I get the rules have changed. IMO it's hard to even consider a player, regardless of era, when he threw more INTs than TDs once he got to the NFL. I know defenders were allowed a lot more back then. Still doesn't excuse the fact that he was turning it over pretty much at a 1:1 ratio with TDs. Also, it's very telling to me that his numbers dropped significantly when he went from the AAFC to the NFL. I never saw him play, and I'd venture neither did anyone else on here. Hard to go on anything else when you've got nothing else to look at.

 

The number of interceptions is a negative. I'll grant you that. However, there are two things that are truly significant in any era: wins and losses, and championship victories. I'll take the guy who threw more interceptions and still won, over the guy who threw less interceptions but lost more often and was absent from the title game year-after-year.

Gents, I have done my best to speak for Otto Graham and I don't really have any more to say on his behalf. If you don't agree, that's okay with me. At least you had the opportunity to consider someone you may not have thought of otherwise and you provided me with another opportunity to consider Brady, Manning, Marino, Montana, and other modern players. I think those gents do deserve to be in the discussion. I just come out of the discussion on the side of Graham. God bless.

I would say Graham is not included because people's memory is not that long and there is a bias against anything not in our era and the people who make the lists (I assume you are talking about sports writers, football analysts, authors, etc. and not the people on this forum) are trying to be relevant to today's audiences which know next to nothing about Graham and Baugh. But lets get a group of people in the room who are very knowledgeable about league history, like those who vote for the Hall of Fame, and ask them. I am almost certain Graham gets more attention as one of, if not the best, from that group.

 

By and large they are well informed about the NFL history and yet they seldom have him in the top several. My guess is your group would have the same results. Doubt if even one puts him at the top and few would have him top five.

By and large they are well informed about the NFL history and yet they seldom have him in the top several. My guess is your group would have the same results. Doubt if even one puts him at the top and few would have him top five.

 

Forgive me. I just can't help myself. The lack of respect for Graham is intolerable.

 

Peter King is on the selection committee of the Hall of Fame. He wrote the book on Greatest Quarterbacks and he had Graham #1. Tony Grossi is also on the Hall of Fame selection committee and this is what he wrote on the subject:

 

1. Otto Graham, 1946-55, 114-20-4 record as starter, 10 championship game appearances in 10 years, seven league titles.

 

If you discount Graham’s four seasons in the All-America Football Conference – unfortunately, too many historians do – Graham directed the Browns to a record of 57-13-1 in six NFL seasons. The Browns appeared in the league championship game in each of his six NFL seasons and won three of them.

 

Graham won 81 percent of the NFL games he started at quarterback. His career figure rises to 84 percent when 67 games in the AAFC are included. Winning percentage of the others – Brady, 77 percent; Montana, 72 percent; Manning, 68 percent; Unitas, 65 percent; Elway, 64 percent; Marino, 61 percent.

 

Those are the relevant numbers, not completion percentage, yards, TDs-vs.-interceptions and passer rating – all of which Graham suffers in comparison to the modern passers because of changes in the sport. Some football analysts maintain the most relevant statistic for a quarterback other than wins is average yards per pass attempt. Graham’s career mark of 8.62 is an NFL record.

 

So your assumption regarding Graham not being listed as #1 by anyone on the HOF selection committee is wrong and I only checked two people on the list.

 

One way to understand his TD passes to INT ratio is to consider the rule changes and the field conditions which made it harder to complete passes. But another significant factor is that qbs then were not given as many opportunities to throw touchdowns. Especially two, three, and four yard touchdowns. That was running territory for sure. QBs today have the benefit of a pass first game with all the advantages of current rules. Not being able to throw as often down on the goal line negatively effected Graham's TD #s for sure.

 

But as Grossi points out, knowing how to win no matter what the rules and field condition is the most important skill-set a qb can have. That is where the playing field is level for every player in every era. In every game, one quarterback will win and one quarterback will lose. Who wins those match-ups is the MOST important stat out of all the stats, esp. in title games.

 

Whether you count AAFC games or only NFL games, Graham stands head-and-shoulders above all others.

Oldgrappler

It is me and you on this one. I'm glad that someone else is as well informed in the history and the players from the past that we know about Otto's accomplishments. When I first read this thread title the only name that popped into my head was Otto Graham and is why I mentioned him from the start as being the greatest.

