[1968jetsfan]

and yes junc, you do change the criteria and your position frequently.

[nyjunc]

Originally Posted by 1968jetsfan

How could I make that mistake? Easy, the NFL had two play off games the AFC only had 1. A fact that slipped my mind.

As for Marks rough 2 or 3 game stretch. Sanchez has NEVER, EVER been more than a bottom 1/4 QB. He'd been lucky to be on a team that followed it.

Facts are straight, read the news accounts of the period to refresh your memory, The Jets backed in to if you remember, the Jets lost that weekend. If the Jets had lost and the Jags won, then they could have wound up tied in the final week of the season had the Jets lost again and the Jags won again. The Jags lost their last two games, the Jets won one of their last two games. hence finishing 3 games up. Do the math, do your homework. Also I was correct when I said he lead or was in the top 3 in passing 5 times and top 3 in TD's 3 times during that 10 year period. My facts were accurate, you tried to disguise things by only counting years he was top 3 in both categories, that's called cherry picking stats.

It's true the Jets Defense didn't like Joe, he was flamboyant. And of course they toot their own horn, but remember the Colt's running back Matt ran for I think it was 117 yards, on 11 carries. Even if you take out his 58 yard run he was still averaging about 5 yards a carry. But the Jets defense was also jealous of Namath, he was very well paid for the day and got ALL the headlines. Like you said, you weren't even born yet....I watched them play.

Yes today's athlete are better conditioned. But do they hit harder? Their capable of it in some cases, but the fact is most players today shy away from contact when possible. But you distort what I said, two objects falling fall at the same rate, no matter the size. Now the size does equate to more force, however faster speed negates that force to a degree due to the angle of deflection, unless of course your insinuating that a player can accelerate in a downwards motion...hint, you can't accelerate in a downward motion unless there is something above you to push off on. Simple phsyics. grade school physics.

But by focusing on speed you miss the point. If your playing against players of equal size then the effect is negated relative to each other. In part because of the more sophisticated equipment used today that help absorb shock. It's one of the reasons there are much fewer Concussions today than in the past, look at the lining, or facemask for that matter, of a 60's helmet. The shoulder pads from that era and the rest of the gear. It makes a difference.

But you see, here's your problem, your young, and you idolize the players of your generation and can only relate based on todays game. I challenge you to watch as many games from the 60's and 70's as you can, then come here and talk. Till then, good luck because your focused through biased eyes.

You call the hits of the day dirty hits, or cheap hits, and by todays standards they are...but that's today's standards. In today's game they zoom in and show the occasional blood like it's something new, back then broken noses, fingers, dislocated bones, and usually players played through it. Several cases where guys broke their arm and was back on the field by the next half. Was that right? No it wasn't, neither were "Cheap hits".

And that goes back to the point of why players then were more apt for injuries, regardless of speed. Poor equipment, no rules to protect players, etc. And it doesn't matter how hard you hit, all you have to do is hit hard enough at the right angles when players are vulnerable and that's that. Players used to play to actually hurt the other guys, that's serious. Was it right? No, but that's the way the game was played then.

But here's the deal, Players aren't that much heavier, on average today than 1970, with the exception of the Oline and D-line. QB's also gained.but lets look at averages for the years correlated.



QB's now 224 Then 208 16 pound diff.
RB Now 218, then 210. 8 pounds diff
full Backs now 248, then 226. 12 pound diff (FBS have become primarily big body blockers, they ran more in the 60's)
Wide Recievers now 201, then 192.
tight ends 253 then 227
OT's now 314-then 260. Big difference
OG now 323 then 254. Again big diff
Center now 299, then 245 big diff
DE now 263, then 252
DT Now 306, then 256 Big Diff
LB now 237 then 227
DB's 196, 185

So on average, apart from QB's and linemen the difference tends to be between 9- to 15 pounds. It's also worth noting that the fastest 40 time for any NFL player was turned in by Bob Hayes, who played back in the day.

Players are slightly bigger, on the whole today, and most of them are more muscular, especially the QB's, But faster? That's hype for the most part.

