No possible way just a "good" QB beats that 13-1 Shula coached, extremely tough and heavily favored Colts team in Super Bowl III.
BTW in case you didn't know, Namath was the game MVP.
Game MVPs mean nothing. Larry Brown won a Super Bowl MVP, remember?
Namath had a sub-.500 record as a quarterback. 13 seasons, he threw more TDs than INTs twice. And, no, it's not just because "guys threw more picks back then" - Joe led the NFL in INTs four times. He had one year where more than 1 of every 12 passes he threw got picked. That's horrible. And, no, it doesn't matter that he was hurt. Being hurt might explain why he underperformed but it doesn't change the fact that he did, in fact, underperform.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@keets said:
and if my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle is the way the old saying goes. we can't know what might have been, only what happened and Namath won a SB and immortalized himself along the way. those were some revolutionary times in Society and in the NFL, Joe Namath was sort of the bridge that joined the two, the perfect ambassador in the perfect place at the perfect time.
Joe Namath being in the HOF doesn't bother me at all, for the reasons you mention here. If Jackie Robinson had only been an average player, he'd still be a HOFer because of his significance to the game. But Joe Namath is in the HOF for those reasons, not because he was a great QB, because he wasn't (note that nobody is even commenting on, let alone trying to answer, the two questions I asked). My other point, which you sidestepped, was that Joe Namath didn't win a SB, the Jets won a SB, and the only reason they were there in the first place was because they had two quality running backs compared to the zero that the Raiders had. The Jets beat the Raiders, but Lamonica was a whole lot better, in that game and every game, than Namath. If your Aunt had balls, she may well have been better than Namath, too.
@stevek said:
No possible way just a "good" QB beats that 13-1 Shula coached, extremely tough and heavily favored Colts team in Super Bowl III.
Well, they did, thanks to a helluva game from Matt Snell and a crushing defense. And I'm sure Snell was a good sport about Namath taking his SB MVP, but it probably stung. Why one Snell TD and three FGs while holding a "heavily favored Colts team" to 7 points translates to an MVP for the QB is a mystery; it happened, but reasonable people don't have to pretend that it really means anything.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@LarkinCollector said:
Cardinals have to be up there. If Jim Hart is your best QB, this stat line is not very impressive ...
TD–INT: 209–247
Yards: 34,665
Passer rating: 66.6
Even with Kurt Warner only having a few years with them, I'd probably put him above Hart. Maybe even Carson Palmer too.
Warner spent 3 full seasons with the Cardinals and every one of them was better than Jim Hart's best season, whichever one that was. For whatever reason, the only QB the Cardinals ever had that lasted long at all with them was Hart, and he was invisible until the Cardinals assembled the best O-line in history and that line, and HOF CB Roger Wehrli, carried Hart and the Cardinals to the playoffs a few times.
Depending on exactly how "worst best" is defined then the Cardinals are either sure winners with Jim Hart, or non-contenders with Kurt Warner. I think of Warner as the best in franchise history, but if the ruling is that it's Hart based on length of career as a Cardinal then the contest is over.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
No possible way just a "good" QB beats that 13-1 Shula coached, extremely tough and heavily favored Colts team in Super Bowl III.
BTW in case you didn't know, Namath was the game MVP.
Game MVPs mean nothing. Larry Brown won a Super Bowl MVP, remember?
Namath had a sub-.500 record as a quarterback. 13 seasons, he threw more TDs than INTs twice. And, no, it's not just because "guys threw more picks back then" - Joe led the NFL in INTs four times. He had one year where more than 1 of every 12 passes he threw got picked. That's horrible. And, no, it doesn't matter that he was hurt. Being hurt might explain why he underperformed but it doesn't change the fact that he did, in fact, underperform.
Yea, yea, yea, and Mickey Mantle struck out a lot, so he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame either.
Joe won that Super Bowl with nothing around him, and he had nothing around him throughout his entire Jets career. Yet he still won football games with knees that couldn't hold up a canary. Including perhaps the most amazing unexpected Super Bowl win in history as already noted, but basically considered meaningless by the haters as far as greatness is concerned.
If anyone doesn't like Namath personally, then fine, but that shouldn't influence opinion about his greatness as a football player.
@LarkinCollector said:
Cardinals have to be up there. If Jim Hart is your best QB, this stat line is not very impressive ...
TD–INT: 209–247
Yards: 34,665
Passer rating: 66.6
Even with Kurt Warner only having a few years with them, I'd probably put him above Hart. Maybe even Carson Palmer too.
Warner spent 3 full seasons with the Cardinals and every one of them was better than Jim Hart's best season, whichever one that was. For whatever reason, the only QB the Cardinals ever had that lasted long at all with them was Hart, and he was invisible until the Cardinals assembled the best O-line in history and that line, and HOF CB Roger Wehrli, carried Hart and the Cardinals to the playoffs a few times.
Depending on exactly how "worst best" is defined then the Cardinals are either sure winners with Jim Hart, or non-contenders with Kurt Warner. I think of Warner as the best in franchise history, but if the ruling is that it's Hart based on length of career as a Cardinal then the contest is over.
