The point you seem to miss ios nowhere in any of those quotes are those coaches saying Joe was one of the best QBs of all time, they are complimenting different aspects of his game such as his ability to throw. NO ONE questions his ability but that ability has to translate to the field and it did not ofetn enough. You are laughing at what I posted yet you posted a bleacher report article. Seriously? It's obvious you don't have a case here, when you have to rely on some compliments from ocahces as your argument you don't have a case. By the way, I think Namath belongs in the Hall but not for his play on the field but for what he meant to pro football and the growing popularity of the game helping to turn it into what it is today which is the #1 sport by far in this Country.
That's more than enough to offset the opinions of coaches/players who watched Namath play in his prime :rofl:
You are fixated on quotes even though the quotes you provided do not back up your argument about Joe.
Namath doesn't belong in the HOF for his play on the field but you didn't see his play on the field. Also, unable to find sources from coaches/players in Namath's era to back up your statements. Yup, sounds like you've got a solid case there because you've got stats.
junc you appear to be the only one making an idiotic argument. Namath was a great QB. The fact that you are unable to grasp this very obvious fact is frankly hilarious. Everybody who played with him or against him or who watched him play knows that he was a great QB despite the injuries which prevented him from having as long a career as he should have had. He was an AMAZING athlete, and AMAZING QB, helped revolutionize the game, engineered the first AFC SB victory over the heavily favored NFC Colts and he was a first ballot HOFer. Slam Dunk. The fact that you don't get all of this and you persist in your don quixote attempts to discredit a great player is hilarious.
Poor #s, poor record. Show me another HOF QB who didn't put up #s OR win big(most did both). keep posting those quotes about what an arm Joe had, that certainly proves he belongs in the Hall. I get it that he was an idol of yours growing up but the facts are he wasn't great long enough to be an all-time great. Explain to me how a QB is great w/ poor #s and w/ a poor record? I have to know? Name me the other HOF QBs whp have poor individual #s and poor team records? Joe is in the Hall b/c of SB III and that's it and if he doesn't make the guarantee and make that game a must see game b/c of it he likely wouldn't be in the Hall. I noticed you guys didn't respond to the quote below: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2285_The_5_most_overrated_quarterbacks.html
I was not arguing with Jake about TD/INT ratio or W-L-T record. I pointed out that using Namath's completion percentage against him is wrong. His completion percentage was not bad for his era. Jake needs to stop going there.
You guys just are throwing more fuel on the fire to increase Junc's post count. I agree with some of Junc's points, Namath's stats are average at best! Winning SuperBowl 3 as an AFL team, the prediction, and the stardom of NYC's lights made Namth a HOF...not his stats or win loss record and TD/INT ratio.
I've given up. Already stated your article is written by a nobody & opposes what players/coaches from that era say. You don't care. No need to put in any more effort into this.
I did stop going there..... I thought that was obvious in my post(s). I was unaware that everyone's completion % were so low at the time, but his horrible TD/INT ratio is still eye-opening. When compared to his peers, it proves that there were many more accurate passers than him in his time. And spare me the system bullshit, that's a cop-out.
The thing I remember about Namath (and I did see him play but don't remember much as I was very young) is that he got hit an awful lot. If I recall correctly this wasn't because the O line was terrible or anything, I just seem to remember him being in the pocket for what seemed like forever...looking left, looking right...looking left again....sliding in the pocket and looking again....and often getting hit as soon as he threw. That's what I remember anyway. My memory could be faulty...but I think the thing about Joe is that it was pretty common knowlege that Joe was good enough to beat teams on his own. If Joe didn't play. Jets had no chance of winning. Joe knew this as well which is why Jets fans appreciated him coming out week after week 1/2 broken and giving it his all.