 

I think what you will find is the ages for those who think Brady is #1 and the ages for those looking at others are probably quite older.

Same thing comes up when talking about Michael Jordan. I believe the people who are on the Brady bandwagon are probably for the most part between the ages of 16-35 and probably Brady is what they know. They have been following Brady's career since they were in HS or shortly after and the older folks seem to remember the other QB's etc.

 

Your last post about sums it all up. We will just have to be in the minority but I feel confident with our Otto crusade

FYI, I am in my early 50's...so I did not see Graham play. Again, I will not opine on him because of that. He was obviously very good based on the fact he is in the HOF and played in 10 straight Championship games. Bart Starr was just before my time. I did see Staubach, Montana, Elway, Bradshaw, Marino etc...

 

The problem with these discussions is that when you say you think someone is the best, it seems like you are ripping the others. I think Brady is the best I have seen but that does not mean I think Graham is not great. Frankly, I am glad you guys brought him up because I was not considering him at all...and I have learned a lot about him due to this thread.

It's you and me, GreyFox. Sounds like a majority to me

 

Here's something else that may interest you. :deadhorse:

 

It has been stated that Graham's TD to INT ratio disqualifies him from consideration. Why that one stat trumps all the other available information supporting Graham is beyond me. But I noticed that the Quarterback passer rating is a combination of statistics and factors that go into evaluating quarterbacks. It includes INT to TD statistics, as well. My contention is that Graham's INT do not effect his effectiveness as a qb enough to disqualify him. His career passer rating of 86.6 was the highest rating for any qb until Joe Montana retired in 1994. Graham was at the top for 39 years! The number of interceptions he threw was not significant enough to allow anyone to surpass his QB rating for nearly 40 years. Not too shabby for a guy from his era. Of course, more importantly, the interceptions didn't keep him from winning. There are so many things more important to playing quarterback than how well you pass the ball or how well your receivers catch it. More important is understanding the game as it unfolds and doing whatever it takes to win. He had a PhD in that.

 

His 44 rushing TDs are also pretty significant. Instead of passing the ball into the end zone from the 4 yrd line he ran it in. Still scored. His team still won.

 

Well, that dead horse I've been beatin' is just about flat. If all you and I said doesn't convince someone that Graham deserves to be in the discussion then nothing will.

 

Automatic Otto gets my vote.

FYI, I am in my early 50's...so I did not see Graham play. Again, I will not opine on him because of that. He was obviously very good based on the fact he is in the HOF and played in 10 straight Championship games. Bart Starr was just before my time. I did see Staubach, Montana, Elway, Bradshaw, Marino etc...

 

The problem with these discussions is that when you say you think someone is the best, it seems like you are ripping the others. I think Brady is the best I have seen but that does not mean I think Graham is not great. Frankly, I am glad you guys brought him up because I was not considering him at all...and I have learned a lot about him due to this thread.

 

Excellent, ggclfan! No, I never stated that none of the other guys deserve consideration or support. My incessant support of Graham may have made it seem that way. I apologize. But I did in fact, state that Brady, Manning, and others do deserve to be considered as best ever. I reacted when others said Graham doesn't even deserve to be in the discussion, primarily because of the era he played in. I have defended my opinion that he does belong in the discussion and in my opinion, for the many reasons I stated, he was indeed the best ever.

 

So I appreciate the fact you are willing to at least consider him worthy of mentioning in this discussion. Thanks for your post.

Forgive me. I just can't help myself. The lack of respect for Graham is intolerable.

 

Peter King is on the selection committee of the Hall of Fame. He wrote the book on Greatest Quarterbacks and he had Graham #1. Tony Grossi is also on the Hall of Fame selection committee and this is what he wrote on the subject:

 

1. Otto Graham, 1946

 

 

 

 

How is all other stats besides winning percentage not relevant? As mentioned before back then it was a lot easier to keep whole teams together. So if a team was able to put a very talented team together through the draft and what not, they were usually able to stay together for a long time. Meaning its a lot easier to keep success then. Shoot just look at the Dallas Cowboys of the early 90's before a salary cap. They were amazing, then you put a salary cap in place and their team started to get split up and not able to afford all that talent. Back then teams were able to stay together, and not always constant change which makes it easier to win. As for yards per attempt, how many passes per game did he usually throw? I have no idea on this so I was just wondering. With the running game being the main thing back then, I would assume that when teams did pass it made it much easier to hit the big plays because people would be stacking the box. Not to mention if not many passes are thrown, if you do hit a few big ones then your yards per completion will be high.

