Awkward conversations with non-historians

[Saban1]

I remember one time in the mid-1990's reading an issue of the magazine FOOTBALL DIGEST. Now this was a magazine that was written at about the third grade reading level. I don't know if it marketed itself to juveniles or what.
Anyway, there was an article in this issue that was about the greatest running backs, or greatest players, or most valuable football cards, or something like that. One of the players under discussion in this article was Jim Brown. I do remember clearly the writer of the article opined that Brown could never be considered a truly great running back because he never won a Super Bowl ring.
Hopefully I don't have to explain the idiocy of that statement to others on this forum.

A similar type of book that I read stated that the Cleveland Browns were like the little girl with the curl. When they were good, they were very good, but when they were bad, they were horrid. An example of this that they used was Cleveland losing the 1954 NFL Championship game to Detroit, 56 to 10.

Of course, this was factual except for one thing: Cleveland beat Detroit in that game, 56 to 10, instead of the other way around.

The author may have had a point, if he was talking about the Cleveland Browns during the middle or late 1960"s. Then, after winning the 1964 championship game against Baltimore and Johnny Unitas, 27 to 0 (that was one of the times that they were very good), Cleveland lost to the Cardinals, 49 to 13 in 1965, 55 to 7 to Green Bay in 1967, 52 to 14 in a 1967 playoff game with Dallas, 34 to 0 in the 1968 NFL Championship game, 51 to 3 in a game against the Minnesota Vikings in 1969 (that's when they were horrid).

During the 1960's, the Browns were 2nd only to Green Bay in games won and conference championships in the NFL, but they did have their off days.

[Jay Z]

Part of the reason I decided to focus my amateur "career" on pro football research instead of baseball is that the state of pro football history was so weak.

When I started researching football, there was no easily available reference to look up Gale Sayers' year by year statistics. When I started researching football, no reference book listed the starters for the 1965 Chicago Bears.

Football history is less accessible than baseball for many reasons, partially because the sport is less receptive to a statistical approach. A fan who "never played the game" can nevertheless do a lot, not everything, by interpreting statistics correctly. To evaluate a football player historically, I'd recommend film study if possible, and extensive research to get to the same comfort level. That can be rewarding, but it's a lot higher bar.

As for the 1960s Blanton Collier Browns, they were a lot like the Dick Nolan 49ers or the Bum Phillips Oilers, in that they were probably lucky to do as well in the playoffs as they did.

[Todd Pence]

And by the way, I got all ten questions right on the quiz without breaking a sweat. Even if they weren't multiple choice I would not have had a problem.

[Saban1]

Part of the reason I decided to focus my amateur "career" on pro football research instead of baseball is that the state of pro football history was so weak.

When I started researching football, there was no easily available reference to look up Gale Sayers' year by year statistics. When I started researching football, no reference book listed the starters for the 1965 Chicago Bears.

Football history is less accessible than baseball for many reasons, partially because the sport is less receptive to a statistical approach. A fan who "never played the game" can nevertheless do a lot, not everything, by interpreting statistics correctly. To evaluate a football player historically, I'd recommend film study if possible, and extensive research to get to the same comfort level. That can be rewarding, but it's a lot higher bar.

As for the 1960s Blanton Collier Browns, they were a lot like the Dick Nolan 49ers or the Bum Phillips Oilers, in that they were probably lucky to do as well in the playoffs as they did.

About the Blanton Collier Browns: I agree that they were lucky to win the 1964 NFL Championship. Their main problem in previous years was the New York Giants, who usually finished above them since 1957. However, in 1964, the Giants collapsed all the way to last place. A great break for Cleveland not having to contend with their old nemesis.

Pittsburgh also fell back in 1964, although they did beat Cleveland once in 1964.

The Cardinals were their only real competition in the east, and as we found out later, had a tendency to self destruct. In 1964, they lost and had a tie with the last place Giants, which greatly helped Cleveland win the Eastern Conference title by half a game. BTW, the Giants record in 1964 was 2 wins, 10 losses, and 2 ties, after winning the Eastern Conference title the previous 3 years.

Cleveland pulled out a tie with the Cardinals early in the season, and the tie also saved their year.

A great win for Cleveland in the 1964 championship game, but they were a little lucky that they played Baltimore instead of Lombardi's Packers, who they never were able to beat.

Cleveland was the type of team in the mid and late 1960's that could really get up for a big game. Trouble is, they would often suffer a letdown the following week, especially after their games against Dallas. This accounted for a couple of their bad losses in 1968 and 1969. In 1967, they just had probably their worst season of the 1960's and generally played badly on the road. A 31 to 14 loss to Detroit early on was after a tough Dallas game in the opener.

I can't explain the 1965 loss to the Cardinals, except that St. Louis always played the Browns tough in Cleveland.

[BD Sullivan]

I can't explain the 1965 loss to the Cardinals, except that St. Louis always played the Browns tough in Cleveland.

Walter Beach got torched by Sonny Randle all day long. Randle ended up with seven catches for 198 yards and three TD's. Ironically, Beach was diagnosed with a bleeding ulcer a few weeks later.

