Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

TanksAndSpartans wrote:In The Golden Age of Pro Football: NFL Football in the 1950s, Mickey Herskowitz argued Tom Fears was the first great tight end in terms of the modern conception of tight end. I don't recall the specifics, but I thought it was a good argument.

I read that---Fears did what all end did... that was my issue. All ends were "tight" then...so it's really saying he was the best end...in mid-1950s ends began to play split

but Hirsch was a tight right end at the same time. The flanker thing didn't come unstil mid-1950s

JohnTurney wrote:

TanksAndSpartans wrote:In The Golden Age of Pro Football: NFL Football in the 1950s, Mickey Herskowitz argued Tom Fears was the first great tight end in terms of the modern conception of tight end. I don't recall the specifics, but I thought it was a good argument.

I read that---Fears did what all end did... that was my issue. All ends were "tight" then...so it's really saying he was the best end...in mid-1950s ends began to play split

but Hirsch was a tight right end at the same time. The flanker thing didn't come unstil mid-1950s

So Hutson invented the split end, and no one else did it besides him for 20 years after he debuted? That doesn't make much sense.

JameisLoseston wrote:
So Hutson invented the split end, and no one else did it besides him for 20 years after he debuted? That doesn't make much sense.

I don't think that's what I said. I don't think anyone thinks Hutson was only split. He was "tight" if you will a lot, maybe as much as
he was flexed or split.


Just and FYI---in general this is how the early 1950s Rams lined up. The player who was "flanked" or outside or "wide" was usually
the halfback. And this was common in the 1950s with Gifford, Moore and others here halfbacks who were "flanked" and this is what kind of created the
tight end position...

Here are a couple of screen shots--they had a LE and a RE and a halfback who was "flanked"





Of course, there are plenty of exceptions, but in earnest, this is what they did.


By the mid 1950s they would flank Hirsch outside of a tight end and on other side
Fears would "split out".

JohnTurney wrote:

TanksAndSpartans wrote:In The Golden Age of Pro Football: NFL Football in the 1950s, Mickey Herskowitz argued Tom Fears was the first great tight end in terms of the modern conception of tight end. I don't recall the specifics, but I thought it was a good argument.

I read that---Fears did what all end did... that was my issue. All ends were "tight" then...so it's really saying he was the best end...in mid-1950s ends began to play split

but Hirsch was a tight right end at the same time. The flanker thing didn't come unstil mid-1950s

John, from what I recall I think the point was more along the lines that Fears wasn't running the "glory patterns" because there were other guys on the team for that (Hirsch, Boyd I guess) - so Fears was purportedly making his living in the area where the typical modern tight end worked. Its more of a conceptual argument than an X's and O's argument regarding where he lined up in the formation. I don't think he was saying he was the best end - I think he was saying that he was the best at being a Bavaro type end to use an analogy to a more modern player.

I get your point too - if they were all tight - it would be arbitrary to group one player with the TEs and another with the WRs because of the type of player they were. At the same time, it gave a player like Hirsch a better chance to be on the 50 year team because how he played as a "tight" end was more along the lines of what modern observers expect from a wide receiver. If Fears or Pihos or whoever had to compete with Hirsch when in reality their skillsets may have been different, I can see some unfairness there. Could one of them have taken a spot from Kramer?

Finally, why do you have Pihos in your top 20? What makes him different? Wasn't he an end like the others? He played from '47 to '55.

TanksAndSpartans wrote: Finally, why do you have Pihos in your top 20? What makes him different? Wasn't he an end like the others? He played from '47 to '55.

Yes, he was just an end. I wanted to put him somewhere, his was super productive, so he didn't fait anywhere. It's just a list---you sometimes
have to put a square peg into a round hole, and I just thought Pihos was just that.

Fears, later in his career, became a split end as the game evolved. With Pihos, he retired before the Eagles went to a more modern
positioning so we don't know what he would have played then

But his size and build, to me, put him outside the realm of a wideout. Technically, the division between modern ends and the guys like
Pihos happened later than the Pre, and Post-WWII divide. So, it created an anomaly.

Pihos was kind of a throwback to pre-WWII times more similar to Bill Hewitt than the 1950s receivers but he played post-WWII. So, I
grouped him with TE to honor him.

Others may disagree, but the main point is Fears was really the same in terms of lining up not that different that Hirsh and therefore
I always thought the Fears as a "tight end" was questionable.

JohnTurney wrote:

TanksAndSpartans wrote: Finally, why do you have Pihos in your top 20? What makes him different? Wasn't he an end like the others? He played from '47 to '55.

Yes, he was just an end. I wanted to put him somewhere, his was super productive, so he didn't fait anywhere. It's just a list---you sometimes
have to put a square peg into a round hole, and I just thought Pihos was just that.

Fears, later in his career, became a split end as the game evolved. With Pihos, he retired before the Eagles went to a more modern
positioning so we don't know what he would have played then

But his size and build, to me, put him outside the realm of a wideout. Technically, the division between modern ends and the guys like
Pihos happened later than the Pre, and Post-WWII divide. So, it created an anomaly.

Pihos was kind of a throwback to pre-WWII times more similar to Bill Hewitt than the 1950s receivers but he played post-WWII. So, I
grouped him with TE to honor him.

Others may disagree, but the main point is Fears was really the same in terms of lining up not that different that Hirsh and therefore
I always thought the Fears as a "tight end" was questionable.

Wow, it really is a can of worms. I'd say the committee did the right thing not nominating any of them then.

Jackie Smith should be on the list. Could one play have been the reason that he isn't? It would be a shame if it is.

Thanks John - appreciate your view on Pihos v. Fears. I know you've watched the film. I can only recall one play of Fears, but I've seen some highlights of Pihos running the middle screen in the 40s, scoring in the '49 championship, and then again towards the end of his career in the weekly Tel Ra shows when the Eagles were pretty bad. I'd love to watch some full regular season games, but haven't stumbled on any.

Sound like Pihos would have been a decent 100 year nomination - they more or less ignored pre-1960 instead.

JohnH19 wrote:Jackie Smith should be on the list. Could one play have been the reason that he isn't? It would be a shame if it is.

The same thought crossed my mind.

ChrisBabcock wrote:

JohnH19 wrote:Jackie Smith should be on the list. Could one play have been the reason that he isn't? It would be a shame if it is.

The same thought crossed my mind.

Error: Got my Smiths confused. Sorry.

Whatever the reason for his denial Jackie Smith deserved to be on this team.