the NFL had 55% of the HOF players and 56% of the pro teams between the two leagues. Keeping in mind the NFL had already existed for 26 seasons and had all 11 of their active would-be HOF players in their league before the AAFC ever played it's first game.
Even for the two 1946 Championships. The two teams that played in the AAFC Championship had a combined 8 eventual PFHOF players on their rosters. The two teams that played in the NFL Championship had a combined 5 eventual PFHOF players. For the two NY teams that lost, the Yankees had two HOF'rs, the Giants had one. Obviously the Browns didn't have to play against any good players in their championship games while the NFL champions were evidently facing murderers' row.
Re: Continuation of Discussion Under Cam Newton
I've watched footage of young/dominant Wilt Chamberlain. You look at his stats and wonder "how could this even happen?". Then you watch the film. Chamberlain's physical superiority stands out...he is taller and more athletic than anyone else. But the game itself is so different than what we've grown accustomed to. Everyone stood in their positions...guards were back, forwards were on the wings, and the centers were the only players in the paint. Chamberlain could repeatedly get the ball close to the basket with a 1-on-1 matchup against 6-9 Red Kerr and pretty much score at will. Nobody double-teamed. There would be a missed shot, and Chamberlain would outreach the opposing center for the rebound because nobody crashed the boards. The game of basketball was incredibly stagnant, which 'allowed' Chamberlain to post 50ppg/25rpg. I'm not saying it makes Chamberlain's accomplishments less remarkable, in fact, from a certain point of view it makes them more remarkable...I'm just saying there is always some type of rational explanation.JameisLoseston wrote:I was expecting to see more era-adjusted Sanders vs. Jackson comparative analysis in that, it being Football Perspective. The graph, though, shows what an insane outlier Sanders was; he not only averaged 75 and 75, he averaged 100 and 100, and over a TD a game in both as well, also the only player to do this. I think our attitude toward Sanders has some hints of "Wilt Chamberlain derangement syndrome" in it: an old player did things that were such an ostentatious affront to our expectations of what a player is capable of that no one anymore can believe he really did it as advertised. Which can basically be translated as, "no one else ever came close, so it can't be true." The fallacy in this is apparent; it doesn't work for Wilt, and it doesn't work for Spec either. If Sanders played 10 years like Graham, and did this in 3 of them, we'd be talking about him as the undisputed GOAT and none of this would ever be suggested. The reason we're debating this at all is because his career-ending injury made it look like a fluke. Not something he had control over, I'm sorry. All you have to do is believe.
.
With Sanders' 1947 season, this stood out from the article cited: "Against Baltimore, Sanders rushed 14 times for 140 yards, had 97 kickoff return yards on two kickoffs, completed 6 of 13 passes for 62 yards, and scored three touchdowns. Against Chicago, Sanders rushed 24 times for 250 yards in three quarters". Baltimore was an atrocious team. Chicago was somehow even worse than Baltimore. In the game referenced where Sanders had 250 rushing yards, the Yankees outrushed Chicago by a total of 415 yards (395 vs. negative 20). Sanders played 6 games against Baltimore, Chicago and the almost equally inept Brooklyn Dodgers...is it possible that a high number of games against terrible defenses 'allowed' Sanders to get 1442 rushing yards? Just a thought. I remember when Larry Johnson of Penn State came out of nowhere and won the Heisman because he had great numbers...2000+ yards, 20 TDs. But when you looked at it closer, all of his yards came in four games...257 against bad Northwestern, 279 against bad Illinois, 327 against terrible Indiana, 279 against bad Michigan State.
-
TanksAndSpartans
- Posts: 1166
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:05 am
Re: Continuation of Discussion Under Cam Newton
@Reaser I’m glad we could end the discussion reaching some common ground about the discounting of non-NFL games. I can’t say I’ve changed my mind 100% although I do feel you guys blew up the thing I read about 10 years ago about the dispersal draft being proof the AAFC had weaker players (wish I could find that - I only recall the conclusion). I’ve always been a Graham proponent when QB discussions (Brady is usually the topic) come up anyway. I don’t think its that hard to convince reasonable people the leagues were close. Now I can add in that some experts feel the AAFC was at least equal and may have even been better which I have no problem saying especially after this discussion.
@Bryan you bring up the exact point I wanted to ask @BobGill who has now joined in.
Here’s a hypothetical. Take the 1917 Detroit Heralds v. Buffalo game. I think Sacksteder had 4 TDs. We don’t know the stats although you may have them, but let's assume no one knows. What if he rushed for say 280 yards and had another 200 in return yards and throw in a couple completions and a couple receptions? We’d throw the game out as a "weak opponent", right? But we don’t throw out Sanders’ games against or I really want to stop picking on Spec, so I will use Hugh McElhenny against the ’52 Texans instead - I have footage of him running all over that 1-11 team. Its probably a moot point because the mismatch games are usually the ones we have the least detail on anyway, but I wanted to get your view.
@Bryan you bring up the exact point I wanted to ask @BobGill who has now joined in.
Here’s a hypothetical. Take the 1917 Detroit Heralds v. Buffalo game. I think Sacksteder had 4 TDs. We don’t know the stats although you may have them, but let's assume no one knows. What if he rushed for say 280 yards and had another 200 in return yards and throw in a couple completions and a couple receptions? We’d throw the game out as a "weak opponent", right? But we don’t throw out Sanders’ games against or I really want to stop picking on Spec, so I will use Hugh McElhenny against the ’52 Texans instead - I have footage of him running all over that 1-11 team. Its probably a moot point because the mismatch games are usually the ones we have the least detail on anyway, but I wanted to get your view.