Do an advanced search for times I have written about Namath. Seriously. You'll find some better, more thought-out comments from me about him. I did not base my "worst of the best" phrase on just TD/INT ratio. Edit- Now that you confirmed that you directed that post at me, I'll point out that, "...then you are just looking in the wrong place and you don't understand that football greatness is not something that you can simply appreciate by reading statistics..." is insulting. A knowledge of football history and its statistics and how to properly apply them is one of my strong suits.
I expressed my opinion. It wasn't directed at you nor was it intended to be an insult. if you choose to allow yourself to feel insulted, then that's your issue. As soon as you pretend that you can use statistics as some sort of empirical measurement of football greatness you are simply deceiving yourself. Namath proves the point. He was a great player and he doesn't have great career stats for a HOF QB. As a result people who didn't see him play and are simply looking at columns of statistics aren't able to see that he was a great football player. Never mind that his contemporaries, coaches, players, writers and pretty much every knowledgable fan and lumninary in the game who actually saw him play knew he was a great QB which is of course why he was named MVP, ALL AFL, ALL PRO and HOF. Its not all about looking at statistics. Statistics don't tell the whole story when it comes to football.
Upon further review "annoyed" would have been a better word than "insulted." Your post was directed at me, or more precisely, comments I made. I am not a johnny-come-lately with historical NFL stats and I thought you were including me with the people who don't understand old QB stats. Here's something I wrong on this board four years ago- The entire thread can be viewed here- http://forums.theganggreen.com/showthread.php?t=7067
interesting post from that thread- Just to give you an idea of what passing was like in 1972: touchdown passes- 404 interceptions- 480 Compare that with 2004: touchdown passes- 732 interceptions- 524
My article is written by a nobody yet you post a bleacher report article:rofl: You should giove up b/c you have presented an incredibly weak case w/ some soft compliments from ez-coaches as your entire argument for Joe. Something you will learn over time is that you can be a fan and still give honest opinions. Would you like me to lie and say namath was the greatest or that he had a great career? Was he a great talent? no question but he didn't have enough great seasons and moments to truly be considered great. I hate having to have this discussion but I'm not going to lie. I don't have any doubt that he belongs, I just don't think he belongs based on his playing career. he belongs more b/c of what he meant to the growth of the sport.
Regarding Namath's accuracy - I have not seen every pass he ever threw, but out of the ones I did see, the deep passes were right on the money. For example the deep pass to Maynard in the 1968 opening game against the Chiefs, the bomb down the sideline to Maynard into a stiff wind in the 1968 AFL Championship game couldn't have been thrown any better, the passes in SB III were on the money. Like I said I haven't seen every pass he ever threw, but I've seen a bit and he was very accurate. I think the difference and why his comp % is low is because they didn't run high percentage passing systems like they do today. Just my .02
I don't know how accurate he was but to be fair all those highlights we always see were the best of his career so it's not fair to judge on those. They could make a great highlight reel for any QB that has started for years in this league. Not many QBs in the history of the game threw a better ball than Joe.
Didn't watch him play but confident in stating he wasn't good enough to make the HOF without SB III. You're already on shaky gound there because you're speaking of what you haven't witnessed. Talking about impact of SB III but at the same you time you didn't witness that either. Namath received pro-bowl nominations while playing but you didn't watch the league to know if he even deserved them & how he performed compared to his peers or how much support he had while playing. === You've shown that no matter what the player or game, if you lock yourself in a room w/ some stats & never watched the game or league in action, you'd know more than anyone around you. I'm of the belief that only people that saw Namath play can tell if he deserves the HOF without the SB win. Then again, I'm weird like that.
I realize that which is why I stated that I haven't seen all of his throws. But those throws that I did see were on the money and gives me a little insight into his ability to throw the ball fairly accurate.
I have watched enough, read enough, studied enough to know he doesn't belong in stricly from his on field performance. I ask AGAIN, name me the HOF QBs that don't have #s or wins that are in the Hall? Obviously you don't have a case, your entire case is based on a few compliments former coaches gave him. Not one of your rambling posts has given me a single reason why you believe Joe a) is an all time great and b) belongs in the Hall. Do you think Babe Ruth belongs in the baseball HOF? did you see him play?
