1950's Detroit Lions

[JohnH19]

I only have one very small difference of opinion. I don't believe a six year run of success constitutes a dynasty. The 50s Lions had a similar run to the Triplets era Cowboys. I don't consider them a dynasty either.

IMO, a dynasty doesn't have to win the championship every year, but you have to win some and you have to be in contention every season, allowing an occasional off year, for a long, long time. True dynasties were the Canadiens, Yankees and Celtics. No NFL team compares to those three but the current Patriots might if they can keep it going.


The NFL has had the Bears, Browns (including the AAFC years), the Lombardi Packers (not an overly long period but incredible dominance over the complete length of his tenure), the Walsh and Seifert 49'ers and the Patriots.

I also consider the 1966 to 80s Cowboys, 1967 to 80s Raiders and 1972 almost to the present Steelers to be somewhat dynastic for their extended runs of great success.

As I said, that's only my opinion. I just feel like the word "dynasty" gets thrown around a little too freely these days.

[oldecapecod11]

In fact, I don't remember the word "dynasty" being used when the UCLA Men's Basketball team won 88 straight?
You are sooo right, John.
There is something about the banners in the Boston Garden (old and new) and the pennants flying in Yankee Stadium (when they do)
that reminds one: All glory may be fleeting but the Celtics and Yankees won a lot of titles.
I bet there is the same feeling in the Forum?

[Saban1]

I only have one very small difference of opinion. I don't believe a six year run of success constitutes a dynasty. The 50s Lions had a similar run to the Triplets era Cowboys. I don't consider them a dynasty either.

IMO, a dynasty doesn't have to win the championship every year, but you have to win some and you have to be in contention every season, allowing an occasional off year, for a long, long time. True dynasties were the Canadiens, Yankees and Celtics. No NFL team compares to those three but the current Patriots might if they can keep it going.


The NFL has had the Bears, Browns (including the AAFC years), the Lombardi Packers (not an overly long period but incredible dominance over the complete length of his tenure), the Walsh and Seifert 49'ers and the Patriots.

I also consider the 1966 to 80s Cowboys, 1967 to 80s Raiders and 1972 almost to the present Steelers to be somewhat dynastic for their extended runs of great success.

As I said, that's only my opinion. I just feel like the word "dynasty" gets thrown around a little too freely these days.

How about the 1946-1973 Cleveland Browns. 28 years with only one losing season.

Actually, I have heard it argued the other way. That the Celtics of Bill Russell would be one dynasty and the Larry Bird era being another. With the Yankees, It would be the Ruth, Gehrig era being one and the era of Mantle, Ford, Berra being another. One poster here said that you can't have the Jim Brown era being part of the Otto Graham era, etc.

So, I guess that it depends on what people consider the definition of a dynasty.

[JohnH19]

The problem I have with the post Otto Graham Browns is that they only won one championship from 1956 to 1973. They certainly were regular contenders, though.

The Yankees never stopped winning from 1921 to 1964 so it's just one looonnng dynasty.

[Saban1]

The problem I have with the post Otto Graham Browns is that they only won one championship from 1956 to 1973. They certainly were regular contenders, though.

The Yankees never stopped winning from 1921 to 1964 so it's just one looonnng dynasty.

Well, call it what you might, but the Detroit Lions were pretty tough during that 6 year run, except for 1955.

Who would you consider the pro football team of the 1950's? Don't forget, that would not count Cleveland's AAFC years.

[Saban1]

As far as team of the 1950's goes, the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions both won 3 NFL championships during that decade. The Browns won more conference championships and more games than the Lions during the 1950's, but in head to head games between the 2 teams, Detroit usually won, with the Browns winning only once during the 1950's (a 56 to 10 win in the 1954 championship game).

So, who is better, the more consistent team or the team that beat the other team more often? Cleveland won 7 conference titles to Detroit's 4 and also won 20 more regular season games than the Lions, but Detroit beat Cleveland 7 out of 8 games that counted during the 50's, including 3 out of 4 championship games.

People in Cleveland would probably say the Browns, but old Detroit fans and Browns haters (there used to be many during the 1950's) would probably say the Lions. I have heard it both ways.

Maybe I could start a thread about this alone.

[conace21]

This thread took an interesting turn. I see JohnH's point. The only thing I disagree with is including the Steelers team from the 1970's to the present day. The Steelers had a definite dropoff during the final 12 years of Chuck Noll's regime. That's too long a period to call it a dynasty. That's why I wouldn't lump the Reggie Jackson Yankees with the Ruth/Gehrig/DiMaggio/Mantle Yankee teams. I can understand calling the 1921-64 Yankees a dynasty because they never had a lengthy dropoff. The Cowboys made three straight NFC Championship games in the 1980's, and the Raiders from 1967-1983 never went 3 seasons without making an AFL/AFC Championship game appearance.

In that measure, I would include the 1946-69 Browns in the dynasty era.