^ I think Grossi's point is that the one stat that makes all the difference in the world, the one that trumps them all, is winning. Some will try to pick out one stat that Graham has that is below his usual excellence and say he was not a good QB. Addressing those wrong-headed objections, Grossi cuts to the chase and says if you're going to talk stats that reveal how good a guy is compared to all others, then look at winning percentage and title victories. I don't think there is a coach in the league who would argue with that.

 

Now, if you want to look at a scientific study of all the measurables read the book, Quarterback Abstract by John Maxymuk. This indepth analysis takes more measurables than you knew existed and sees who the best is according to the various measurables. In his analysis, the overall best quarterback of all-time is Otto Graham.

 

Now regarding the idea that it was easier to pass in the old days because defenses were designed to stop the run, it actually was harder to pass then for a lot of reasons. Not least is because you had a DB that was hanging on to the receiver at the line of scrimmage, delivered a blow to his head, and speared him with his helmet if he managed to catch the ball. Those little dink and dunk passes weren't as easy to do then as now. Cleveland threw more passes than most teams then and they threw down field. They were considered then to have a wide-open offense. Their first game in the NFL they beat the defending NFL champion Eagles 35-10. The Eagles coach said they belonged in basketball because they passed so much. Graham was ahead of his time thanks to the genius of Paul Brown. Bill Walsh, an assistant with Brown in the late 60's, later adapted what he learned from Paul Brown and came up with the west coast offense.

 

Another thing to think about has to do with the conditions that Graham played in regarding the messy field. Look at any old film and you will see the muddy mess that they played in game in and game out through the fall. Graham also played in Cleveland Municipal stadium beside lake Erie that is one of the most difficult places to pass a ball, or kick a ball. And the footballs they used then were a bit more bulbous than those used now also making it more difficult to pass. Throwing inside a dome is pretty easy in comparison to tossing it in Cleveland stadium.

 

Why do we have to try to find a reason Graham isn't as great as he actually was? Can't we just accept that he was an exceptional player no matter what the era and did things that others couldn't duplicate or best until decades later and myriads of rule changes favoring the offense and the passing game came along. The only problem with Graham, as I see it, is that he is lost to many people's memory. We all think our era is superior and the players from our era must therefore be superior. That isn't true. One player may be better than another but it has nothing to do with when they played. It has to do with how they played. You may disagree with my assessment that Graham was the greatest. That's okay with me. But I do bristle when it is stated he doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the discussion and then dismissed because his stats don't match up to what QBs routinely do in the modern era.

 

If you think Brady is the greatest, that's okay with me. I, agree, he is great but the greatest? Naw, just merely the latest.

^ I think Grossi's point is that the one stat that makes all the difference in the world, the one that trumps them all, is winning. Some will try to pick out one stat that Graham has that is below his usual excellence and say he was not a good QB. Addressing those wrong-headed objections, Grossi cuts to the chase and says if you're going to talk stats that reveal how good a guy is compared to all others, then look at winning percentage and title victories. I don't think there is a coach in the league who would argue with that.

 

Now, if you want to look at a scientific study of all the measurables read the book, Quarterback Abstract by John Maxymuk. This indepth analysis takes more measurables than you knew existed and sees who the best is according to the various measurables. In his analysis, the overall best quarterback of all-time is Otto Graham.

 

Now regarding the idea that it was easier to pass in the old days because defenses were designed to stop the run, it actually was harder to pass then for a lot of reasons. Not least is because you had a DB that was hanging on to the receiver at the line of scrimmage, delivered a blow to his head, and speared him with his helmet if he managed to catch the ball. Those little dink and dunk passes weren't as easy to do then as now. Cleveland threw more passes than most teams then and they threw down field. They were considered then to have a wide-open offense. Their first game in the NFL they beat the defending NFL champion Eagles 35-10. The Eagles coach said they belonged in basketball because they passed so much. Graham was ahead of his time thanks to the genius of Paul Brown. Bill Walsh, an assistant with Brown in the late 60's, later adapted what he learned from Paul Brown and came up with the west coast offense.