I think Palmer's career was of similar length to Warner as a Cardinal, but it was a brutal division those years. Think they had 10 wins one of them and didn't make the playoffs IIRC.
Joe won that Super Bowl with nothing around him, and he had nothing around him throughout his entire Jets career. Yet he still won football games with knees that couldn't hold up a canary. Including perhaps the most amazing unexpected Super Bowl win in history as already noted, but basically considered meaningless by the haters as far as greatness is concerned.
Joe Namath held the Colts to 7 points all by himself??? Joe Namath intercepted Unitas and Morrall four times??? Damn, he was better than I thought! Oh wait, it was the Jets defense that did those things and Namath had absolutely nothing to do with it. On offense the Jets scored 16 points, 6 by Snell and 10 by Turner. 16 points loses almost every Super Bowl ever played, and if the Jets defense hadn't shut down the Colts, then Namath wouldn't have a SB win. Your argument, that because the Jets defense shut down Unitas and all the HOFers on the Colts, Namath gets 100% of the credit for the SB win is so absurdly laughable that you can't actually mean it.
And on offense, I have never heard Don Maynard and George Sauer described as "nothing" before and I hope I never do again because it was painful. I'm sure the folks who sent them to the Pro Bowl year after year, and Maynard to the HOF, agree with me. And I'm not going to argue that Matt Snell is a HOFer, but he sure pounded the hell out of the Colts in that Super Bowl. Unless Namath was blocking for him then I'm pretty sure he had as much to do with Snell's beast of a game as keets' ball-less aunt. And I don't want to leave out HOFer Winston Hill who, at left tackle, was the one who kept the defense from getting to the immobile Namath long enough for him to find one of his league-best receivers. I grew up watching Jim Hart; I know all too well how a good o-line can create the illusion that the QB is a star.
How does your assessment of Namath change if the Jets defense allows the Colts to score 30 points? It it doesn't, then stop mentioning the SB win, because you have conceded that the win has nothing to do with how good Namath was. If your assessment of how good Namath was does change based on how many points the Jets defense allowed in one game then you should stop talking about football entirely, because you have conceded that you don't understand how it is played.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Namath "won" plenty of games when the Jets were lousy, but the Jets were very good in 1968. He didn't do much in the SB, but the Colts were sure focused on him. The Jets defense was great for a couple of years. By 1970 most of the good players were gone.
Namath also lost a lot of games when the Jets were lousy. His stats will never "wow" anyone.
He came into the league with one bad knee, hurt the "good" knee and was just having one serious injury after another.
If you are interested in why a guy with such average, even poor, stats ever got in the HOF read the book "Namath" by Mark Kriegel. Very enjoyable read. He doesn't pull any punches and your opinion of Namath may even be lowered, but he was a helluva football player.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Joe won that Super Bowl with nothing around him, and he had nothing around him throughout his entire Jets career. Yet he still won football games with knees that couldn't hold up a canary. Including perhaps the most amazing unexpected Super Bowl win in history as already noted, but basically considered meaningless by the haters as far as greatness is concerned.
Joe Namath held the Colts to 7 points all by himself??? Joe Namath intercepted Unitas and Morrall four times??? Damn, he was better than I thought! Oh wait, it was the Jets defense that did those things and Namath had absolutely nothing to do with it. On offense the Jets scored 16 points, 6 by Snell and 10 by Turner. 16 points loses almost every Super Bowl ever played, and if the Jets defense hadn't shut down the Colts, then Namath wouldn't have a SB win. Your argument, that because the Jets defense shut down Unitas and all the HOFers on the Colts, Namath gets 100% of the credit for the SB win is so absurdly laughable that you can't actually mean it.
And on offense, I have never heard Don Maynard and George Sauer described as "nothing" before and I hope I never do again because it was painful. I'm sure the folks who sent them to the Pro Bowl year after year, and Maynard to the HOF, agree with me. And I'm not going to argue that Matt Snell is a HOFer, but he sure pounded the hell out of the Colts in that Super Bowl. Unless Namath was blocking for him then I'm pretty sure he had as much to do with Snell's beast of a game as keets' ball-less aunt. And I don't want to leave out HOFer Winston Hill who, at left tackle, was the one who kept the defense from getting to the immobile Namath long enough for him to find one of his league-best receivers. I grew up watching Jim Hart; I know all too well how a good o-line can create the illusion that the QB is a star.
How does your assessment of Namath change if the Jets defense allows the Colts to score 30 points? It it doesn't, then stop mentioning the SB win, because you have conceded that the win has nothing to do with how good Namath was. If your assessment of how good Namath was does change based on how many points the Jets defense allowed in one game then you should stop talking about football entirely, because you have conceded that you don't understand how it is played.
Joe Namath won the Super Bowl MVP. I watched the game live on TV and he well deserved it.
A good QB can work the clock to make sure his team's defense stays off the field and so can stay as fresh as possible. I recall the Jets offense seemed to be on the field a lot during that game. I googled it and the time of possession was 36:10 for the Jets and 23:50 for the Colts - a significant difference.
This is what happens when stats are analyzed years later. Nothing wrong with stats, of course not, but stats can sometimes be misleading, especially with HOF analysis.