The word dynasty does get thrown around a lot. I remember reading articles before Super Bowl XXXVI about the Greatest Show on Turf being a potential dynasty. Of course, the pesky Patriots shocked the world and halted the dynasty talk.

[JohnH19]

I would definitely go with the Browns as the team of the 50s. Yeah, the Lions owned them, but Cleveland was better overall throughout the decade.

Speaking of the Lions "owning" the Browns; Detroit has an 18-5 lead in all of their head-to-head meetings from 1950 to today. It was 12-2 through their 1975 game which encompasses the Browns' era of greatness and many mediocre Lions teams after 1957. Considering that four of those matchups were in championship games, they sure haven't played each other very often.

[Reaser]

Seems like we had a "dynasty" definition thread before? Interesting to see how some view it. Seems to be a difference on franchise dynasty (e.g. Yankees) and team (core group of players) dynasty (70's Steelers) ...

Definitely agree that dynasty - like "future HOF'er" - is thrown out WAY too often these days.

Dynasty is (probably) the wrong word to define the specific four year period that the Patriots won 3 of 4. Though I'm more of a championship or bust type thinker so I prefer to acknowledge teams that won multiple (at least 3) championships in a relative short amount of time as opposed to "were good for 15 years and won one championship" ... Since - and more these days than historically - making the playoffs and being considered "good" doesn't quite mean what it used to, especially compared to when you had to actually be the BEST team in your division/conference to play for the Championship (e.g. 1953) ...

Of course there's no real criteria, and the Lions, I think of them as the second best team of the 50's but I don't know if they're a dynasty or not, 3 in 6, is that enough? 4 in 6 (Steelers) is, for me, but I don't know if 3 in 6 years is, or that it should really matter. Was a great team with legendary players that won 3 championships in 6 years, that's good enough for me, whatever the defining word for it is. It's a team I enjoy reading about and much more so love to watch film of.

[Saban1]

I would definitely go with the Browns as the team of the 50s. Yeah, the Lions owned them, but Cleveland was better overall throughout the decade.

Speaking of the Lions "owning" the Browns; Detroit has an 18-5 lead in all of their head-to-head meetings from 1950 to today. It was 12-2 through their 1975 game which encompasses the Browns' era of greatness and many mediocre Lions teams after 1957. Considering that four of those matchups were in championship games, they sure haven't played each other very often.

John: Thanks for the response, and I agree.

Detroit did own the Cleveland Browns from 1957 on, but not sure about the Otto Graham teams, even though the Lions did win 4 of 5 against them from 1952 through 1954. Detroit beat Cleveland twice in 1952 including the championship. 1952 was Cleveland's worst season of the Graham era due to injuries and other problems and they kind of backed into winning the Eastern Conference title. I think that Detroit was better than Cleveland in 1952.

In 1953, Detroit beat Cleveland in a championship game that could have gone either way. I think that Cleveland was at least even with Detroit that year despite the championship game loss. Detroit did get the breaks that day, including Otto Graham having a terrible game (2 for 15 passing). Detroit's tough defense no doubt had something to do with Graham's off game, but some say that there was something wrong with Graham's throwing hand. Whatever the cause of Otto's bad day, ironically, Otto had probably his greatest regular season in 1953 completing over 64 per cent of his passes and averaging over 10 yards per pass ATTEMPT.

In 1954, Cleveland lost their last regular season game to Detroit in the snow, 14 to 10, but the game was meaningless as both teams had their conference titles clinched and were to play for the championship the following week. Cleveland only threw about 6 passes that day and I think that coach Paul Brown just did not want to give away anything in the way of strategy for the title game. Anyway, the championship game was a slaughter, 56 to 10, as Cleveland could do no wrong and Detroit could not seem to do anything right.

There were other things. Starting in 1952, Cleveland did quite a bit of rebuilding, and star receiver Mac Speedie was gone (Canada) after 1952 and did not play in any title games for Cleveland against Detroit (Speedie missed the 1952 championship due to an injury). Marion Motley was past his prime in 1952 and 1953 and wasn't even a starter in those title games for those years. Motley's last peak year was 1950 and he injured his knee in 1951 and was never the same.

After 1954, Cleveland did not play Detroit again until 1957 when they lost twice to Detroit, including the championship game drubbing 59 to 14. Cleveland's quarterbacks that year were Tommy O'Connell and rookie Milt Plum. In 1958 Cleveland lost again to a not very good (4-7-1) Detroit team, 30 to 10.

Anyway, Cleveland's games with Detroit from 1952 through 1954 were always close except for the 1954 championship. After Otto Graham retired, Detroit really did own the Browns, especially in 1957 and 1958.

I think that the Otto Graham Cleveland teams were better overall than the championship era Detroit teams (1952-57), even if you don't include the AAFC years for the Browns. I also think that the winning 1950's Lions teams were better than the Jim Brown Cleveland teams of the 1950's. After Graham retired, Detroit had better quarterbacks (Layne and Rote) than Cleveland. Of course, that is JMO, for what it is worth. Probably not much.