Joe Namath: Breaking Down the Worst NFL Hall of Famer of All-time
January 13th 2011 23:52
Joe Namath was the NFL's first true glamour quarterback, and was considered to have changed the position to the media darling that it is today. That's real good and all, but ask yourself this: Should one promise put you in the Hall of Fame?
Joseph William Namath should of never been inducted among the great ones. Because he wasn't great. He was barely good, and only in his heyday. Sure, he didn't just lead the league in photos taken or news paper qoutes. He was a quarterback, and a pretty good one, one that brought the NFL more towards the passing era and helped create the merger of the NFL and the AFL.
Deep passing and the "gun-slinger" mentality was mostly his game, and no one else had that at the time as much as him. But that wasn't always a good thing.
A star was born with a 16-7 win over Johnny Unitas and the Colts. Joe had promised, and Joe had delivered. Or at least his team did. He was the popular guy in the biggest city. New York helped make "Broadway" Joe. He was known for his cigs, his booze, and the way he was with the women. It all made Joe, Joe.
What about the guarentee? What about his ring? There's been plenty of guarentees go through in sports' history, but I know the odds and what kind of upset it was for the Jets to win. However, saying he has a ring, while not irrelevant, doesn't as much to his resume' as you would think. Trent Dilfer won a super bowl. Jeff Hostetler quarterbacked the Giants through the playoffs and won it all. Who?
On that subject, let's look at these stats. Namath won Super Bowl MVP with 206 yards passing and no touchdowns. Hostetler had a touchdown and 222 yards. I'm just saying. Matt Snells ran for a score and 121 yards, yet Namath won the MVP trophy. The defense only let up seven points. But the glamour of the quarterback had already began.
You may say Bart Starr won the first two Super Bowl MVP's as a QB, but he had 250 yards passing and three touchdowns in the first one, so that wasn't a case of pure glamour. Sure, "Broadway" called his shot, but what did he do in a relatively close game? He didn't throw a single 4th-quarter pass.
Many argue that, because of the rarity of passing, the numbers for QB's just didn't look too good back in that day. Well, I know the media would say if they remembered one thing about the 1968-'69 season, it was most likely the greatness of Joe.
I beg to differ. John Hadl had more passing yards and touchdowns that year. Daryle Lomonica had more yards, touchdowns, and less interceptions. Both would have more right to be in the Hall than Namath if they would of just had a ring. If Namath is in, why not Phil Simms, Ken Stabler, or Ken Anderson? John Brodie was back in the Namath days, why didn't he get the nod?
In '68, Namath was 13th in touchdowns, yet 5th in interceptions. He led the league once in touchdowns, four times in picks. The man threw more interceptions than touchdowns in 11 out of 13 years, for heaven's sake.
This is the part when people start making the excuse that stats don't matter, wins do. Well first of all, I thought getting in the Hall of Fame was mostly something you did individually? And if it's all about winning, consider the fact Joe Namath finished above .500 only five times out of 13 seasons. The last two years as a Jet, he was a combined 4-17. Yikes!
I think I've drilled my case into every one enough, but here's my final comparison. Exhibit A: 65.5 QB rating, 173 TDs, 220 INTs, 13 seasons.
Exhibit B: 67.6 QB rating, 124 TDs, 161 INTs, 10 seasons. You may notice that Exhibit A was not much better, if at all, than Exhibit B. Exhibit A is Joe Namath. Exhibit B is the likes of Richard Todd. If your a Jets' fan, you may know this former Jet player, but for the rest of us, let's say it together. Who?
It's hard to ignore the stats, and even harder if your from New York. But if you are, your not dumb, you know your sports. Joe Namath may of been a paparazzi-magnet or a folk hero, but he was not a Hall of Fame QB. I don't have a whole lot against the guy, but I don't know why he really deserves it. He was good, not great. He lost more games than he won. Had more picks than touchdowns. Is that really Hall of Fame worthy?
Joseph William Namath should of never been inducted among the great ones. Because he wasn't great. He was barely good, and only in his heyday. Sure, he didn't just lead the league in photos taken or news paper qoutes. He was a quarterback, and a pretty good one, one that brought the NFL more towards the passing era and helped create the merger of the NFL and the AFL.
Deep passing and the "gun-slinger" mentality was mostly his game, and no one else had that at the time as much as him. But that wasn't always a good thing.