Just admit it, you don't like Joe Namath personally, and so did a lot of HOF voters. If Joe had a Tom Brady personality, he would have been a first ballot HOFer.
Yea, yea, yea, and Mickey Mantle struck out a lot, so he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame either.
Yep, those two things are identical. Maybe if strikeouts counted as three outs and a runner on 3rd when the opponents come up...
Joe won that Super Bowl with nothing around him, and he had nothing around him throughout his entire Jets career.
That's just blatantly false.
If anyone doesn't like Namath personally, then fine, but that shouldn't influence opinion about his greatness as a football player.
I don't care one way or another about Joe as a person. Has nothing to do with my opinion of him as a player.
Then go ahead and contact Canton, and tell them you want Joe Namath removed from the Hall of Fame immediately. Maybe they'll email you a complaint form to fill out.
A good QB can work the clock to make sure his team's defense stays off the field and so can stay as fresh as possible. I recall the Jets offense seemed to be on the field a lot during that game. I googled it and the time of possession was 36:10 for the Jets and 23:50 for the Colts - a significant difference.
LOL. Yes, when your defense makes 4, count 'em 4, interceptions that does tend to reduce the time of possession of the team that keeps getting intercepted. And you know what else tends to lead to lots of time of possession? A great running game, that's what. You posted this as if it refuted something I said, but you're just confirming every point I've made. Namath made 0 interceptions and rushed for 0 yards; his share of the credit for the time of possession difference is approximately 0.
And yes, I noticed that you never answer any of the questions that I ask, and I understand why. 'Nuff said about that.
Just admit it, you don't like Joe Namath personally, and so did a lot of HOF voters. If Joe had a Tom Brady personality, he would have been a first ballot HOFer.
I like Joe Namath just fine. I went on a date in high school to a production of Lil' Abner in Forest Park just to see Namath in the starring role. Let's just say Namath is a far better QB than he is a singer, but it was a hoot, and Namath was clearly having the time of his life. The QB I'd most like to hang out with is Terry Bradshaw - absolutely love the man. And I'll rag on how overrated he is, too, since my like or dislike for a person is unrelated to my objective assessment of his talent. One of us is having trouble disentangling those two things and it's not me.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Man I was a little boy in 69 and remember watching the Super Bowl on my Dads lap.
I didnt remember that Namath was 17/28 and 206 yards and 0 tds.
I also didn't remember that Matt Snell rushed 30 times for 121 yards and the Jets only TD.
Seems like Matt Snell got robbed of an MVP. Or it should have went to the entire Jets D
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Seems like Matt Snell got robbed of an MVP. Or it should have went to the entire Jets D
m
This is absolutely, positively true, but if you get deeper into it, Namath had been really hammering the Colts in the media and they were really focused on him.
Early in the game a Namath bomb to Don Maynard (who had a bad leg at the time and didn't have a catch in the game) almost connected. The Colts defense then played a little soft after that. I also believe their best safety(?) Rick Volk was hurt early in the game.
The Colts also bungled the game away on offense, missing a short FG early in the game and blowing a couple of plays. I believe on one of the interceptions deep in Jets territory another receiver was wide open.
In the book I mentioned it also says the Jets running game matched up perfectly against some of the Colts' oldest players, they felt they would be able to run on them, and they did.
Even though the statistics show Namath was a "game manager" that day, he had a tremendous impact on the way Baltimore played on defense.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
A good QB can work the clock to make sure his team's defense stays off the field and so can stay as fresh as possible. I recall the Jets offense seemed to be on the field a lot during that game. I googled it and the time of possession was 36:10 for the Jets and 23:50 for the Colts - a significant difference.
LOL. Yes, when your defense makes 4, count 'em 4, interceptions that does tend to reduce the time of possession of the team that keeps getting intercepted. And you know what else tends to lead to lots of time of possession? A great running game, that's what. You posted this as if it refuted something I said, but you're just confirming every point I've made. Namath made 0 interceptions and rushed for 0 yards; his share of the credit for the time of possession difference is approximately 0.
And yes, I noticed that you never answer any of the questions that I ask, and I understand why. 'Nuff said about that.
Just admit it, you don't like Joe Namath personally, and so did a lot of HOF voters. If Joe had a Tom Brady personality, he would have been a first ballot HOFer.
I like Joe Namath just fine. I went on a date in high school to a production of Lil' Abner in Forest Park just to see Namath in the starring role. Let's just say Namath is a far better QB than he is a singer, but it was a hoot, and Namath was clearly having the time of his life. The QB I'd most like to hang out with is Terry Bradshaw - absolutely love the man. And I'll rag on how overrated he is, too, since my like or dislike for a person is unrelated to my objective assessment of his talent. One of us is having trouble disentangling those two things and it's not me.
Why answer rhetorical questions?
We all know you're a Bill James devotee...and that's fine. But those such as you place too much emphasis on stats, and not enough emphasis or sometimes none at all on empirical observation.
"They" observed that day that Joe Namath was the game MVP. You many years later think based on stats, that it should have been some other player. And you're doing the exact same thing with Joe's Hall of Fame career.