The Browns actually led 10-7 early in the second quarter before the Cardinals ran off four TD's in that quarter to make it 35-10 at the half and 49-13 for the final.

Frank Ryan was one of a number of Browns to get hurt in this game, but I doubt that had any bearing on the whipping they got. Browns QB's were picked off six times, and it could have been seven, since Larry Wilson picked off a pass in the end zone. However, the Cards were flagged for holding.

During pre-game introductions, the Cardinals were introduced as the CHICAGO Cardinals.

[Mark L. Ford]

Part of the reason I decided to focus my amateur "career" on pro football research instead of baseball is that the state of pro football history was so weak.

I don't know about "weak" so much as "relatively incomplete". I think what attracted me to pro football research instead of baseball is that there were (and still are) so many avenues that hadn't been explored and written about. I felt like I could get in on the ground floor when it came to writing about football history, whereas baseball history was more like an elevator near the top of the skyscraper. Don't get me wrong, SABR has a lot more members than PFRA and has made great contributions to the field, but for the same reason (a lot more researchers), it's the same frustration in baseball history that doctoral or masters candidates find when they're choosing a dissertation topic-- what's there to do that hasn't been done? What's left to publish besides minutiae or revisiting an old topic from a different perspective?

[Saban1]

I can't explain the 1965 loss to the Cardinals, except that St. Louis always played the Browns tough in Cleveland.

Walter Beach got torched by Sonny Randle all day long. Randle ended up with seven catches for 198 yards and three TD's. Ironically, Beach was diagnosed with a bleeding ulcer a few weeks later.

The Browns actually led 10-7 early in the second quarter before the Cardinals ran off four TD's in that quarter to make it 35-10 at the half and 49-13 for the final.

Frank Ryan was one of a number of Browns to get hurt in this game, but I doubt that had any bearing on the whipping they got. Browns QB's were picked off six times, and it could have been seven, since Larry Wilson picked off a pass in the end zone. However, the Cards were flagged for holding.

During pre-game introductions, the Cardinals were introduced as the CHICAGO Cardinals.

Now I know why the Cardinals whipped the Browns so bad in 1965. It was because they were introduced as the Chicago Cardinals. This probably made them angry, and they took it out on the Browns.

I actually saw that game on TV at the time, but I don't remember much about it except that the Browns got beat bad.

Cleveland had good offensive personnel at that time with first Jim Brown and then Leroy Kelly as their main running backs and the underrated Ernie Green as the all purpose back who was a great blocker and a good pass receiver and runner. They also had some pretty good receivers with Paul Warfield, Gary Collins, and Milt Morin. Also a great offensive line with Gene Hickerson, John Wooten, Dick Schafrath, John Morrow, etc.

Their defense played well at times, but had their lapses. I thought that Vince Costello, Bill Glass, Paul Wiggin, and Walter Johnson were pretty good.

[Saban1]

Forgot about Jim Houston. Another good one for Cleveland and younger brother of Lin Houston, who played on the original Browns teams. I guess that Erich Barnes should be mentioned here too, although he already is in our HOVG.

Another stroke of luck for the 1964 Browns was in one of the Dallas games. Toward the end of the game, Dallas was winning 16 to 13. Dallas quarterback Don Meredith, for some reason, threw a long desperation type pass which was intercepted by Bernie Parrish. Parrish ran it back about 60 yards, dodging some Dallas players along the way, for the winning TD. Final score, Cleveland 20, Dallas 16.

Cleveland had their luck, both good and bad, during the 1960's. Their 1966 team may have been their best (Gary Collins thinks so). However, they lost to Green Bay, 21 to 20, on a last minute run by Jim Taylor on a 4th and 8 situation and also blew the Cardinals game the following week. The Browns could never seem to recover from that.

Art Modell also contributed, IMO, by agreeing to play Dallas on Thanksgiving, which gave the Browns only three days to prepare for the Cowboys multiple offense. I have always felt that the home team on Thanksgiving has a big advantage, and Dallas beat Cleveland in 1966 on Thanksgiving for their first win over Cleveland since 1962, even though they played each other twice a year in those days.

Would Cleveland have beaten Dallas if they played on a Sunday as usual? Don't Know, but I think the Browns would have had a better chance.

After playing so hard in 1966 and coming up short, the Cleveland Browns had an off year in 1967. I think that they came into that year kind of down. Also, Frank Ryan had some injuries and was not as mobile as usual, making him a sitting duck in 1967. Probably other things as well. They got a lot better in 1968 after Bill Nelson took over at quarterback.

[Gary Najman]

The obvious one is that the first season of Pro Football was 50 years ago (How the NFL is older by ten years than World Cup Soccer?).

But my favorite of all was in 2000, when the Colts and Steelers met in a preseason game at the Azteca Stadium in Mexico City, some local sports "expert" thought that Peyton and Archie Manning were one and the same, and that it was Manning's second preseason game in Mexico (sure, the Saints and Archie played here in 1978 againts the Eagles). The only thing that he didn't ask is why Terry Bradshaw didn't came to play

[JeffreyMiller]

Kathie Lee Gifford was married to a guy who used to play pro football ...