A star was born with a 16-7 win over Johnny Unitas and the Colts. Joe had promised, and Joe had delivered. Or at least his team did. He was the popular guy in the biggest city. New York helped make "Broadway" Joe. He was known for his cigs, his booze, and the way he was with the women. It all made Joe, Joe.
What about the guarentee? What about his ring? There's been plenty of guarentees go through in sports' history, but I know the odds and what kind of upset it was for the Jets to win. However, saying he has a ring, while not irrelevant, doesn't as much to his resume' as you would think. Trent Dilfer won a super bowl. Jeff Hostetler quarterbacked the Giants through the playoffs and won it all. Who?
On that subject, let's look at these stats. Namath won Super Bowl MVP with 206 yards passing and no touchdowns. Hostetler had a touchdown and 222 yards. I'm just saying. Matt Snells ran for a score and 121 yards, yet Namath won the MVP trophy. The defense only let up seven points. But the glamour of the quarterback had already began.
You may say Bart Starr won the first two Super Bowl MVP's as a QB, but he had 250 yards passing and three touchdowns in the first one, so that wasn't a case of pure glamour. Sure, "Broadway" called his shot, but what did he do in a relatively close game? He didn't throw a single 4th-quarter pass.
Many argue that, because of the rarity of passing, the numbers for QB's just didn't look too good back in that day. Well, I know the media would say if they remembered one thing about the 1968-'69 season, it was most likely the greatness of Joe.
I beg to differ. John Hadl had more passing yards and touchdowns that year. Daryle Lomonica had more yards, touchdowns, and less interceptions. Both would have more right to be in the Hall than Namath if they would of just had a ring. If Namath is in, why not Phil Simms, Ken Stabler, or Ken Anderson? John Brodie was back in the Namath days, why didn't he get the nod?
In '68, Namath was 13th in touchdowns, yet 5th in interceptions. He led the league once in touchdowns, four times in picks. The man threw more interceptions than touchdowns in 11 out of 13 years, for heaven's sake.
This is the part when people start making the excuse that stats don't matter, wins do. Well first of all, I thought getting in the Hall of Fame was mostly something you did individually? And if it's all about winning, consider the fact Joe Namath finished above .500 only five times out of 13 seasons. The last two years as a Jet, he was a combined 4-17. Yikes!
I think I've drilled my case into every one enough, but here's my final comparison. Exhibit A: 65.5 QB rating, 173 TDs, 220 INTs, 13 seasons.
Exhibit B: 67.6 QB rating, 124 TDs, 161 INTs, 10 seasons. You may notice that Exhibit A was not much better, if at all, than Exhibit B. Exhibit A is Joe Namath. Exhibit B is the likes of Richard Todd. If your a Jets' fan, you may know this former Jet player, but for the rest of us, let's say it together. Who?
It's hard to ignore the stats, and even harder if your from New York. But if you are, your not dumb, you know your sports. Joe Namath may of been a paparazzi-magnet or a folk hero, but he was not a Hall of Fame QB. I don't have a whole lot against the guy, but I don't know why he really deserves it. He was good, not great. He lost more games than he won. Had more picks than touchdowns. Is that really Hall of Fame worthy?
| 49 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by gpike
NBA Geek
sportsworld
Comment by James Rickard
unlucky_ fishermen.com
Angling Fish
Check this out...
Everyone knows about Namath's knees. In this day and age, that lack of mobility would almost guarantee a life selling used cars and necessitate another 30-50 pounds.
If anything, Namath brought professional football into modern times. It was the molding of his sport and his life for which he will be remembered rather than strictly his on field performance.
Comment by Dustin Hull
Football Times
Diamond Press
JR: You make a very good point, he in a way, revolutionized part of the way today's QBs are, but if there's guys with better stats, who won more games, from the same time period, Why not put them in the H.o.F. as well? Thanks for reading by the way.
Comment by Gabe Lock
LopsidedSports
Comment by Seyal
Seyal's Slice of the Universe
Seyal's Adventures in Dog Training
It's almost like "I can't say anything else to support his play - let me throw out a team achievement (52 other guys on that team have a ring too, including the bench) to support him!"
Great analysis.
And I would argue that his making QBs "the" position is actually a bad thing. It turns the ultimate team game into 1 guy is more important than the rest. It makes media (and GMs) try to say you "must" have a "top" QB to be a super bowl team - sometimes making them make moves they shouldn't.
Comment by Dustin Hull
Football Times
Diamond Press