bigreddog... you give Joe Namath a lot of credit. There is no doubt that Joe Namath was a HUGE star. But I ask you this: If the Jets were to win the Super Bowl THIS year, do we give Mark Sanchez all of the credit? Joe Namath won TWO postseason professional football games EVER. He played ok in both of those games. Not incredible. He did his job. The Jets defense and running game won the Super Bowl. He is in because of the guarantee, his huge New York hype, his bravado, his media darling status, and his reputation with the ladies. If he had led the San Diego Chargers to the Super Bowl win over the Colts and not the New York Jets, he'd have to buy a ticket to get in to the Hall. His career was no more impressive than Joe Theismann's (actually - NOT as impressive as Theismann's) and he certainly was not as good as Ken Stabler. Red Grange is in the Hall of Fame too. Again, he did very little in the pros, but he had a big reputation and was very famous. Maybe we should have inducted Namath in the Builder's category, since he was so important in the merging of the leagues and the making of the NFL's television dynasty, because he certainly didn't deserve to go in as a player.
<< <i>bigreddog... you give Joe Namath a lot of credit. There is no doubt that Joe Namath was a HUGE star. But I ask you this: If the Jets were to win the Super Bowl THIS year, do we give Mark Sanchez all of the credit? Joe Namath won TWO postseason professional football games EVER. He played ok in both of those games. Not incredible. He did his job. The Jets defense and running game won the Super Bowl. He is in because of the guarantee, his huge New York hype, his bravado, his media darling status, and his reputation with the ladies. If he had led the San Diego Chargers to the Super Bowl win over the Colts and not the New York Jets, he'd have to buy a ticket to get in to the Hall. His career was no more impressive than Joe Theismann's (actually - NOT as impressive as Theismann's) and he certainly was not as good as Ken Stabler. Red Grange is in the Hall of Fame too. Again, he did very little in the pros, but he had a big reputation and was very famous. Maybe we should have inducted Namath in the Builder's category, since he was so important in the merging of the leagues and the making of the NFL's television dynasty, because he certainly didn't deserve to go in as a player. >>
Very well said. I'd have to agree.
Here's the 23 modern era QB's in the HOF right now. All started after WW 2. Who would anyone of you reading this thread, rate as the worst three QB's on this list?
Troy Aikman 1989-2000 George Blanda (Also PK) 1949-1958, 1960-1975 Terry Bradshaw 1970-1983 Len Dawson 1957-1975 John Elway 1983-1998 Dan Fouts 1973-1987 Otto Graham 1946-1955 Bob Griese 1967-1980 Sonny Jurgensen 1957-1974 Jim Kelly 1986-1996 Bobby Layne 1948-1962 Dan Marino 1983-1999 Joe Montana 1979-1994 Warren Moon 1984-2000 Joe Namath 1965-1977 Bart Starr 1956-1971 Roger Staubach 1969-1979 Fran Tarkenton 1961-1978 Y.A. Tittle 1948-1964 Johnny Unitas 1956-1973 Norm Van Brocklin 1949-1960 Bob Waterfield 1945-1952 Steve Young 1985-1999
<< <i>More "IF's" trying to compare two different eras.
I'll take Joe for my team anyday over..... say, Big stat losers like Dan Marino and Fran Tarkenton.
We will just have to agree to disagree. >>
Are you kidding? Tarkenton and Marino are losers simply because their team did not win the Super Bowl? Give me a break. Teams win Super Bowls, not individual players. Find me a QB who won a Super Bowl with a below average team in every other regard. When you can find those guys, then you can start heaping credit on them individually for the success of their entire team.
Curious, how many tackles did Namath have? Blocks? Receptions? Passes defended? I thought so.
If you were talking about QB's that racked up stats because their team was awful and they were always getting yards in garbage time to make them look better, then you would have a point. Tarkenton and Marino do not even come close to fitting that point.
Namath may have guaranteed that Super Bowl, but he was not the key player in delivering it. THe defense was. SO because his defense plays like that, he gets all the credit, while you lambast a far superior QB and call him a loser in Marino because the 49ers ran all over Marino's defensive teammates??? Yeah, ok.
If you and I were to get a touch football game together for 5k in prize money, and I got to pick my teammates as well as pick yours, and we were both the QB. I don't think you would like it too well if you were labled a choke and a loser when you guys got stomped.
Your zeal is appreciated for the 'old time' guys, but using that to dismiss an entire current generation is silly. And also, there are other guys who are even MORE 'old time' than the guys like Namath and such, and make Namath look like a p u s s y (which he may have been anyway).