And you make the same mistake again with Bill Mazeroski in your sigline. Who was an average MLB player, and nothing more than a stat builder over many years. Yes, Mazeroski was an excellent fielder, but being an excellent fielding second baseman is like being the tallest midget in the circus.
Mazeroski shouldn't even be close to a HOF player, but for whatever reason, and one of them is illogical emphasis on stats, many years after he retired, he gets admitted to the Hail of Fame which was ridiculous. I guess certain influential Yankees haters never forget that one at bat.
@stevek said:
Then go ahead and contact Canton, and tell them you want Joe Namath removed from the Hall of Fame immediately. Maybe they'll email you a complaint form to fill out.
Feel free to find the post where I said he doesn't belong in the Hall. I'll wait.
Is there any QB who played 100+ games with a worse TD/INT ratio than Namath?
Is there any other QB people think of as great with a lower QB rating than Namath?
How would your assessment of Namath's career change if the Colts had scored 30 points in the SB and won the game?
You'll still avoid answering these questions, but they aren't rhetorical.
"They" observed that day that Joe Namath was the game MVP. You many years later think based on stats, that it should have been some other player. And you're doing the exact same thing with Joe's Hall of Fame career.
"They" did, and they made a mistake, as "they" do so often with so many awards in every sport. Joe Namath was no more the most valuable player in that SB than Joe Gordon was the most valuable player in the American League in 1942 when Ted Williams won the Triple Crown. You have now painted yourself into a corner where you either have to agree that "they" make mistakes or that Joe Gordon deserved that MVP; this should be fun.
And you make the same mistake again with Bill Mazeroski in your sigline. Who was an average MLB player, and nothing more than a stat builder over many years. Yes, Mazeroski was an excellent fielder, but being an excellent fielding second baseman is like being the tallest midget in the circus.
Mazeroski shouldn't even be close to a HOF player, but for whatever reason, and one of them is illogical emphasis on stats, many years after he retired, he gets admitted to the Hail of Fame which was ridiculous. I guess certain influential Yankees haters never forget that one at bat.
It is a mistake to defend Bill Mazeroski? Should I spit on him instead? Bill Mazeroski is considered by Bill James and every other stat nerd to be the greatest second baseman in history, this is true. But Mazeroski got in the HOF because the people who saw him play thought he was the greatest second baseman in history, and said so and wrote about it at the time. Bill James et. al. may have increased awareness of Mazeroski but the conclusion that he was the GOAT 2B was not a new one; the stats confirmed a general consensus that already existed. If Dick Allen gets in the HOF, or Bobby Grich, then it will almost certainly be the case that the stat nerds should get the credit, but as long as mediocrities like Jack Morris and Harold Baines keep getting in, you can be certain that the stat nerds are not being listened to.
I think everyone who voted, and everyone who has ever seen a baseball game, disagrees with your position that being the best second baseman is akin to being the tallest midget, but you are entitled to that position no matter how silly it may seem to baseball fans. I think the HOF should include the greatest at each position and Mazeroski and Maranville, among others, earned their spots regardless of their hitting. That's my opinion on that, and you and many others disagree with it. But none of us has made a mistake.
Quick note: Ozzie is now considered the GOAT SS, but Maranville was when he was inducted, just in case someone wanted to start an Ozzie/Rabbit argument.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Is there any QB who played 100+ games with a worse TD/INT ratio than Namath?
Is there any other QB people think of as great with a lower QB rating than Namath?
How would your assessment of Namath's career change if the Colts had scored 30 points in the SB and won the game?
You'll still avoid answering these questions, but they aren't rhetorical.
"They" observed that day that Joe Namath was the game MVP. You many years later think based on stats, that it should have been some other player. And you're doing the exact same thing with Joe's Hall of Fame career.
"They" did, and they made a mistake, as "they" do so often with so many awards in every sport. Joe Namath was no more the most valuable player in that SB than Joe Gordon was the most valuable player in the American League in 1942 when Ted Williams won the Triple Crown. You have now painted yourself into a corner where you either have to agree that "they" make mistakes or that Joe Gordon deserved that MVP; this should be fun.
And you make the same mistake again with Bill Mazeroski in your sigline. Who was an average MLB player, and nothing more than a stat builder over many years. Yes, Mazeroski was an excellent fielder, but being an excellent fielding second baseman is like being the tallest midget in the circus.
Mazeroski shouldn't even be close to a HOF player, but for whatever reason, and one of them is illogical emphasis on stats, many years after he retired, he gets admitted to the Hail of Fame which was ridiculous. I guess certain influential Yankees haters never forget that one at bat.
It is a mistake to defend Bill Mazeroski? Should I spit on him instead? Bill Mazeroski is considered by Bill James and every other stat nerd to be the greatest second baseman in history, this is true. But Mazeroski got in the HOF because the people who saw him play thought he was the greatest second baseman in history, and said so and wrote about it at the time. Bill James et. al. may have increased awareness of Mazeroski but the conclusion that he was the GOAT 2B was not a new one; the stats confirmed a general consensus that already existed. If Dick Allen gets in the HOF, or Bobby Grich, then it will almost certainly be the case that the stat nerds should get the credit, but as long as mediocrities like Jack Morris and Harold Baines keep getting in, you can be certain that the stat nerds are not being listened to.
