Quote:
Originally Posted by Rain Man
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.
|
That's one way to spin it... another could say that in the fledgling years when players were paid peanuts and often had 2nd jobs, like professional wrestling to make ends meet, the talent was a fraction as deep as it is now or 30 years ago. Guys were smoking and drinking in the locker rooms and sidelines. Graham played for 10 seasons, retiring in 1955. In 1950, most teams were comprised of white players only and in 1954, there were an average of 3 non-white players per team. Just saying... much different game.