- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Phil Jackson: "LeBron needs to takeover like Michael did"
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:24 pm to genro
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:24 pm to genro
quote:Ok. He was 4th in a leaque with 10 teams.
Why would you combine two different leagues with zero common opponents (except for one game- the Super Bowl, which he won)
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:25 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:Exactly. It isnt even arguable. He was never that good
There was a great analysis done by Pro Football Weekly or some sort...and it was a pure comparison not of today's numbers but solely against your peers...and how much better or worse a modern QB rating would be against your peers.
Namath was near the bottom for the 60's and 70's.
Staubach was #1 for his era...by FAR!
Stabler was #2...by FAR!
Then...
Dawson, etc.
Unitas,
Jurgenson,
Starr
Tarkenton
Lamonica
..........
Earl Morral...
Then...
Joe Namath.
This post was edited on 6/7/16 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:27 pm to genro
quote:Namath compared to his peers.
the knock on him is a classic example of comparing incomparable eras

Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:27 pm to lsupride87
Why are we talking about football
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:28 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Most of those guys are in the Hall. What's your beef - that Stabler should be in? I agree! It took long enough!
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:28 pm to genro
quote:
His stats
Were meh.
Johnny Unitas, Otto Graham, Sonny Jurgenson, and Fran Tarkenton all have substantially better stats.
This post was edited on 6/7/16 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:28 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:That is embarrassing
Namath compared to his peers.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:29 pm to genro
quote:If Joe is in, there should be about 13-14 other guys from the 60s and 70s
Most of those guys are in the Hall. What's your beef - that Stabler should be in? I agree! It took long enough!
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:29 pm to Jcorye1
quote:They're all in the Hall!
Johnny Unitas, Otto Graham, Sonny Jurgenson, and Fran Tarkenton all have substantially better stats.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:31 pm to shel311
quote:
Dude, careful with accusing others of having their feathers ruffled when you're talking about a tattoo some probably 17 year old kid got 15 years ago, and you've been mentioning it over and over lately.
so rustled.
this finals is going to be tough for you.
which excuse will it be this year? I suggest you go with the usual, "he has no team".
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:31 pm to lsupride87
This is the weirdest LeBron thread ever. Usually this board is so obsessed with LeBron they will turn a baseball thread into a LeBron thread. Now, in a LeBron thread, we are talking about Joe Namath?
This post was edited on 6/7/16 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:32 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
Again you're comparing pre-merger stats, even pre Super Bowl stats from totally separated leagues.
Also I don't see wins. I believe Bradshaw has some pedestrian stats but gets in on wins
But it goes back to my point when we were actually talking about NBA earlier. There is more than stats. It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stats. Joe was a highly prized gunslinger and is the most iconic Super Bowl MVP of all time
Also I don't see wins. I believe Bradshaw has some pedestrian stats but gets in on wins
But it goes back to my point when we were actually talking about NBA earlier. There is more than stats. It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stats. Joe was a highly prized gunslinger and is the most iconic Super Bowl MVP of all time
This post was edited on 6/7/16 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:34 pm to lsupride87
You know who loved Joe Namath?
Al Davis...why?
Because he said, Namath could throw the ball a mile.
So could Jay Schroeder and Marc Wilson. Two bums who threw it a mile over everyone's head for a decade for the Raiders. Davis loved mad bombers and big arms.
This description of SChroeder by Jim Murray in the LA Times, could easily apply to Joe Namath for his era.
"He may have an arm like a cannon, but it is a Civil War cannon. You are never sure where the ball is going."
"You see him throw a football and you wonder why he isn't in the Super Bowl. He just flicks a wrist and the ball takes off in an orbital trajectory of a moonshot. His passes look like punts. They're pretty. They spiral through the air like rotating rockets, not like the crashing airplanes some passes resemble. He could probably throw a football through a brick wall or over a tall building. He's the football equivalent of a railroad gun. A football field is almost too small for him.
The only trouble is, pretty as they look, Schroeder is like the long-hitting golfer who hits it out of sight but out of the fairway, too, and whose short game is ragged. Jay has no trouble throwing the ball 75 yards. It's the little swing passes that end up in the wrong hands. If he were a golfer, he'd make the 40-footers and miss the four-footers."
Schroeder has been as enigmatic as a map of Russia. Like the little girl with the curl, when he is good, he is very, very good. When he's not, he throws interceptions.
"Schroeder can look like a combination of Roger Staubach and Joe Montana one time and a combination of Laurel and Hardy another--sometimes in the same game."
That was Joe Namath.
Al Davis...why?
Because he said, Namath could throw the ball a mile.
So could Jay Schroeder and Marc Wilson. Two bums who threw it a mile over everyone's head for a decade for the Raiders. Davis loved mad bombers and big arms.
This description of SChroeder by Jim Murray in the LA Times, could easily apply to Joe Namath for his era.
"He may have an arm like a cannon, but it is a Civil War cannon. You are never sure where the ball is going."
"You see him throw a football and you wonder why he isn't in the Super Bowl. He just flicks a wrist and the ball takes off in an orbital trajectory of a moonshot. His passes look like punts. They're pretty. They spiral through the air like rotating rockets, not like the crashing airplanes some passes resemble. He could probably throw a football through a brick wall or over a tall building. He's the football equivalent of a railroad gun. A football field is almost too small for him.
The only trouble is, pretty as they look, Schroeder is like the long-hitting golfer who hits it out of sight but out of the fairway, too, and whose short game is ragged. Jay has no trouble throwing the ball 75 yards. It's the little swing passes that end up in the wrong hands. If he were a golfer, he'd make the 40-footers and miss the four-footers."
Schroeder has been as enigmatic as a map of Russia. Like the little girl with the curl, when he is good, he is very, very good. When he's not, he throws interceptions.
"Schroeder can look like a combination of Roger Staubach and Joe Montana one time and a combination of Laurel and Hardy another--sometimes in the same game."
That was Joe Namath.
This post was edited on 6/7/16 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:38 pm to CptBengal
quote:The one where I predicted GS to win easily? That one?
so rustled. this finals is going to be tough for you.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:39 pm to genro
Look at strongs chart. Joe was average, to below average compared to his own peers
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:39 pm to genro
quote:I'm comparing him to all other professional QBs at the time. Comparing him to the other 7 (1965), 8 (1966,1967) or 9 (1968,1969) starting QBs doesn't give an accurate representation.
Again you're comparing pre-merger stats, even pre Super Bowl stats from totally separated leagues.
His stats suck.
If you want to argue that he's a HOFer because of his persona, influence, etc., fine. I understand that. But don't try to argue stats.
quote:62-63-4
I don't see wins.
Watch out now.
This post was edited on 6/7/16 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:41 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:Do you compare Peyton's stats to the CFL or other semi pro leagues?
I'm comparing him to all other professional QBs at the time.
quote:By year.
62-63-4
Watch out now.
This post was edited on 6/7/16 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:43 pm to genro
quote:No because there are 31 other starting QBs to compare him to. Not 7.
Do you compare Peyton's stats to the CFL or other semi pro leagues?
quote:
By year.

This post was edited on 6/7/16 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:43 pm to RonBurgundy
What a fricking abortion of a thread.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 1:45 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
You don't see the fallacy when they aren't playing any of the same competition AT ALL, zip, zero, nada
Popular
Back to top



0