It's not a fact that should slip your mind especially since I already corrected you once. I wasn't alive when they won and I know the Jets only won 1 game to get to the SB.

mark was a top 10-12 QB 2 years ago, mid of the pack last year and he's been a top postseason QB.

How did we back in winning 11 games and clinching in week 16? we can play that type of what if game all day, if NE lost 2 more games and we won 2 more games we win the division. It's silly, we finished 3 games ahead of Jacksonville.

Here was your quote to refresh your memory since that seems to be an issue:

the article included his first 10 seasons. Over that 10 years he was in the top 3 in nearly every category and #1 in a number of them.

I just took pass yds and pass TDs:

1965: 6th pass yds(not top 3), 4th TDs(not top 3)
1966: 1st pass yds, 5th pass TDs(not top 3)
1967: 1st pass yds, 2nd pass TDs- There's one
1968: 3rd yds, 5th TDs(not top 3)
1969: 2nd pass yds, 2nd TDs- there's 2
1970: NONE
1971: NONE
1972: 1st yds, 1st TDs. there's 3
1973: NONE
1974: 2nd yds, 2nd TDs

let's add it up. 10 possible top 3 finishes he finished in the top 3 10 times, that's 50%. Is 50% "nearly every category"? keep in mind there weren't many teams in the AFL so top 3 wasn't as impressive as a top 3 finish would be today w/ 32 teams.

1965 8 teams
1966 & 1967 9 teams
1968 & 1969 10 teams


so now the excuse is the D was jealous of Joe so they didn't want to win?

So Matte had a good game, the D held Baltimore to 7 points. That's more important.

Yes they hit harder- bigger, stronger, faster, quicker, more athletic- they hit MUCH harder. Taht's why all of thse safety rules are in place, if they weren't players would be getting killed on the field.

where is the study that there are far fewer concussions? guys are getting concussed all the time. It's getting better b/c they are now being reported and they have rules in place.

I don't idolize anyone and if I did it would be the guys of the 80s when I fell in love w/ the Jets and the game as a kid but I'm not wearing my jets underoos pretending like those players were more athletic, bigger, stronger, etc... than today's players. There are 300 pounders that run like 200 poundres way back when.

I have watched many games from the 60s and 70s(including SB III), I think there were better TEAMS in those days b/c they didn't have FA but players today are better w/o a doubt. That's in part to nutrition and advancments in medicine and training but that will always be the case. 20 years from now we'll see even more freakish athletes.

You act like players don't play through pain today? football players are always playing through pain and these guys play any more gams than in the old days too which add to their bodies breaking down.


where did you get these averages from? and of course lineman is where the big difference will be.

the SB III Jets OL averaged 260 lbs, our OL this year averages 307. Ferguson weighs 295 and is considered slim. Guys like Big Ben weigh what OL used to weigh.

and it's not just the weight, they are not only bigger but faster, stronger, quicker. Sure you will have exceptional athletes like a Bob Hayes in the old days but the league is littered w/ guya like that now where he was a freak back in his day.

Originally Posted by 1968jetsfan

and yes junc, you do change the criteria and your position frequently.

shoe me where I do that?

[JetsKickAss]

Originally Posted by nyjunc

You act like players don't play through pain today? football players are always playing through pain and these guys play any more gams than in the old days too which add to their bodies breaking down.

When Joe Namath had his knee problems, he had to take painkillers and have his knee drained. He had to have 12" needles stuck into his knee for an hour or so.

Today, they take pills or inject you for 30 seconds and you're done.

No comparison to 40 years ago.

[nyjunc]

Originally Posted by JetsKickAss

When Joe Namath had his knee problems, he had to take painkillers and have his knee drained. He had to have 12" needles stuck into his knee for an hour or so.

Today, they take pills or inject you for 30 seconds and you're done.

No comparison to 40 years ago.

He played in the era he played in, he's compared to players of his era. Unfortunately(and typical jets luck) his career was ruined by injuries. I fully believe if he could have stayed realtively healthy these discussions would be completely different. I think he's a top talent in the history of the league and one of the most important figures but infortunately injuries robbed him of the ability to have a truly great career.