Passing judgements on players you haven't seen is just nonsense. Spin out however you want to make yourself feel smart but it doesn't change the fact that you've never seen Namath play. How can I prove that you should see something before passing judgement or making comparisons on it ... Isn't that common sense? Babe Ruth is in the HOF because the people that watched him play felt he deserved to be there. Whether I agree or disagree is irrevelant. I'll never have the knowledge or insight as those that watched him. Does Tinkers/Evers/Chance belong in the HOF? The stats don't look great but people from that era state those three formed one of the greatest double play combos ever & had excellent defense. Can I dispute their decisions? I wouldn't because I'm not so full of myself to believe my stats analysis many years later gives me a better understanding than those who watched them play live. Forget football & the HOF. It's just silly to form an opinion of people/performances you haven't seen & then believe you know more than people living in that time period.
It's a copout excuse, I didn't have to see Babe or Gehrig play to know they were great. I have read enough and seen enouhg to know just like w/ Joe. The people that defend Joe always say "you had to see him play" but they never provide valid reasons for why he was an all time great b/c they don't have any. You continue to deflect from the question- what made Joe one of the all time greats? what did he do to earn that label?
I didn't watch Namath in his prime, so I wouldn't credit or discredit when people from his era call him great. That's something you would do. You want me to go into your arena of speculation. I've already stated this is silly. The difference between us is that if I don't witness something myself, I'll try to get information from those that have. Namath was considered a great qb by those who watched him play. Now if a player/coach/respected sports personality from Namath's era wanted to go on record & state Namath is over-rated I would gladly listen. However, this hasn't been the case. I didn't see Bart Starr play or Johnny Unitas. The people that did considered them great players & no matter what stats say, I'd never argue against them because I'm aware I'm lacking first hand knowledge.
Wait, you didn't watch Namath in his prime(presumably his HOF years) and you are telling us how great he was? how can this be? You have been telling me I had to see him play and you didn't see him play in his best years.:rofl: I'd be willing to bet I have seen mroe footage, talked to more people and read more about Namath than you have. I may not have seen him play except on tape but I have done mroe than enough research to form a valid opinion. This reminds of the folks that were arguing for Art Monk to be in the Hall, they used quotes from players and coaches b/c they didn't have an argument.
There's a disconnect here. Since we didn't see Namath play in his prime, we must accept the judgements from those that did see him play .... does that make sense? If Namath isn't in the HOF & players/coaches from his era stated he doesn't deserve to be there then once again, we must accept those judgements. Does that make sense? You'd be willing to bet that you're less ignorant than other ignorant people? Please share your footage which has people from Namath's era that state he's overrated. I'd gladly listen/watch/read it.
As usual you add so much to a discussion. Take my advice, pay attention and learn something so in the future you can participate intelligently
What player/coach from his era would say otherwise? when do you see players/coaches attacking guys from their era? They always try to protect guys from their eras. This is why Phil Rizzuto is in the baseball Hall, he got voted in by his peers on the vets committee. Silly quotes don't present a case, I am begging you to present an actual case. I can find quotes w/ compliments about Ryan Leaf's arm so to you that means he's a deserving HOFer. MAKE A CASE please.
Was Ryan Leaf voted into the HOF? Namath was put into the HOF & elected for pro-bowls. Are those empty compliments? Rizzuto won an MVP so he wasn't a scrub. As to whether he deserved to be in the HOF only those that watched him would know. I stopped following baseball many years ago, so I'd prefer not to go into any baseball arguments if they require extensive baseball knowledge.
You can form an opinion on players you have never seen play. To make an accurate opinon however you have to do a ton of research. Stats alone also, should never be the only basis for an opinion either. ETA - As an example I feel that Red Grange is in the HOF only for his influence on the game and not what he did on the field. I don't feel Grange is one of the top 100 players in NFL history based on what he did on the field. Like Namath he could have been one of the greatest, except for the knee injuries. However, his entrance into Professional Football and the subsequent barnstorming tour put professional football on the map and began to move it toward prosperity. I never saw Grange play but can form that opinion. I really don't like it when people say that people can't form opinions on players they never saw play. My only beef is that people should take the time and do extensive research to form that opinion.