 

Another thing to think about has to do with the conditions that Graham played in regarding the messy field. Look at any old film and you will see the muddy mess that they played in game in and game out through the fall. Graham also played in Cleveland Municipal stadium beside lake Erie that is one of the most difficult places to pass a ball, or kick a ball. And the footballs they used then were a bit more bulbous than those used now also making it more difficult to pass. Throwing inside a dome is pretty easy in comparison to tossing it in Cleveland stadium.

 

Why do we have to try to find a reason Graham isn't as great as he actually was? Can't we just accept that he was an exceptional player no matter what the era and did things that others couldn't duplicate or best until decades later and myriads of rule changes favoring the offense and the passing game came along. The only problem with Graham, as I see it, is that he is lost to many people's memory. We all think our era is superior and the players from our era must therefore be superior. That isn't true. One player may be better than another but it has nothing to do with when they played. It has to do with how they played. You may disagree with my assessment that Graham was the greatest. That's okay with me. But I do bristle when it is stated he doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the discussion and then dismissed because his stats don't match up to what QBs routinely do in the modern era.

 

If you think Brady is the greatest, that's okay with me. I, agree, he is great but the greatest? Naw, just merely the latest.

 

I dismiss Graham for multiple reasons.

 

1) I never saw him play, nor have I ever seen footage of him playing.

 

2) It was a hell of a lot easier to make it to the championship when there's only 12 teams, than when there's 32.

 

3) He threw practically as many INTs as TDs.

 

4) He played before the Super Bowl era. I don't take anyone that played that long ago, when the leagues weren't even fully integrated seriously. He didn't play against the best possible competition IMO.

 

And it has nothing to do with me thinking this era is the best. I wasn't around to watch Jim Brown or Walter Payton or OJ Simpson or Eric Dickerson play, yet I recognize them as 4 of the best 5 RBs to ever play the game, and Brown as the best football player of all-time.

I dismiss Graham for multiple reasons.

 

1) I never saw him play, nor have I ever seen footage of him playing.

 

2) It was a hell of a lot easier to make it to the championship when there's only 12 teams, than when there's 32.

 

3) He threw practically as many INTs as TDs.

 

4) He played before the Super Bowl era. I don't take anyone that played that long ago, when the leagues weren't even fully integrated seriously. He didn't play against the best possible competition IMO.

 

And it has nothing to do with me thinking this era is the best. I wasn't around to watch Jim Brown or Walter Payton or OJ Simpson or Eric Dickerson play, yet I recognize them as 4 of the best 5 RBs to ever play the game, and Brown as the best football player of all-time.

 

Finally!!! UKMustangFan, you and I agree on something. The last paragraph of your post is gospel truth. Jim Brown is the greatest football player of all time. I should stop right there, but here's my thoughts on the reasons you give for dismissing (there's that regrettable term) Graham.

 

1. Not much of a reason. Just because you have no knowledge regarding a player doesn't mean he was not exceptional. I never saw Tyson Gay run or saw footage of him run but he is the fastest man to ever compete at a KY High School track meet and the second fastest man in human history.

 

2. Okay, once... but 10 in a row? Is anyone here a mathematician? What are the chances of someone being in the championship game 10 years in a row when there are 12 teams in the league. There's something more than chance that makes that happen. It's called exceptional talent and tremendous competitive fire. It may be "easier" to make it to a championship game in a pool of 12 teams compared to a pool of 32 teams, but it isn't any easier to beat your opponent on any given Sunday whether there are 12 teams or 32 teams in the league. Each team, each Sunday, has a 50-50 shot. Graham did that one on one match-up better than anyone by far.

 

3. Interceptions to TDs. This is the only knock on Graham's record. I have demonstrated with several arguments why it isn't as big of an issue as some wish it were. But the biggest reason is that some interceptions are worse than others. It really depends on the game situation how costly of an error it is. Based on the reality of what actually happened, Graham's interceptions didn't keep him from winning ball games. It didn't hurt his team. Everything else he did overcame the effect of the interceptions to the tune that he won at a greater clip than any other person.