Here's what happened in chronological order- 1. You used Namath's completion percentage to knock him. 2. I pointed out how that was unfair. 3. Today, nyjunc responded to my post and mentioned Namath's TD/INT ratio and W-L-T record. 4. I then explained how I was only interested in informing you (Jake) that Namath's completion percentage was not bad for his era. nyjunc may have been trying to rope me into a long debate about other statistics. I was not having that because I have nothing to debate there. You have to do some research with this stuff. When we don't do proper research, we look silly. This is what that one overseas poster was laughing about- people tossing around their distorted or flat-out wrong opinions as facts. The system with some of these players is exactly why completion percentages are high for some and low for others. Ditto INT numbers. By the way, I do not have a dog in this fight. I have no care if Len Dawson was better than Joe Namath. Dawson was better at some things and Namath was better at others. Dawson was definitely in a better system for completion percentage and TD/INT ratio and played for better teams for the bulk of his career. If you do not want to recognize that, then fine. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Did I not acknowledge I was unaware of the avg comp % of the NFL QB at that time? I don't even read junc's posts... I did research his contemporaries. Jurgensen, Starr, Unitas, and Dawson were all better than Namath. And still, that TD:INT ratio is fuckin absurd and you're yet to acknowledge that. I'm pretty much done with this because it paints me as a Namath hater. I actually am a big fan, but think he is overrated by media moguls.
You are making this difficult. At one point in time you were not on point about the completion percentage issue. I showed how you were being unfair about Namath's numbers in that category. You then got the point. After all that occurred, nyjunc then wanted to start a debate with me. At least that is how I saw things. I then had to explain to nyjunc what I was trying to accomplish when I explained the completion percentage issue with you. Those are not his only contemporaries. Dennis Shaw, Jack Kemp, Charley Johnson, Jim Hart, Bob Berry, Jack Concannon, Bobby Douglass, Bill Nelsen, Virgil Carter, Craig Morton, Don Meredith, Bill Munson, Greg Landry, Billy Kilmer, Archie Manning, Norm Snead, Pete Beathard, and Mike Phipps are others. You can argue that Namath was the worst quarterback among all Hall of Fame QBs who played in the 1960s and 1970s, but not all of his contemporaries were better than him. In my opinion, Namath is among the worst of the best quarterbacks in the Hall of Fame. He might even be the worst. I have acknowledged it. "I was not having that because I have nothing to debate there." I have nothing to add or argue about. His TD/INT ratio was bad.
Who cares? He was great, he led the crimson tide to a national championship, he was seriously injured in 1964 and then suffered a series of injuries in the early 70's.... despite that he was AFL ROY, held the record for 4K passing yds in a 14 game season, a multiple time all-pro, All Time AFL Team member, and of course he led the Jets to win the AFCCG and SB III and that is really all that matters. He spent the latter part of his career playing on broken knees, immobile, getting sacked and throwing INTs. He's a great example of the fact that football greatness and leadership cannot simply be measured by comparing statistics. Its not baseball. The football game that was played in Namath's time was dramatically different for QBs and WRs than the pitch and catch game that is currently being played. Statistical comparisons between different eras are ludicrous b/c the game has change significantly. Namath was a great QB who helped revolutionize the game. So if you think he's the worst QB in the HOF because you chose to simply look at his TD/INT ratio - 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. Some players are great despite their stats and Namath is an example of that.
I can tell you two WR who were overrated in the past, Deion Branch and T.J. Housh. When both left thier teams for the Seahawks their true colors showed.
Seriously, is nyjunc even a real fan of the team? I'm sorry, but you can't call yourself a true Jet fan if you don't think Namath was a great QB.
I hope that is not in response to my previous post in this thread. "Worst of the best" is not the same thing as "worst QB in the NFL." I cannot quite make a sound argument for Namath being one of the best HOF QBs. I can, though, make a solid argument that he is one of the worst HOF QBs. I believe he belongs in the Hall of Fame. Being one of the worst of the best is not a big slight.
I fixed it Cakes. :smile: In terms of HOF dynamics, Namath is somewhat analogous to Jim Rice. Great players whose stars were very bright when they were healthy and then dimmed due to injury creating a statistical impression that is not actually an accurate reflection of the player's talent and achievement. Being one of the worst of the best is not a big deal. Again - who cares? Joe was Great. Unitas and Montana are the best QBs ever. Football has changed so much over the yrs - its hugely different in that respect than baseball is - statistical comparisons are simply one way of assessing a football player - they are far from the only valid assessment tool.