[1968jetsfan]

Originally Posted by nyjunc

It's not a fact that should slip your mind especially since I already corrected you once. I wasn't alive when they won and I know the Jets only won 1 game to get to the SB.

mark was a top 10-12 QB 2 years ago, mid of the pack last year and he's been a top postseason QB.

How did we back in winning 11 games and clinching in week 16? we can play that type of what if game all day, if NE lost 2 more games and we won 2 more games we win the division. It's silly, we finished 3 games ahead of Jacksonville.

Here was your quote to refresh your memory since that seems to be an issue:



I just took pass yds and pass TDs:

1965: 6th pass yds(not top 3), 4th TDs(not top 3)
1966: 1st pass yds, 5th pass TDs(not top 3)
1967: 1st pass yds, 2nd pass TDs- There's one
1968: 3rd yds, 5th TDs(not top 3)
1969: 2nd pass yds, 2nd TDs- there's 2
1970: NONE
1971: NONE
1972: 1st yds, 1st TDs. there's 3
1973: NONE
1974: 2nd yds, 2nd TDs

let's add it up. 10 possible top 3 finishes he finished in the top 3 10 times, that's 50%. Is 50% "nearly every category"? keep in mind there weren't many teams in the AFL so top 3 wasn't as impressive as a top 3 finish would be today w/ 32 teams.

1965 8 teams
1966 & 1967 9 teams
1968 & 1969 10 teams


so now the excuse is the D was jealous of Joe so they didn't want to win?

So Matte had a good game, the D held Baltimore to 7 points. That's more important.

Yes they hit harder- bigger, stronger, faster, quicker, more athletic- they hit MUCH harder. Taht's why all of thse safety rules are in place, if they weren't players would be getting killed on the field.

where is the study that there are far fewer concussions? guys are getting concussed all the time. It's getting better b/c they are now being reported and they have rules in place.

I don't idolize anyone and if I did it would be the guys of the 80s when I fell in love w/ the Jets and the game as a kid but I'm not wearing my jets underoos pretending like those players were more athletic, bigger, stronger, etc... than today's players. There are 300 pounders that run like 200 poundres way back when.

I have watched many games from the 60s and 70s(including SB III), I think there were better TEAMS in those days b/c they didn't have FA but players today are better w/o a doubt. That's in part to nutrition and advancments in medicine and training but that will always be the case. 20 years from now we'll see even more freakish athletes.

You act like players don't play through pain today? football players are always playing through pain and these guys play any more gams than in the old days too which add to their bodies breaking down.


where did you get these averages from? and of course lineman is where the big difference will be.

the SB III Jets OL averaged 260 lbs, our OL this year averages 307. Ferguson weighs 295 and is considered slim. Guys like Big Ben weigh what OL used to weigh.

and it's not just the weight, they are not only bigger but faster, stronger, quicker. Sure you will have exceptional athletes like a Bob Hayes in the old days but the league is littered w/ guya like that now where he was a freak back in his day.



shoe me where I do that?

Now your just talking complete rubbish, And i've posted before Marks numbers from each year of his career, and he's never been statisically been out of the bottom 1/4 of the league. In any category. Period, That's not quite true, in one season he was exactly average in TD's, but in teh bottom quarter of every other category. Period.

To the contrary, you had never corrected previous to the one time on post season wins, I forgot one fact...It happens sometimes to everyone, if you claim other wise your both a liar and a fool.

Again had you read anything I said, I did say that O-Linemen had grown heavier on average as well as DT's by a significant amount, that was stated clearly.

However, the other positions haven't changed a signicant amount, aside from teh aforementioned and QB's. And there was a reason O-Linemen were smaller back then. If you remember O-Linemen could not use thier hands prior to 1978. Because the hands could not be used, as they are today, the emphasis was placed on quickness and agility rather than size. That changed starting after 1978 with the Washington Redskins Hogs. O-linemen in the pre 78 period had to try and stay in front of the rushing players and out maneuver them since they couldn't use their hands, a brutally difficult job.

But it is interesting that you bring in to play better training and medicine today (including Steroids) to defend modern players now. Especially since it's been stated that if Namath played with today's medical advances and rules his knees never would have given out on him within all likley hood....and you have to bear that in mind in your concession.

