882 yards on 405 career attempts is a superb runner? Really?

 

1950: 20 Total TDs, 20 INTs

1951: 20 Total TDs, 16 INTs

1952: 24 Total TDs, 24 INTs

1954: 19 Total TDs, 17 INTs

 

Those are incredibly average numbers.

 

Maybe the fact that he was the best of his time tells us how poor QB play was back then?

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

 

That's because to most people he doesn't belong in the conversation.

If you are trying to compare guys based upon numbers anyone in a newer generation will win that argument every time. Apples and oranges. You would take Mark Sanchez over Otto Graham if that were the case. Of the major sports, football numbers are the least comparable across generations. It was explained best when Andy Dalton and Dan Marino have similar numbers. The sport nowhere resembles what it does today.

If you are trying to compare guys based upon numbers anyone in a newer generation will win that argument every time. Apples and oranges. You would take Mark Sanchez over Otto Graham if that were the case. Of the major sports, football numbers are the least comparable across generations. It was explained best when Andy Dalton and Dan Marino have similar numbers. The sport nowhere resembles what it does today.

 

Right, which is kinda my point. QB play back then was almost an after-thought. The game was completely different, and that's why no QB from that era can be in the conversation as best ever IMO.

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.

 

 

It's a good point.

 

However there was significant turnover in the San Francisco run.

 

The '81 champs were led by: Solomon, Clark, Ring, Cooper

 

The '84 Champs were led by: Clark, Wendall Tyler, Roger Craig, Nehemiah

 

The '88 Champs were led by: Rice, Heller, Taylor, Craig and Rathman

 

Montana and Ronnie Lott were more the common denominator of all four teams. But I agree that Free Agency has made it a tougher road to go down.

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

 

Good question but I do believe that the Browns Had Marion Motley at FB who was later succeeded by some guy named Jim Brown. :thumb:

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.

My comments are for two reason. It was stated he played against the best. That doesn't appear to be true.

 

To your point on having better athletes to throw to, Tom Brady doesn't have the best athletes to throw too, not even close.

 

To say he played with and against the available talent is like arguing a D3 QB is the best college because he wins 4 straight D3 titles.

This thread needs a poll.

Think about this. One is every 20 throws Otto made was an INT. He averaged over 1 per game. One in every 50 throws Tom Brady makes is an INT. He has averaged less than .7 per game. Brady has 4542 more pass attempts then Graham, yet he only has 8 more INT's. Someone mentioned rating earlier in support of Graham, Brady's career rating is 10 pts higher. He completion percentage is almost 10pts higher.

 

Yes, Graham was a winner in his time. But when you look at his stats at QB he would be an average QB in today's game at best. In 1945 Tim Tebow would have been a stud.

Think about this. One is every 20 throws Otto made was an INT. He averaged over 1 per game. One in every 50 throws Tom Brady makes is an INT. He has averaged less than .7 per game. Brady has 4542 more pass attempts then Graham, yet he only has 8 more INT's. Someone mentioned rating earlier in support of Graham, Brady's career rating is 10 pts higher. He completion percentage is almost 10pts higher.

 

Yes, Graham was a winner in his time. But when you look at his stats at QB he would be an average QB in today's game at best. In 1945 Tim Tebow would have been a stud.

This is not baseball. The rules and game play are way different. I make nothing of the numbers.

This is not baseball. The rules and game play are way different. I make nothing of the numbers.

 

If stats are meaningless in your eyes, how do you judge a player's success?

If stats are meaningless in your eyes, how do you judge a player's success?

 

I don't think they are meaningless, they just don't compare in football across decades. More than any other sport you have to judge numbers against an era in football. In baseball the game has changed so little, the numbers you can compare more accurately, even though that sport too has changed. Outside of the titles, Brady's numbers may look paltry in 40-50 years. Then you will be the old guy in the back of the room saying how great Brady was.

I don't think they are meaningless, they just don't compare in football across decades. More than any other sport you have to judge numbers against an era in football. In baseball the game has changed so little, the numbers you can compare more accurately, even though that sport too has changed. Outside of the titles, Brady's numbers may look paltry in 40-50 years. Then you will be the old guy in the back of the room saying how great Brady was.

 

:lol2: I'll be happy if a) I'm alive, and b) I can still remember what football is 40-50 years from now.

 

And I'm fully aware that stats don't compare across ages. So how would you compare players from different eras, if you don't use stats?

No.

:lol2: I'll be happy if a) I'm alive, and b) I can still remember what football is 40-50 years from now.

 

And I'm fully aware that stats don't compare across ages. So how would you compare players from different eras, if you don't use stats?

 

It's a near impossible task. I think you can use stats, but judge the stats against his contemporaries. The golden age of 80s and 90s QBs (Montana, Elway, Marino, etc.) would have comparable numbers to Andy Dalton and Joe Flacco today.