I think everyone who voted, and everyone who has ever seen a baseball game, disagrees with your position that being the best second baseman is akin to being the tallest midget, but you are entitled to that position no matter how silly it may seem to baseball fans. I think the HOF should include the greatest at each position and Mazeroski and Maranville, among others, earned their spots regardless of their hitting. That's my opinion on that, and you and many others disagree with it. But none of us has made a mistake.
Quick note: Ozzie is now considered the GOAT SS, but Maranville was when he was inducted, just in case someone wanted to start an Ozzie/Rabbit argument.
You are capable of making good points, and I've enjoyed a number of your posts over the years. But I'm not in the mood to keep rehashing Joe Namath. I saw the game live on TV, and watched a good number of games in which he played. His talent was obvious, his greatness was obvious.
About Mazeroski....I disagree with anyone's premise that positions or eras should be "must" considerations for the Hall of Fame.
For example, if say in a particular era there were no good catchers. Should the best catcher in that era be a Hall of Famer just because he was superior to the other duds? The correct answer is no.
Same with a position such as second base, which other than pitcher, normally fields the worst hitter on the team, going back to little league. So let's say that Mazeroski was the best second baseman of his era or even a few eras, that still shouldn't mean automatic induction into the Hall of Fame just based on that.
@stevek said:
Then go ahead and contact Canton, and tell them you want Joe Namath removed from the Hall of Fame immediately. Maybe they'll email you a complaint form to fill out.
Feel free to find the post where I said he doesn't belong in the Hall. I'll wait.
Below is your quote:
"Namath had a sub-.500 record as a quarterback. 13 seasons, he threw more TDs than INTs twice. And, no, it's not just because "guys threw more picks back then" - Joe led the NFL in INTs four times. He had one year where more than 1 of every 12 passes he threw got picked. That's horrible. And, no, it doesn't matter that he was hurt. Being hurt might explain why he underperformed but it doesn't change the fact that he did, in fact, underperform."
@stevek said:
Then go ahead and contact Canton, and tell them you want Joe Namath removed from the Hall of Fame immediately. Maybe they'll email you a complaint form to fill out.
Feel free to find the post where I said he doesn't belong in the Hall. I'll wait.
Below is your quote:
"Namath had a sub-.500 record as a quarterback. 13 seasons, he threw more TDs than INTs twice. And, no, it's not just because "guys threw more picks back then" - Joe led the NFL in INTs four times. He had one year where more than 1 of every 12 passes he threw got picked. That's horrible. And, no, it doesn't matter that he was hurt. Being hurt might explain why he underperformed but it doesn't change the fact that he did, in fact, underperform."
Them are just facts
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@stevek said:
Then go ahead and contact Canton, and tell them you want Joe Namath removed from the Hall of Fame immediately. Maybe they'll email you a complaint form to fill out.
Feel free to find the post where I said he doesn't belong in the Hall. I'll wait.
Below is your quote:
"Namath had a sub-.500 record as a quarterback. 13 seasons, he threw more TDs than INTs twice. And, no, it's not just because "guys threw more picks back then" - Joe led the NFL in INTs four times. He had one year where more than 1 of every 12 passes he threw got picked. That's horrible. And, no, it doesn't matter that he was hurt. Being hurt might explain why he underperformed but it doesn't change the fact that he did, in fact, underperform."
Them are just facts
mark
Yea but the Hall of Fame voters didn't see it that way now did they?
@stevek said:
Then go ahead and contact Canton, and tell them you want Joe Namath removed from the Hall of Fame immediately. Maybe they'll email you a complaint form to fill out.
Feel free to find the post where I said he doesn't belong in the Hall. I'll wait.
Below is your quote:
"Namath had a sub-.500 record as a quarterback. 13 seasons, he threw more TDs than INTs twice. And, no, it's not just because "guys threw more picks back then" - Joe led the NFL in INTs four times. He had one year where more than 1 of every 12 passes he threw got picked. That's horrible. And, no, it doesn't matter that he was hurt. Being hurt might explain why he underperformed but it doesn't change the fact that he did, in fact, underperform."
Them are just facts
mark
Yea but the Hall of Fame voters didn't see it that way now did they?
They probably did.. He was larger then life.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@stevek said:
About Mazeroski....I disagree with anyone's premise that positions or eras should be "must" considerations for the Hall of Fame.
For example, if say in a particular era there were no good catchers. Should the best catcher in that era be a Hall of Famer just because he was superior to the other duds? The correct answer is no.
Whether "they" were right or wrong, the people who elected Mazeroski to the HOF thought he was the best second baseman ever. You can still disagree with the position that a GOAT doesn't belong in the HOF - and lots of people do - but the HOF does agree with me, and had elected several others before Mazeroski with equally poor offensive stats. I absolutely agree that moving down to best at a position for an era would be taking it way too far.
As for Namath, and I'll let this be my last word on the topic, I view him in a manner not all that different than Mazeroski. I don't think either of them were good enough to be HOFers on overall merit, but I think they are both deserving HOFers based on their specific contributions to the game. If it helps, if I had to remove one of them from their HOF, I'd take out Mazeroski before I'd take out Namath.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@stevek said:
Then go ahead and contact Canton, and tell them you want Joe Namath removed from the Hall of Fame immediately. Maybe they'll email you a complaint form to fill out.