 

4. Here you say Graham didn't play against the best competition. I would argue that in a 32 team league, the modern player doesn't play against the best talent. There are too many teams and so there are too many players that don't have top talent but are on the team because the roster has to be filled. Said another way, If the 32 teams were pared down to 12 teams, would the average level of talent on each team be higher or lower? It would be much higher in a 12 team league. Only the top 12 at each position would get to start. Now, you have 32 starters at each position. Some of them aren't that good. How many quarterbacks do you think are really good in the league today. In a 32 team field people talk about the top 10 quarterbacks, as if being number 7 or 8 is pretty good. In a 12 team league, making the top ten quarterback list isn't very prestigious because it includes almost every starting quarterback in the league. It is the modern player who doesn't play against the best competition because many of those players wouldn't be in the league if there are fewer teams. So you have a top QB like Brady playing against some DBs who wouldn't even be in the league if there were 20 teams or 12 teams. That makes it easier for Brady.

^ I think Grossi's point is that the one stat that makes all the difference in the world, the one that trumps them all, is winning. Some will try to pick out one stat that Graham has that is below his usual excellence and say he was not a good QB. Addressing those wrong-headed objections, Grossi cuts to the chase and says if you're going to talk stats that reveal how good a guy is compared to all others, then look at winning percentage and title victories. I don't think there is a coach in the league who would argue with that.

 

Now, if you want to look at a scientific study of all the measurables read the book, Quarterback Abstract by John Maxymuk. This indepth analysis takes more measurables than you knew existed and sees who the best is according to the various measurables. In his analysis, the overall best quarterback of all-time is Otto Graham.

 

Now regarding the idea that it was easier to pass in the old days because defenses were designed to stop the run, it actually was harder to pass then for a lot of reasons. Not least is because you had a DB that was hanging on to the receiver at the line of scrimmage, delivered a blow to his head, and speared him with his helmet if he managed to catch the ball. Those little dink and dunk passes weren't as easy to do then as now. Cleveland threw more passes than most teams then and they threw down field. They were considered then to have a wide-open offense. Their first game in the NFL they beat the defending NFL champion Eagles 35-10. The Eagles coach said they belonged in basketball because they passed so much. Graham was ahead of his time thanks to the genius of Paul Brown. Bill Walsh, an assistant with Brown in the late 60's, later adapted what he learned from Paul Brown and came up with the west coast offense.

 

Another thing to think about has to do with the conditions that Graham played in regarding the messy field. Look at any old film and you will see the muddy mess that they played in game in and game out through the fall. Graham also played in Cleveland Municipal stadium beside lake Erie that is one of the most difficult places to pass a ball, or kick a ball. And the footballs they used then were a bit more bulbous than those used now also making it more difficult to pass. Throwing inside a dome is pretty easy in comparison to tossing it in Cleveland stadium.

 

Why do we have to try to find a reason Graham isn't as great as he actually was? Can't we just accept that he was an exceptional player no matter what the era and did things that others couldn't duplicate or best until decades later and myriads of rule changes favoring the offense and the passing game came along. The only problem with Graham, as I see it, is that he is lost to many people's memory. We all think our era is superior and the players from our era must therefore be superior. That isn't true. One player may be better than another but it has nothing to do with when they played. It has to do with how they played. You may disagree with my assessment that Graham was the greatest. That's okay with me. But I do bristle when it is stated he doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the discussion and then dismissed because his stats don't match up to what QBs routinely do in the modern era.

 

If you think Brady is the greatest, that's okay with me. I, agree, he is great but the greatest? Naw, just merely the latest.

 

Never once dismissed him as being a great QB. If that is the case, then you all have tried to dismiss Brady as being on then too. Yes you have your arguments for, but you completely ignore all the other variables going into it. Yes defensive backs could be more physical than today. However as mentioned teams also were stacking the box back then and with teams preparing for the run it does make it easier to pass. In today's age teams prepare to stop the pass more than the run. I may have not seen games from his day, but I have watched a lot of older games from the 70's and 80's and you all make it seem like guys were being tackled while running routes. Yes DB's could be more physical, however WR's still were able to get open. Especially when teams were stacking the box to stop the run.

^ fair enough

^ fair enough

 

Hey I did learn at least a lot of good facts about a guy I knew was great, but didn't know much of his stats.