Agreed. There's nothing wrong w/ using stats to help form an opinions on players. In fact, I like this idea. My belief is stats + research + watching them play should be combined to judge a player. If a player retires before you follow the sport, you can research & learn but my opinion is that you'll never obtain the insight of someone who combines stats & saw the player play. Don't think stats alone can judge a player from a different era. To use only stats & say a player wouldn't make the HOF or is only considered a great player because of one particular game (or charisma) is just too big a jump there imho.
Nobody said there was anything wrong with using stats. Stats are a tool when you compare players in the same era. But when you are dealing with a sport like football that has undergone dramatic changes over the decades which critically affect how the game is played, you cannot validly compare stats from different eras. The NFL is totally different today than it was in 1969. The rules are totally different especially with respect to QBs and WRs. Not to mention the extra games.
WRONG. You just continue to ignore the reasons that are given because you refuse to accept the fact that the people who watched him play and who played with him and against him OVERWHELMINGLY concluded that he was a GREAT QB. If you didn't see him play in his prime you might have no appreciation of this. Clearly that is the case with you. So you are left to second guess the likes of Bill Walsh, Paul Bear Bryant, Al Davis, Don Shula, Weeb Ewbank and every major football writer of the era who OVERWHELMINGLY decided that Namath was a GREAT QB. You simply choose to ignore that and then wonder why it is that your stat based opinion is not given a lot of weight especially since you never even saw the man play football. Basically you have no idea what you are talking about and you are incapable of even seeing that. LOL.
He played 12 years, he made 5 PBs/AS games(only one after the merger). There are a million guys who have made as many or more not in the Hall and they do not belong in the Hall. Rizzuto wasn't a scrub but he doesn't belong anywhere near the HOF. By typing "WRONG" in caps it doesn't make your argument valid. None of you guys have provided a sliver of evidence to back your calims besides some compliments from former coaches. Give me something, instead of telling all those players and coaches said he was great at least show me. I mean real quotes about him being one of the greatest ever not some compliment about his arm. I ask again, name me the other QBs in the Hall of Fame w/ poor #s and w/ a poor W-L record? Usuauly you need one of the two and the best have both.
I think Namath falls in the same category as Gayle Sayers. A great short-lived career ruined by injuries. If you saw him play you could see he was a great quarterback but his knees broke down early. And sure winning SBIII was a big part of his fame but then it's still probably one of the biggest games/upsets in NFL history.
What is your point? Are you upset with the NFL HOF???? Are you mad at people who know more than you do about football and know that Namath was a great player??? You continue to want to argue about statistics. Its not about statistics. That was never the reason Namath was one of the greats of his era.
not even remotely true the merger took place in 1966, three years before the Jets and Namath's SB exploit
I have said all along he belongs in the Hall b/c of what he meant to the game but if it was just about on field play he wouldn't be in. Isn't the topic about Namath being overrated? So far I've given you many examples to support that and you have yet to show anything supporting Joe other some quotes about his arm strength. What were the reasons?
