I started this thread and did not expect (1) this many posts and (2) so much discussion about Otto Graham:)

If it was so easy today why aren't more QBs winning 4 championships, and making it there as frequently as Brady.

 

It's taken Brady 15 years to do so or something like that? There are also 3 QB's that have won 4, and 2 of them won it in a much shorter time than Brady.

 

Only 1 QB ever took his team to 10 consecutive championship games. That tells me it was much tougher to do what Otto did than what Brady and others have done.

Serious question...what does everyone think? Most of Graham's playoff "runs" consisted of one game. A couple of years, it was two. Is it more impressive to go to 10 straight championship games when you only have two playoff teams (meaning you have to win your conference or division just to qualify) or is it more impressive to have to win 3 or 4 playoff games...meaning it is easier to get into the playoffs but much harder once you get there.

Serious question...what does everyone think? Most of Graham's playoff "runs" consisted of one game. A couple of years, it was two. Is it more impressive to go to 10 straight championship games when you only have two playoff teams (meaning you have to win your conference or division just to qualify) or is it more impressive to have to win 3 or 4 playoff games...meaning it is easier to get into the playoffs but much harder once you get there.

 

I think they are actually both tough. Today or back then. Either way 10 straight is impressive. Some can say it was easier then because less teams, but if that was the case then why didn't anyone else come close? I look at it as fewer teams make it in the playoffs which makes it tougher to get in.

 

Back in the 50's etc. your team had to win something to get into the playoffs. You had to be either the best in your conference or the best in your division to get in. Today you don't have to win anything to get in the playoffs and when I say you don't need to win anything, I mean you don't have to even win your division to get in. Today you can have a losing record and still make the playoffs. With that said, not one team has come close to 10 straight Championship games. The closest I can think of is Buffalo Bills making 4 straight Super Bowls. Think about how great of a feat people think that was, now add 6 more years to that and 7 wins. Buffalo made it to 4 straight and never won a single Super bowl.

The Steeler and 49ers super bowl runs , while fantastic in their own right, were accomplished before the free agency era. The first thing that players want after winning a SB, is to get paid. Lynch and Wilson are both up for contract extensions and the money those players command will have significant effects on the quality of the rest of the roster. In the age of the previous SB runs, those rosters were relatively stable.

I'll take Graham. All he ever did was win... in every season he played. He willed his teams to victory.

What competition was he willing his team against? Did he play against the best in the country? How integrated was the league back then?

Serious question...what does everyone think? Most of Graham's playoff "runs" consisted of one game. A couple of years, it was two. Is it more impressive to go to 10 straight championship games when you only have two playoff teams (meaning you have to win your conference or division just to qualify) or is it more impressive to have to win 3 or 4 playoff games...meaning it is easier to get into the playoffs but much harder once you get there.

 

That is a good question and I'm chewing on how to answer that. Do you have an opinion?

Beyoncé is the greatest QB of all time. Of all time.

Edited February 3, 201511 yr by lawildcat

What competition was he willing his team against? Did he play against the best in the country? How integrated was the league back then?

 

Yes he was playing against the best in the country. He won the AAFC and then when the merger to the NFL occurred he also beat the NFL's best the first year in the NFL and then again for the next 4 years after the merger.

I started this thread and did not expect (1) this many posts and (2) so much discussion about Otto Graham:)

 

Well... my memory of the NFL extends beyond my lifetime. I listened to my Dad talk about Otto Graham, Marion Motley, Len Ford, Bill Willis, Dub Joens, Dante Lavelli, Lou Groza, Jim Brown, etc.

 

Peter King of SI wrote a book called Greatest Quarterbacks and he puts Otto Graham at the top. You can check out his reasons. There is also another book that did a pretty thorough analysis of the quarterback position and considered a lot of different ways to look at it and it too picked Otto Graham as the best ever. This book is called Quarterback Abstract by John Maxymuk. So you see the choice of Otto Graham isn't exactly just a biased pick by old Browns fans ; )

 

Here's a link to an interesting article on the original Browns talking about Paul Brown's innovations and includes some good stuff on Graham. A History of NFL in 95 Objects: Cleveland Browns? Forgotten Dynasty | The MMQB with Peter King

 

Here's a link to another article discussing the greatest QB ever and Graham again comes up. Who's the Greatest Quarterback Ever?

 

Again, this question is an opinion question. The challenge is to have cogent reasons that support one's opinion. I just want to encourage people to consider players that are beyond recent memory. I, for one, prefer the style of play they had back in those days.

Yes he was playing against the best in the country. He won the AAFC and then when the merger to the NFL occurred he also beat the NFL's best the first year in the NFL and then again for the next 4 years after the merger.

 

Once they merged, the guy threw more INTs than TDs in his 6 seasons in the NFL. That would suggest they won in spite of poor QB play.

What competition was he willing his team against? Did he play against the best in the country? How integrated was the league back then?

 

Those are good questions. It was the best in the country. The league was just becoming integrated at that time. Paul Brown innovated in that area as well and because he was hiring African-American athletes others had to do so as well. Every team had access to the same athletes so Graham had no advantage or disadvantage there.

 

I would say the AAFC was not as strong as the NFL in the early years of the AAFC, I suppose in the same way the AFL was not as strong as the NFL at first. But the best team in the AAFC could beat the best team in the NFL from day one and the NFL knew it. Brown agitated for a "Super Bowl" game between the two leagues but the NFL ignored him. Brown's reputation as a coach was well known by all because of his days at Ohio State and prior to that at Massilon (Ohio) High School. He was the most innovative coach of his era and perhaps any era. Some previous posts were talking about watching film and reading defenses, etc. Brown invented that when Graham was his qb.

 

Browns fans are not blowing smoke when they talk about the greatness of the Browns franchise and its players. It was the most successful start for a sports franchise in the history of any sport. It really was the NY Yankees of football in its first ten years or so. It was a long time ago and so people forget. But there are some who appreciate the history of the game, like Peter King, and recognize the achievements that have gone before. People always think that things contemporary to them are the best. I think it is a mistake to forget history, whether in athletics or any other realm.

Yes he was playing against the best in the country. He won the AAFC and then when the merger to the NFL occurred he also beat the NFL's best the first year in the NFL and then again for the next 4 years after the merger.

 

So what percentage of the league was black in the 40's and 50's?

Once they merged, the guy threw more INTs than TDs in his 6 seasons in the NFL. That would suggest they won in spite of poor QB play.

 

total ignorance of the team and the importance of Graham at the helm. He played ten years and was the leading passer for seven years (both AAFC and NFL). Graham was the engine that ran the Browns. He was named to the all-NFL team each season he played except for the first year (1950) when it was a snub on the former AAFC players. That doesn't happen to a qb whose team wins despite his play. He also was a superb runner and scored many more TDs that way so his total TDs were more than his interceptions in any season. Go back and read about the Browns in the 50's and you will see what Paul Brown thought of Otto Graham. The quickest way to access this information is to just read stuff on the championship games in 1950, 1954, 1955. Then you can search for a more complete picture in other sources.

So what percentage of the league was black in the 40's and 50's?

 

That I don't know. Would this have hurt or helped Graham? He would have been helped to have more athletes to throw to and he would have been hurt by having more athletes oppose him on defense. Whatever percentage, whether it falls or rises, the result would be a wash. He played with and against the available talent.