i thought it was a liittle disrespectful the way Bloomberg gave Favre the Broadway sign. There will never be another Joe "Broadway" Namath. I think the comparison should be dropped
This picture makes Namath look like a hobbit. It easily could have been a promo poster for Lord of the Rings. :jets:
that is a big part of my point Orlando. Favre wants none of it. That's the line he's drawn in the sand I believe.
It is true that anecodotes are not proof, but they are evidence. It is also true that not one player ever said (before or after the game) that they thought that they were outclassed as a team by the Colts, and not one player has ever contradicted all of the people who have repeatedly said that after watching the film the players and coaches became very confident that they would win. That is also evidence. You actually don't have the slightest bit of evidence to support your position, and throwing out links to why it could be possible that all of the different people contradicting what you were saying are all mistaken isn't even in the neighborhood of evidence. Your insistence that you are making a contrast rather than drawing a parallel is of course pure semantics, but it's also not true. Here are two definitions of parallel from dictionary.com: "correspondence or analogy: These two cases have some parallel with each other."; "to show the identity or similarity of; compare." You specifically pointed to the similarities between Namath and Favre as players, drawing clear parallels, and then made a spurious distinction between them by emphasizing two circumstances (an August press conference by a brand-new player and a January proclamation from the veteran leader on the best team in the AFL) that were utterly different in every way, acting like this was somehow a significant (and seeming dark) omen for the team. As I said from the start (and a couple of people said before me), that is reading far too much into what he said, and is much ado about nothing.
They are evidence of what was perceived (perhaps confidence), and the influence of cognitive bias, that is what they are; they aren't even circumstantial evidence. They are proof of nothing but what the players thought - at some point after they had already won - about the thoughts they were thinkning when they were watching the film of the Colts before the game. They are nothing but that. They, as evidence are not anywhere near as legitimate as the game stats I posted in an earlier post that demonstrate areas where there was relative parity between the two teams in the game, and where either team was better than the other. We haven't delved into the statistics. Should we? Because they will only prove my entire premise. The two teams were relatively equal. You are hinging your argument on a claim that the Jets secondary was the element that saw flaws in the film, because it is the only area where you have an argument. I happen to think that some of that is true, and some of that is due to misfortune, like the first interception that bounced off a player's pads in the endzone - a sure TD, and into the Jets hands. Maybe the Jets saw this tendency in their crystal ball? Why don't you tell me? Should we get into the Jets record versus the Colts in subsequent matchups? The Jets didn't fare too well.
Why would anyone even say anything that dumb? My position is that the Jets played a team that was of comparable mettle. the Colts were better in some categoreis and the Jets better in others. What I say is most important is that developments within the game gave the jets a strategic advantage which they capitalized on using a Ball Control Offense. this is reflected in the tilt in TOP. Everything I have said is documented in the stats I posted. When you watch the game, you also see this. The third quarter was the turning point. The Jets employed dink and dunk offense to win the game.... Cognitive bias is real. The argument for perception and cognition is effective in showing that what people believed beforehand, and are saying after-the-fact has more bearing on their states of mind than it does on the game that was played. It doesn't prove that they actually knew they would win (which is impossible). actually it isn't semantics. The thread title is, Brett Favre, The Anti-Namath. That pretty much means, I am saying they are different. There are some similarities, like star-appeal, gunslinger mentality, rocket arm. What I am doing is stating that Brett is the opposite type of character as Namath. Yes, I am using Brett's entrance into a "Guarantee Narrative" in Jets History to base that, but I state very clearly that they Brett Favre is rejecting the conclusion that he has come in the form of Broadway Joe Namath. He wants nothing to do with it.
There is no need to keep this going - my point right form the start was that you are making a mountain out of a molehill, and that any expectation that Favre would make anything like a guarantee is ridiculous, and you have said nothing that even remotely contradicts that. On the other hand, I certainly can't let the above nonsense go by. The Jets did NOT employ anything like a dink and dunk offense. Dink and dunk corresponds to short passes (often caught behind the line of scrimmage) that hopefully add up to first downs. Here are the yardages for Namath's completions to Sauer: 6, 3, 14, 11, 35, 14, 11, 39. Virtually all of these passes were over the middle, and someone who didn't have Namath's arm couldn't have possibly completed them. He also completed an 11-yard pass to Lammons, and overthrew Maynard four times on 1st-and-10 passes. There's a big difference between running out the clock in the 4th quarter and dink and dunk. The Jets under Namath never had anything remotely like a dink and dunk offense, and to claim that's how they won the Super Bowl is absurd.
you are definitely retarded then. because i have been saying all along that Favre would not make any type of Namath-esque guarantee... Whatever. I'm done. What was meant by dink and dunk was the ball control game the Jets ran in the 3rd and 4th quarters. Fine we'll give you that one pass to Sauer. The Colts had the ball for 3 minutes and 5 plays in the third. The Jets didn't pass the ball in the 4th quarter at all. I don't think I'm making a mountiain out of a molehill. Everyone wants to anoint "Broadway" Brett and whore him around midtown, and give him a namesake copy of a "broadway" streetsign. He doesn't want any of it. That's the point.
Nice - you can't defend your position, so you call me retarded. Really strengthens your argument to go for the personal attack, and such a sophisticated one, too. As I said, Namath completed six passes to Sauer over 10 yards and two over 35 yards. Some dink and dunk, and nice counting, by the way. Stick to your pointless pontificating about trivialities in a news conference. Your clear lack of understanding of Super Bowl III is just getting more and more obvious to everyone.
