Quote:
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar
Yeah…hard to rank players like Graham, especially when none of us have seen more than a few highlights. And like you said, fewer teams, a lot of white players, etc. But that also means a lot less parity, and he dominated his era like no other.
I’m not sure about Marino’s situation, but the Montana comparison isn’t fair. He reached the playoffs every time he played a majority of the season, even when he was past his prime. Elway missed four games in one of his non-playoff years, but also missed several games in some of his playoff years.
|
It's interesting to think about the impact of a league that has fewer or more teams. In Otto Graham's era, there were roughly half the number of teams if you combine the NFL and AAFC. The number actually got smaller when NFC absorbed the AAFC, and the NFL had 12 teams through much of the 1950s. Through much of the 1930s there were 10 or fewer, and I think the lowest was 8.
So a guy like Otto Graham was playing in a league where the talent pool was roughly twice as deep on any given team. That would argue that it was harder to dominate as a player or a team. But at the same time there were fewer opportunities for a talent to get discovered because roster spots were hard to come by. You didn't have to compete with a big pool where some unestablished player had a freak season, a la Kareem Hunt leading the league in rushing or Scott Mitchell throwing for a million yards. So was it easier or harder to be named to an all-star team?
I think if you were a top player, it would be easier for the reason cited above. It was harder to establish yourself due to smaller rosters, but it was easier to perpetuate your reputation if you did get established. At least, that's my theory.