Also, Rugby players make every NFL player who has ever played, look like a, p u s s y. Maybe you are following the wrong sport.
PS. If Namath were such a 'big game player', then how do you explain his 1969 playoff performance?? 14 for 40 with 164 yds, and 3 INT. Zero Td, and they lost. THeir defense still almost got him a win by holding the opp to 13 points!
Also, ask me this, why not apply your same method to Doug Williams??? Did you know he has 'won' FOUR playoff games to Namath's two?? He has a dominating SB performance as well. I guess if you would take Namath over all those guys, then you would take Doug Williams too! Since you may actually say you would, then why didn't he win with TB?
Cardbender, to answer your question... I would put Namath and Blanda in the bottom three for sure. My instinct is Waterfield, but to be quite honest, I never saw him play, and the game was so different that I just can't get a good grasp on him. Plus the whole Waterfield/Van Brocklin sharing makes things skewed. We've had the argument on Bradshaw many times, but he won four Super Bowls, so it is hard to put him in the bottom three. I would definitely put him in the bottom ten though. Fran Tarkenton? He did get his team to three Super Bowls (all big losses), but it was the same team that Joe Kapp also took to the Super Bowl. The Vikings had a GREAT defense and HUGE home ice advantage, so Fran didn't have to put up a lot of points. But, Tark's stats are so much better than Namath and Blanda, I have trouble grouping him with them. I'll have to go bottom two and that next group has 8-10 guys in it.
<< <i>I don't dispute that Namath didn't have the greatest stat sheet, But a player's HOF worthiness is NOT just numbers. I look at it this way, If you visit the Pro Football HOF you will be taken on a tour through the history of Professional Football. That history Can NOT be told without Joe Namath. It can be told without many of the other players in the HOF. Not to bad for the Worst QB Enshirned in the Canton. >>
And the story of professional baseball can't be told without Roger Maris & Mark McGwire, but they ain't in the HOF either.
Joe Namath is also statistically very poor. 50.1% career completion percentage. Led league in interceptions 4x and TDs only once. The year he threw for 4,000 yards he still threw for more INTs than TDs. A career 62-63-4 record.
Weak for HOF standards. Right place, right time...
With Waterfield, it is not so easy. Times were different then. Passing statistics (for the most part) were a lot weaker. So, the role of the quarterback was different as well. I just can't judge Waterfield based on his numbers. He might have been amazing. He managed to keep Norm Van Brocklin from becoming a full-time starter for a few years, so he must have been decent. But then again, how many HOF quarterbacks split time during their peak years? Just a weird situation. But he was also a superb defensive back and punter. Not sure where to put him.
Yeah, Waterfield is hard to judge because of the era he played in and also splitting time at QB with Van Brocklin. Still, he made the HOF while splitting time with another HOF QB. That alone is something else.
He was already 25 when he entered the league. He was the NFL MVP his rookie year in 1945 and played on two Championship winning teams. Even though his passing stats don't look that great, he led the league in passing twice and in TD's twice. He was first team all NFL three times and second team twice in only eight seasons played.
Played some solid DB for four years and had 20 INT's. Punted well, a 42.4 career avg. Even excelled at place kicking leading the league in FG's made three times and extra points made four times.
Generally he was a great all-around player, but whose stat line suffers from the platoon QB situation.
As a bonus, he was married to Jane Russell in the 1940's. I think Bob did alright for himself.
I'm really not sure where to rank him in the modern era HOF QB's.
<< <i>for baseball it's definately Ozzie Smith. sure the guy was tremendous at fielding, 13 gold gloves, but being in the hall of fame should mean that a player was great at all aspects of the game. his offensive stats are a joke:
career .262 hitter, only 1 season at .300 or better (.303 in 1987) 28 career home runs, 793 career rbi 2460 hits in 19 seasons for an average of 155 per year career obp .337 <- are you kidding me? hit .236 in 42 postseason games >>
I'm in agreement about Ozzie Smith being among the worst players in the Baseball HOF. In order to help him achieve fame, a catchy nickname and performing flips while running out to shortstop between innings substituted for a lot of mediocre offensive play.
__________________________
As far as some of the worst players in the Football HOF, we got some as recently as the latest induction ceremony: Floyd Little, Dick Lebeau, and to a lesser extent, Rickey Jackson.
Some say Rickey Jackson benefitted from the Saints in the Super Bowl last year. LOL. Yeah, that's logical - voters advancing a player's HOF cause because the team that he used to play for is in a Super Bowl decades later.
