re: Can you spot the NFL HOF Quarterback?

wow nice cherry picked comparison

Morton was the #5 pick in the draft, started 147 games and played in 203 over 19 seasons

Namath was the #12 pick in the draft, started in 130 games and played in 140 over 12.5 seasons

quote:

---

Dude, you don't give up. I'm looking at stats. How many passes did they throw, and what were the results. If it were all about the number of games, Walter Payton would be Jim Brown's bitch.

---

so you make the case that Morton = Namath because their stats are similar? Even though Morton played in 63 more games to compile those similar stats? Not to mention Morton played with a ton of HoF in Dallas and Denver.

quote:

---

Supa, you are usually waaay better than this

---

you are getting turned out right now so you make it about me? and not your ridiculous comparisons?

quote:

---

I'm thinking your dad was a big Namath man?

---

not at all, I could give two shits about Joe Namath but I have some historical perspective

and people question whether or not Warner should get in.

124 GM 2,666 - 4,070 65.5% 32,344Yards 208TD 128INT - 2 MVPs 1 SB

quote:

---

How about this...
122gms 2697 4164 64.8% 30646yds 202tds 110ints 91.9rat

---

I see whatcha did there

Its the Hall of Fame, not the hall of dominant stats. Namath is in for SB III and effectively legitimizing the AFL. If he were up for election now, no way he gets in, but the year he did get in the voters obviously felt that his impact on the game was Hall of Fame worthy.

quote:

---

stats of a HoF RB and one of the all time greats: 68 games in 7 seasons 991 carries 4956 yds 39 TDs 5.0 y/a 72.9 y/g

---

Bad Comparison. Sayers blew away everybody that saw him play. When people watched him, they instantly knew they were looking at an all-time great. His highlights are mind-blowing even today. Sayers is an example of the all-important criterion for the HOF known as "the eyeball test."

The only thing impressive about Namath was his swagger. People were drawn to his charisma and that he played in New York.

quote:

---

Its the Hall of Fame, not the hall of dominant stats. Namath is in for SB III and effectively legitimizing the AFL. If he were up for election now, no way he gets in, but the year he did get in the voters obviously felt that his impact on the game was Hall of Fame worthy.

---

I have no problem whatsoever with this take. I agree 100%. In fact, I understand why he is in the HOF based on this.

Just don't try to convince me that he's in for his greatness as a player because he just doesn't measure up.

Namath was 63-63 as a starter. If changing the culture of the league gets you in, then Doug Williams should be in based on this article.




<Quick, name the best quarterbacks of all time. Surely your list would include such names as Dan Marino, Johnny Unitas, Joe Namath, Brett Favre, Peyton Manning and John Elway, among others. None of those names seem out of place, but would you think differently if I put Rex Grossman on that list? As it turns out, Grossman deserves to be on that list about as much as Joe Namath. Heck, his career QB rating is 5 points higher than Namath's. So why was Namath a sure-fire hall of famer while Grossman swims in the overcrowded pool of mediocrity?

One cannot ignore the fact that most of Joe Namath's career stats are average at best. Nothing about his career says "superstar". Sure, he was a big figure in New York, he wore a fur coat, and he wore white cleats when every other Jet player wore black, but does that really turn Average Joe into a Broadway Joe? As it turns out, it absolutely does. Joe Namath was a terribly inaccurate quarterback. His career completion percentage of 50.1 is below average, as is his 173 touchdown passes versus 220 career interceptions.

The one thing that Joe Namath did that no other quarterback on the all time list did was promise his team would win the Super Bowl against a huge favorite and follow through on that promise. Some would argue that that game alone should give Namath his hall of fame cred, but it's important to not accept things at face value. Namath did make that promise, and he did play for the Jets team that won the game, but he hardly "led" the team to victory. The Jets followed through on their game-plan of running the ball right through the Baltimore Colts defense and it worked to perfection. Joe Namath didn't even throw a touchdown pass in the game. Basically, the Jets won by keeping the ball out of Joe Namath's hands.

Joe Namath was no help with his team's running game either. Unlike other quarterbacks of the time, Joe Namath almost never ran the ball. He finished with 140 career rushing yards. He played in 140 career games. In case you haven't done the elementary school math, that's 1 yard per game rushing for Namath. Opponent's defenses knew that when Joe Namath held the ball, he was going to be passing it. That's probably why his teams were .500 in games he started. He also didn't win another playoff game after his famous Super Bowl victory.

If anyone wants an example of a quarterback who was better than Namath but doesn't get credited as being an "all-time great", how about Doug Williams. He changed the game just as much as Namath, being the first black person to become an NFL quarterback, and he also had a big Super Bowl win. The difference between the two is that Williams' Super Bowl performance was one of the best for a quarterback in Super Bowl history, while Namath's can only generously be described as average.

Nothing against Namath, but the statistics clearly show that he was not only not among the greatest quarterbacks of all time, but he doesn't even really deserve to be enshrined in the hall of fame.>

quote:

---

How old are you?

---

Seriously? Not old enough to have seen him play live, old enough to understand the history of the NFL and have an intelligent debate on it w/ others who may or may not disagree, and way too old to engage in that type of foolishness. If you disagree explain why I'm wrong.

quote:

---

Bad Comparison.

---

quote:

---

Its the Hall of Fame, not the hall of dominant stats.

---

so discounting their shared history of knee injuries, Namath's stats (or lack of stats) in his career is bad but Sayers stats (or lack of stats) is ok because he looked good?

and frankly being the first to throw for 4000 yrds in a 14 game season when you are throwing to a 32y/o Don Maynard (1434yds) and George Sauer (1189yds) in an era when the DBs could square dance down the field with the WRs is pretty damn impressive

quote:

---

The only thing impressive about Namath was his swagger. People were drawn to his charisma and that he played in New York.

---

so his notoriety for his quick release, his incredible accuracy, his touch on the deep ball none of that means anything?