Feel free to find the post where I said he doesn't belong in the Hall. I'll wait.
Below is your quote:
"Namath had a sub-.500 record as a quarterback. 13 seasons, he threw more TDs than INTs twice. And, no, it's not just because "guys threw more picks back then" - Joe led the NFL in INTs four times. He had one year where more than 1 of every 12 passes he threw got picked. That's horrible. And, no, it doesn't matter that he was hurt. Being hurt might explain why he underperformed but it doesn't change the fact that he did, in fact, underperform."
Huh, I assume you mistakenly left out the part where I talked about the Hall? No?
@stevek said:
Then go ahead and contact Canton, and tell them you want Joe Namath removed from the Hall of Fame immediately. Maybe they'll email you a complaint form to fill out.
Feel free to find the post where I said he doesn't belong in the Hall. I'll wait.
Below is your quote:
"Namath had a sub-.500 record as a quarterback. 13 seasons, he threw more TDs than INTs twice. And, no, it's not just because "guys threw more picks back then" - Joe led the NFL in INTs four times. He had one year where more than 1 of every 12 passes he threw got picked. That's horrible. And, no, it doesn't matter that he was hurt. Being hurt might explain why he underperformed but it doesn't change the fact that he did, in fact, underperform."
Huh, I assume you mistakenly left out the part where I talked about the Hall? No?
Well then it would be the first time i ever heard the word "underperform" used to describe a player who someone thought should be in the Hall of Fame.
I just came back here and quickly re-read a bunch of the posts. I might have missed it, but has someone discussed the Jaguars. Formed in 1995. Brunell would be their best?
Comments
Game MVPs mean nothing. Larry Brown won a Super Bowl MVP, remember?
Namath had a sub-.500 record as a quarterback. 13 seasons, he threw more TDs than INTs twice. And, no, it's not just because "guys threw more picks back then" - Joe led the NFL in INTs four times. He had one year where more than 1 of every 12 passes he threw got picked. That's horrible. And, no, it doesn't matter that he was hurt. Being hurt might explain why he underperformed but it doesn't change the fact that he did, in fact, underperform.
He was BARELY good
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Joe Namath being in the HOF doesn't bother me at all, for the reasons you mention here. If Jackie Robinson had only been an average player, he'd still be a HOFer because of his significance to the game. But Joe Namath is in the HOF for those reasons, not because he was a great QB, because he wasn't (note that nobody is even commenting on, let alone trying to answer, the two questions I asked). My other point, which you sidestepped, was that Joe Namath didn't win a SB, the Jets won a SB, and the only reason they were there in the first place was because they had two quality running backs compared to the zero that the Raiders had. The Jets beat the Raiders, but Lamonica was a whole lot better, in that game and every game, than Namath. If your Aunt had balls, she may well have been better than Namath, too.
Well, they did, thanks to a helluva game from Matt Snell and a crushing defense. And I'm sure Snell was a good sport about Namath taking his SB MVP, but it probably stung. Why one Snell TD and three FGs while holding a "heavily favored Colts team" to 7 points translates to an MVP for the QB is a mystery; it happened, but reasonable people don't have to pretend that it really means anything.
Warner spent 3 full seasons with the Cardinals and every one of them was better than Jim Hart's best season, whichever one that was. For whatever reason, the only QB the Cardinals ever had that lasted long at all with them was Hart, and he was invisible until the Cardinals assembled the best O-line in history and that line, and HOF CB Roger Wehrli, carried Hart and the Cardinals to the playoffs a few times.
Depending on exactly how "worst best" is defined then the Cardinals are either sure winners with Jim Hart, or non-contenders with Kurt Warner. I think of Warner as the best in franchise history, but if the ruling is that it's Hart based on length of career as a Cardinal then the contest is over.
Yea, yea, yea, and Mickey Mantle struck out a lot, so he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame either.
Joe won that Super Bowl with nothing around him, and he had nothing around him throughout his entire Jets career. Yet he still won football games with knees that couldn't hold up a canary. Including perhaps the most amazing unexpected Super Bowl win in history as already noted, but basically considered meaningless by the haters as far as greatness is concerned.
If anyone doesn't like Namath personally, then fine, but that shouldn't influence opinion about his greatness as a football player.
I think Palmer's career was of similar length to Warner as a Cardinal, but it was a brutal division those years. Think they had 10 wins one of them and didn't make the playoffs IIRC.
Joe Namath held the Colts to 7 points all by himself??? Joe Namath intercepted Unitas and Morrall four times??? Damn, he was better than I thought! Oh wait, it was the Jets defense that did those things and Namath had absolutely nothing to do with it. On offense the Jets scored 16 points, 6 by Snell and 10 by Turner. 16 points loses almost every Super Bowl ever played, and if the Jets defense hadn't shut down the Colts, then Namath wouldn't have a SB win. Your argument, that because the Jets defense shut down Unitas and all the HOFers on the Colts, Namath gets 100% of the credit for the SB win is so absurdly laughable that you can't actually mean it.