I was watching the ceremony last year when Floyd Little was on stage with fellow 2010 Class inductees Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith. The quality of HOF players will have differing gradations, sure. However, in terms of greatness, there are many degrees of separation between Floyd Little and the league's All-Time Leading Receiver and Rusher, respectively. Yet there they were - all considered peers, all HOFers just the same. Floyd Little and Dick Lebeau having busts sculpted forever - what a joke.
For Ozzie Smith's career here are some advanced measurements of his offense...
Situational Batter Runs. Zero equals a league average player.
Career of -57
Situational Stolen Base Runs
Career of 49
That comes to a sum total of -8 as an offensive player.
When you consider his baserunning ability(that is not reflected in his stolen base numbers), he pretty much sits exactly as a league average offensive performer .
Since he is most likely one of the top handful of defensive players of all time...it isn't as bad as it looks.
I can think of a Left Fielder from his era who is worse
Any of the writers in the various HOF's. They were typically 10-20 years older during their "prime" and were not hired for their athletic skills. I am sure they would make worst players, then the owners and like.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
While I'm not going to go so far as to say he doesn't belong in the HOF, I was VERY surprised Kirby Puckett got in on the first ballot (as did Dave Winfield that year but everyone knew he would be a first ballot HOF). While Kirby was a fine player, two time champion, and an all around nice guy, and probably is HOF worthy in general, I thought only the best of the very best make the first ballot, and I just don't think Kirby is really in that top of the top tiers.
Comments
I'll take Joe for my team anyday over..... say, Big stat losers like Dan Marino and Fran Tarkenton.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
<< <i>bigreddog... you give Joe Namath a lot of credit. There is no doubt that Joe Namath was a HUGE star. But I ask you this: If the Jets were to win the Super Bowl THIS year, do we give Mark Sanchez all of the credit? Joe Namath won TWO postseason professional football games EVER. He played ok in both of those games. Not incredible. He did his job. The Jets defense and running game won the Super Bowl. He is in because of the guarantee, his huge New York hype, his bravado, his media darling status, and his reputation with the ladies. If he had led the San Diego Chargers to the Super Bowl win over the Colts and not the New York Jets, he'd have to buy a ticket to get in to the Hall. His career was no more impressive than Joe Theismann's (actually - NOT as impressive as Theismann's) and he certainly was not as good as Ken Stabler. Red Grange is in the Hall of Fame too. Again, he did very little in the pros, but he had a big reputation and was very famous. Maybe we should have inducted Namath in the Builder's category, since he was so important in the merging of the leagues and the making of the NFL's television dynasty, because he certainly didn't deserve to go in as a player. >>
Very well said. I'd have to agree.
Here's the 23 modern era QB's in the HOF right now. All started after WW 2. Who would anyone of you reading this thread, rate as the worst three QB's on this list?
Troy Aikman 1989-2000
George Blanda (Also PK) 1949-1958, 1960-1975
Terry Bradshaw 1970-1983
Len Dawson 1957-1975
John Elway 1983-1998
Dan Fouts 1973-1987
Otto Graham 1946-1955
Bob Griese 1967-1980
Sonny Jurgensen 1957-1974
Jim Kelly 1986-1996
Bobby Layne 1948-1962
Dan Marino 1983-1999
Joe Montana 1979-1994
Warren Moon 1984-2000
Joe Namath 1965-1977
Bart Starr 1956-1971
Roger Staubach 1969-1979
Fran Tarkenton 1961-1978
Y.A. Tittle 1948-1964
Johnny Unitas 1956-1973
Norm Van Brocklin 1949-1960
Bob Waterfield 1945-1952
Steve Young 1985-1999
<< <i>More "IF's" trying to compare two different eras.
I'll take Joe for my team anyday over..... say, Big stat losers like Dan Marino and Fran Tarkenton.
We will just have to agree to disagree. >>
Are you kidding? Tarkenton and Marino are losers simply because their team did not win the Super Bowl? Give me a break. Teams win Super Bowls, not individual players. Find me a QB who won a Super Bowl with a below average team in every other regard. When you can find those guys, then you can start heaping credit on them individually for the success of their entire team.
Curious, how many tackles did Namath have? Blocks? Receptions? Passes defended? I thought so.
If you were talking about QB's that racked up stats because their team was awful and they were always getting yards in garbage time to make them look better, then you would have a point. Tarkenton and Marino do not even come close to fitting that point.
