That's great, that's 1 year. Mark Rypien won an MVP and a SB MVP, amde a couple of PBs and had a much better TD to INT ratio- Does that make him better than Namath? Bradshaw and Fouts is not the same as Dawson and Namath. Namath was not a top QB long enough and Bradshaw's team was absolutely stacked. KC might have been a little more talented but it wasn't the diff btw Pitt and SD and if namath was much better he should have elevated us ahead of KC which he was not able to do except for 1 season(and KC had a better record than us in '68).
by the way, what is more important- yards or TDs? despite LESS attmepts Dawson had 66 MORE TDs(and 37 less INTs).
No excuses Maynard had 3 with Namath and 2 previously, 65 Namath took over very early. The Chiefs let up almost 100 less points per game for Dawson than the Jets did with Namath. They had the ball more, better field position and a kicker who was 10 yards better than any one else in the league. They also had a better OL and Taylor was the best WR in the AFL during Dawson's time their. It wouldn't have been enough because Dawson wasn't considered a great QB he was a very good game manager on a team that was great but wasn't viewed as great after they were crushed twice by Green Bay. The Jets winning the SB against what at the time was widely considered the best team in Football history, followed by he KC win against a very mediocre Vicking team, is what gave credibility to the League and to Dawson. KC won that game like they won most of their games on D which was loaded as was their OL coupled with a great RB and WR. The Chiefs were by far the best team in the league mid 60's to early 70's, they were loaded.
When you have a D that for the most part gave up nothing how much do you have to pressure the ball? When you're playing from in front almost all the time how much pressure do you put on the ball. When you have an OL that completely dominated the LOS almost every single game why throw the ball. He also played with the coach who invented play action. They were the only team doing it that meant they pounded the ball threw short and went over the top on play action very low risk to score plays in those days. Namath played on a team that let up 100 points more a season and threw down the field as it's staple to score, there was no disguise to it every time the Jets had the ball teams were playing the pass.
I am sure that had very little to do w/ Namath's INT problems, throwing 1.6 INts a game I am sure helped his Defense immensely(I am sure he must have fumbled a few times to). dawon threw almost an INT less per game. Ho did the Jets beating Bal get dawson into the Hall? if KC still thrashes Minny then he still has 2 championships and beat up an NFL team. That would have made him MORE of a star b/c he would have been the first AFL QB to win a SB. How was 13-1 baltimore the greatest team of all time in '68 and Minny at 12-2 in '69 was mediocre? In '68 Minny was 8-6 and Bal beat them 21-9 while in '69 Bal was 8-5-1 and Minny beat them 52-14. The Jets win against bal was mroe fluky and we wo b/c our D forced a million TOs while minny dominated the NFL Champ in '69. From '62-'69 KC was ranked 1,3,2,2,1,2,4,2 in points scored while in the same span they were 1,3,4,4,2,3,1,1 in points allowed. The average on O was 2.125 while the avg on D was 2.375. That shows me it wasn't al D. For the Jets '65-'69 points scored they ranked 7,5,3,2,3 while the D was 6,6,5,4,3. The average on O 4 and D 4.8 which also tells me it wasn't all O or D and he fact that Dawson's O's average ranking was 2.375 compared to 4 for Namath's tells me he led a better offense.
I just keep seeing excuses as to why Dawson was better. The facts are dawson won more and put up better #s.
I think Curtis will get in, but it wouldn't suprise me if the voters pick Tiki before Curtis. Just one more way to take a shot at the Jets. Since I was too young to see Namath and Dawson play (and remember it anyway) I won't even get into that discussion in a Curtis Martin thread.
Tiki isn't getting in at all so if he does go at any time it will be an uspet especially if it's before Curtis. Tiki's last few years were great but he didn't do it long enough.
Jim McMahon won more than Marino, Trent Dilfer won more than any other Jet QB other than Namath those are facts also.
At the time the Jets played Baltimore they were considered to be the best team in football history, after the Jets beat them the bubble was burst for the entire NFL which is why MN was not over rated going into SB 4. SB 4 by the way was dominated by the KC D and the OL, not Len Dawson in spite of the fact he was the MVP?
Thsoe were just perceptions, Minny '69 was still a top team and if they were a lesser team than Bl '68 it wasn't by much. They were still 12 point faves in the SB ( http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/superbowl/history/ ) and they dominated Minny. SB III wasn't dominated by Namath in spite of he fact he won MVP so I guess they are even? The Jets D forced 5 TOs and our ground game controlled the clock.
Those were 1 time things, dawson won 3 AFL titles and a SB. If Dilfer or Mcmahon went to more SBs then I'd include them. Marino never had help, namath did. Namath had much better talent around him than Marino did, Dilfer had a great D carry him but he didn't screw it up so there is something to be said for that. Namath had a good D but he always put pressure on them w/ his TOs.
Oh, I completely agree, but I just have this feeling that Tiki will get in before Curtis just because of the favoritism that is displayed towards the Giants at the expense of the Jets.
I think alot of media members dislike Tiki so I think it will be hard for his borderline #s to get past that. if he had played 2-3 more years and had good, not great, seasons I think he would have amde it but he spent too much of his career as a part time back who fumbled too much.
If by nonsense you mean truth then yeah I am. I know, I know "you just had to see Namath play". No one doubts he was animmensely talented guy but the facts are he didn't get it doe on the field long enough.
The facts are he was voted in and any reason you come up with of why he was or why he shouldn't be is just your speculation, just like you can speculate that Dawson was better based on stats and I can speculate that Namath was better having seen them both and understanding the circumstances they both played in. 20 years from now people who never saw Jeter and A Rod play will believe that A Rod was a far superior player, they will be just as wrong as you are on Namath and Dawson.
Jeter has #s to back up his argument, Joe does not. Joe ws an important figure in the AFL and NFL, he was bigger than the game. It wasn't about his play on the field it was about what he meant to it off the field- that's why he's in the Hall. it's certainly not for his 2 PO appearances and -47 TD to INT ratio.
Statistics are so overrated in every sport. It may sound weird, but statistics are the most worthless "stat" of them all. They can be manipulated any way you want to. Back to Curtis Martin, as I thought this thread was supposed to be about him. I honestly don't think he's going to get in on the first vote. He'll get in but not on his first try. It's not that I don't want him to get voted in on the first try, I just don't think he will be.