And on offense, I have never heard Don Maynard and George Sauer described as "nothing" before and I hope I never do again because it was painful. I'm sure the folks who sent them to the Pro Bowl year after year, and Maynard to the HOF, agree with me. And I'm not going to argue that Matt Snell is a HOFer, but he sure pounded the hell out of the Colts in that Super Bowl. Unless Namath was blocking for him then I'm pretty sure he had as much to do with Snell's beast of a game as keets' ball-less aunt. And I don't want to leave out HOFer Winston Hill who, at left tackle, was the one who kept the defense from getting to the immobile Namath long enough for him to find one of his league-best receivers. I grew up watching Jim Hart; I know all too well how a good o-line can create the illusion that the QB is a star.
How does your assessment of Namath change if the Jets defense allows the Colts to score 30 points? It it doesn't, then stop mentioning the SB win, because you have conceded that the win has nothing to do with how good Namath was. If your assessment of how good Namath was does change based on how many points the Jets defense allowed in one game then you should stop talking about football entirely, because you have conceded that you don't understand how it is played.
Yep, those two things are identical. Maybe if strikeouts counted as three outs and a runner on 3rd when the opponents come up...
That's just blatantly false.
I don't care one way or another about Joe as a person. Has nothing to do with my opinion of him as a player.
Namath "won" plenty of games when the Jets were lousy, but the Jets were very good in 1968. He didn't do much in the SB, but the Colts were sure focused on him. The Jets defense was great for a couple of years. By 1970 most of the good players were gone.
Namath also lost a lot of games when the Jets were lousy. His stats will never "wow" anyone.
He came into the league with one bad knee, hurt the "good" knee and was just having one serious injury after another.
If you are interested in why a guy with such average, even poor, stats ever got in the HOF read the book "Namath" by Mark Kriegel. Very enjoyable read. He doesn't pull any punches and your opinion of Namath may even be lowered, but he was a helluva football player.
Joe Namath won the Super Bowl MVP. I watched the game live on TV and he well deserved it.
A good QB can work the clock to make sure his team's defense stays off the field and so can stay as fresh as possible. I recall the Jets offense seemed to be on the field a lot during that game. I googled it and the time of possession was 36:10 for the Jets and 23:50 for the Colts - a significant difference.
This is what happens when stats are analyzed years later. Nothing wrong with stats, of course not, but stats can sometimes be misleading, especially with HOF analysis.
Just admit it, you don't like Joe Namath personally, and so did a lot of HOF voters. If Joe had a Tom Brady personality, he would have been a first ballot HOFer.
Then go ahead and contact Canton, and tell them you want Joe Namath removed from the Hall of Fame immediately. Maybe they'll email you a complaint form to fill out.
LOL. Yes, when your defense makes 4, count 'em 4, interceptions that does tend to reduce the time of possession of the team that keeps getting intercepted. And you know what else tends to lead to lots of time of possession? A great running game, that's what. You posted this as if it refuted something I said, but you're just confirming every point I've made. Namath made 0 interceptions and rushed for 0 yards; his share of the credit for the time of possession difference is approximately 0.
And yes, I noticed that you never answer any of the questions that I ask, and I understand why. 'Nuff said about that.
I like Joe Namath just fine. I went on a date in high school to a production of Lil' Abner in Forest Park just to see Namath in the starring role. Let's just say Namath is a far better QB than he is a singer, but it was a hoot, and Namath was clearly having the time of his life. The QB I'd most like to hang out with is Terry Bradshaw - absolutely love the man. And I'll rag on how overrated he is, too, since my like or dislike for a person is unrelated to my objective assessment of his talent. One of us is having trouble disentangling those two things and it's not me.
Man I was a little boy in 69 and remember watching the Super Bowl on my Dads lap.
I didnt remember that Namath was 17/28 and 206 yards and 0 tds.
I also didn't remember that Matt Snell rushed 30 times for 121 yards and the Jets only TD.
Seems like Matt Snell got robbed of an MVP. Or it should have went to the entire Jets D
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
>
This is absolutely, positively true, but if you get deeper into it, Namath had been really hammering the Colts in the media and they were really focused on him.
Early in the game a Namath bomb to Don Maynard (who had a bad leg at the time and didn't have a catch in the game) almost connected. The Colts defense then played a little soft after that. I also believe their best safety(?) Rick Volk was hurt early in the game.
The Colts also bungled the game away on offense, missing a short FG early in the game and blowing a couple of plays. I believe on one of the interceptions deep in Jets territory another receiver was wide open.
In the book I mentioned it also says the Jets running game matched up perfectly against some of the Colts' oldest players, they felt they would be able to run on them, and they did.
Even though the statistics show Namath was a "game manager" that day, he had a tremendous impact on the way Baltimore played on defense.
Why answer rhetorical questions?
We all know you're a Bill James devotee...and that's fine. But those such as you place too much emphasis on stats, and not enough emphasis or sometimes none at all on empirical observation.
"They" observed that day that Joe Namath was the game MVP. You many years later think based on stats, that it should have been some other player. And you're doing the exact same thing with Joe's Hall of Fame career.