Namath may have guaranteed that Super Bowl, but he was not the key player in delivering it. THe defense was. SO because his defense plays like that, he gets all the credit, while you lambast a far superior QB and call him a loser in Marino because the 49ers ran all over Marino's defensive teammates??? Yeah, ok.
If you and I were to get a touch football game together for 5k in prize money, and I got to pick my teammates as well as pick yours, and we were both the QB. I don't think you would like it too well if you were labled a choke and a loser when you guys got stomped.
Your zeal is appreciated for the 'old time' guys, but using that to dismiss an entire current generation is silly. And also, there are other guys who are even MORE 'old time' than the guys like Namath and such, and make Namath look like a p u s s y (which he may have been anyway).
Also, Rugby players make every NFL player who has ever played, look like a, p u s s y. Maybe you are following the wrong sport.
PS. If Namath were such a 'big game player', then how do you explain his 1969 playoff performance?? 14 for 40 with 164 yds, and 3 INT. Zero Td, and they lost. THeir defense still almost got him a win by holding the opp to 13 points!
Also, ask me this, why not apply your same method to Doug Williams??? Did you know he has 'won' FOUR playoff games to Namath's two?? He has a dominating SB performance as well. I guess if you would take Namath over all those guys, then you would take Doug Williams too! Since you may actually say you would, then why didn't he win with TB?
Sam
<< <i>I don't dispute that Namath didn't have the greatest stat sheet, But a player's HOF worthiness is NOT just numbers.
I look at it this way, If you visit the Pro Football HOF you will be taken on a tour through the history of Professional Football.
That history Can NOT be told without Joe Namath. It can be told without many of the other players in the HOF.
Not to bad for the Worst QB Enshirned in the Canton. >>
And the story of professional baseball can't be told without Roger Maris & Mark McGwire, but they ain't in the HOF either.
Tabe
Erik
Who can defend this election?
He was a very good punter and kicker...
Erik
Weak for HOF standards. Right place, right time...
Erik
He was already 25 when he entered the league. He was the NFL MVP his rookie year in 1945 and played on two Championship winning teams. Even though his passing stats don't look that great, he led the league in passing twice and in TD's twice. He was first team all NFL three times and second team twice in only eight seasons played.
Played some solid DB for four years and had 20 INT's. Punted well, a 42.4 career avg. Even excelled at place kicking leading the league in FG's made three times and extra points made four times.
Generally he was a great all-around player, but whose stat line suffers from the platoon QB situation.
As a bonus, he was married to Jane Russell in the 1940's. I think Bob did alright for himself.
I'm really not sure where to rank him in the modern era HOF QB's.
<< <i>for baseball it's definately Ozzie Smith. sure the guy was tremendous at fielding, 13 gold gloves, but being in the hall of fame should mean that a player was great at all aspects of the game. his offensive stats are a joke:
career .262 hitter, only 1 season at .300 or better (.303 in 1987)
28 career home runs, 793 career rbi
2460 hits in 19 seasons for an average of 155 per year
career obp .337 <- are you kidding me?
hit .236 in 42 postseason games >>
I'm in agreement about Ozzie Smith being among the worst players in the Baseball HOF. In order to help him achieve fame, a catchy nickname and performing flips while running out to shortstop between innings substituted for a lot of mediocre offensive play.
__________________________
As far as some of the worst players in the Football HOF, we got some as recently as the latest induction ceremony: Floyd Little, Dick Lebeau, and to a lesser extent, Rickey Jackson.
Some say Rickey Jackson benefitted from the Saints in the Super Bowl last year. LOL. Yeah, that's logical - voters advancing a player's HOF cause because the team that he used to play for is in a Super Bowl decades later.
I was watching the ceremony last year when Floyd Little was on stage with fellow 2010 Class inductees Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith. The quality of HOF players will have differing gradations, sure. However, in terms of greatness, there are many degrees of separation between Floyd Little and the league's All-Time Leading Receiver and Rusher, respectively. Yet there they were - all considered peers, all HOFers just the same. Floyd Little and Dick Lebeau having busts sculpted forever - what a joke.
Situational Batter Runs. Zero equals a league average player.
Career of -57
Situational Stolen Base Runs
Career of 49
That comes to a sum total of -8 as an offensive player.
When you consider his baserunning ability(that is not reflected in his stolen base numbers), he pretty much sits exactly as a league average offensive performer .
Since he is most likely one of the top handful of defensive players of all time...it isn't as bad as it looks.
I can think of a Left Fielder from his era who is worse
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
<< <i>an all around nice guy >>
Yeah, not so much.
Tabe