And you make the same mistake again with Bill Mazeroski in your sigline. Who was an average MLB player, and nothing more than a stat builder over many years. Yes, Mazeroski was an excellent fielder, but being an excellent fielding second baseman is like being the tallest midget in the circus.
Mazeroski shouldn't even be close to a HOF player, but for whatever reason, and one of them is illogical emphasis on stats, many years after he retired, he gets admitted to the Hail of Fame which was ridiculous. I guess certain influential Yankees haters never forget that one at bat.
Feel free to find the post where I said he doesn't belong in the Hall. I'll wait.
They weren't rhetorical.
Is there any QB who played 100+ games with a worse TD/INT ratio than Namath?
Is there any other QB people think of as great with a lower QB rating than Namath?
How would your assessment of Namath's career change if the Colts had scored 30 points in the SB and won the game?
You'll still avoid answering these questions, but they aren't rhetorical.
"They" did, and they made a mistake, as "they" do so often with so many awards in every sport. Joe Namath was no more the most valuable player in that SB than Joe Gordon was the most valuable player in the American League in 1942 when Ted Williams won the Triple Crown. You have now painted yourself into a corner where you either have to agree that "they" make mistakes or that Joe Gordon deserved that MVP; this should be fun.
It is a mistake to defend Bill Mazeroski? Should I spit on him instead? Bill Mazeroski is considered by Bill James and every other stat nerd to be the greatest second baseman in history, this is true. But Mazeroski got in the HOF because the people who saw him play thought he was the greatest second baseman in history, and said so and wrote about it at the time. Bill James et. al. may have increased awareness of Mazeroski but the conclusion that he was the GOAT 2B was not a new one; the stats confirmed a general consensus that already existed. If Dick Allen gets in the HOF, or Bobby Grich, then it will almost certainly be the case that the stat nerds should get the credit, but as long as mediocrities like Jack Morris and Harold Baines keep getting in, you can be certain that the stat nerds are not being listened to.
I think everyone who voted, and everyone who has ever seen a baseball game, disagrees with your position that being the best second baseman is akin to being the tallest midget, but you are entitled to that position no matter how silly it may seem to baseball fans. I think the HOF should include the greatest at each position and Mazeroski and Maranville, among others, earned their spots regardless of their hitting. That's my opinion on that, and you and many others disagree with it. But none of us has made a mistake.
Quick note: Ozzie is now considered the GOAT SS, but Maranville was when he was inducted, just in case someone wanted to start an Ozzie/Rabbit argument.
That should be defensive 2B. No one's taking Maz over Hornsby in a draft of second basemen.
You are capable of making good points, and I've enjoyed a number of your posts over the years. But I'm not in the mood to keep rehashing Joe Namath. I saw the game live on TV, and watched a good number of games in which he played. His talent was obvious, his greatness was obvious.
About Mazeroski....I disagree with anyone's premise that positions or eras should be "must" considerations for the Hall of Fame.
For example, if say in a particular era there were no good catchers. Should the best catcher in that era be a Hall of Famer just because he was superior to the other duds? The correct answer is no.
Same with a position such as second base, which other than pitcher, normally fields the worst hitter on the team, going back to little league. So let's say that Mazeroski was the best second baseman of his era or even a few eras, that still shouldn't mean automatic induction into the Hall of Fame just based on that.
Below is your quote:
"Namath had a sub-.500 record as a quarterback. 13 seasons, he threw more TDs than INTs twice. And, no, it's not just because "guys threw more picks back then" - Joe led the NFL in INTs four times. He had one year where more than 1 of every 12 passes he threw got picked. That's horrible. And, no, it doesn't matter that he was hurt. Being hurt might explain why he underperformed but it doesn't change the fact that he did, in fact, underperform."
Them are just facts
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Yea but the Hall of Fame voters didn't see it that way now did they?
@stevek
@dallasactuary
I enjoy the contributions from both of you, and Jim Rice is my favorite player, so I'll just stay out of this one... 😂😂😂😂
They probably did.. He was larger then life.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Whether "they" were right or wrong, the people who elected Mazeroski to the HOF thought he was the best second baseman ever. You can still disagree with the position that a GOAT doesn't belong in the HOF - and lots of people do - but the HOF does agree with me, and had elected several others before Mazeroski with equally poor offensive stats. I absolutely agree that moving down to best at a position for an era would be taking it way too far.
As for Namath, and I'll let this be my last word on the topic, I view him in a manner not all that different than Mazeroski. I don't think either of them were good enough to be HOFers on overall merit, but I think they are both deserving HOFers based on their specific contributions to the game. If it helps, if I had to remove one of them from their HOF, I'd take out Mazeroski before I'd take out Namath.
Hey i do have to admit, that was one heckuva home run that Maz hit.
Huh, I assume you mistakenly left out the part where I talked about the Hall? No?
So we are down to the Cardinals, Falcons, Eagles, Ravens and possibly Jets ?
Well then it would be the first time i ever heard the word "underperform" used to describe a player who someone thought should be in the Hall of Fame.
I guess there's a first time for everything.
Bobby Lane
I just came back here and quickly re-read a bunch of the posts. I might have missed it, but has someone discussed the Jaguars. Formed in 1995. Brunell would be their best?