Actually, no...the NFL is not littered with guys like that. In fact only a few modern players really excel in speed and strength, the rest not so much. But just like then there are players who stand out.

Most of the stars of yesterday on todays field and they would be just as good. Butkus, Namath, Unitas, etc would, in todays game, still be top players. You'll notice that many of today's stars on defense aren't big players. Ray Lewis, for example, is about the same height and weight as the players back then, I rank him as one of the top 5 LB's of all time, But He's still sharing that top 5 With Butkus and Lambert and company.

and I'm not talking about the Jets when I talk about the league in general, I'm talking the entire league, AFL, NFL and the later merger. I don't limit this side discussion to just Jet Players.

for someone who claims to have watched a lot of 60's and 70's football you really are niave on a number of it's points. I grew up with it.

As for players playing through pain, there are different levels of pain. and that's one of the knocks I have against the old days is that players had to play through injuries they should have been able to rest. I'm not calling today's players pansies, But I am pointing out that players back then HAD to play through injuries that sideline players today..and that latter part is a good thing.

[nyjunc]

Originally Posted by 1968jetsfan

Now your just talking complete rubbish, And i've posted before Marks numbers from each year of his career, and he's never been statisically been out of the bottom 1/4 of the league. In any category. Period, That's not quite true, in one season he was exactly average in TD's, but in teh bottom quarter of every other category. Period.

To the contrary, you had never corrected previous to the one time on post season wins, I forgot one fact...It happens sometimes to everyone, if you claim other wise your both a liar and a fool.

Again had you read anything I said, I did say that O-Linemen had grown heavier on average as well as DT's by a significant amount, that was stated clearly.

However, the other positions haven't changed a signicant amount, aside from teh aforementioned and QB's. And there was a reason O-Linemen were smaller back then. If you remember O-Linemen could not use thier hands prior to 1978. Because the hands could not be used, as they are today, the emphasis was placed on quickness and agility rather than size. That changed starting after 1978 with the Washington Redskins Hogs. O-linemen in the pre 78 period had to try and stay in front of the rushing players and out maneuver them since they couldn't use their hands, a brutally difficult job.

But it is interesting that you bring in to play better training and medicine today (including Steroids) to defend modern players now. Especially since it's been stated that if Namath played with today's medical advances and rules his knees never would have given out on him within all likley hood....and you have to bear that in mind in your concession.

Actually, no...the NFL is not littered with guys like that. In fact only a few modern players really excel in speed and strength, the rest not so much. But just like then there are players who stand out.

Most of the stars of yesterday on todays field and they would be just as good. Butkus, Namath, Unitas, etc would, in todays game, still be top players. You'll notice that many of today's stars on defense aren't big players. Ray Lewis, for example, is about the same height and weight as the players back then, I rank him as one of the top 5 LB's of all time, But He's still sharing that top 5 With Butkus and Lambert and company.

and I'm not talking about the Jets when I talk about the league in general, I'm talking the entire league, AFL, NFL and the later merger. I don't limit this side discussion to just Jet Players.

for someone who claims to have watched a lot of 60's and 70's football you really are niave on a number of it's points. I grew up with it.

As for players playing through pain, there are different levels of pain. and that's one of the knocks I have against the old days is that players had to play through injuries they should have been able to rest. I'm not calling today's players pansies, But I am pointing out that players back then HAD to play through injuries that sideline players today..and that latter part is a good thing.

Again, it's not about fantasy #s. In 2010 w/ a mediocre ground game most of the seaosn, w/ a D that blew leads all season long we won 11 games. he led us to 4-5 late game wins, that means much more to me than any silly fantasy stats.

There were a million guys w/ better #s in 2010 but only about 10(if that) that were actually better.


I corrected you before. post #239 on page 12:

your quote:

Namath by Sanchez's age had led the jets to 3 post season wins, and one of those was the Superbowl.

my reply on post 241, page 13:

Namath only had 2 postseason wins so how did he lead them to 3? he led them to 2,

Joe played by the rules of his era as did the other QBs, I don't compare him to QBs of different eras, I compare him to QBs of his era. It would be one thing if I was comparing his #s to Marino's or Brady's but I don't do that so there's no need to tell me about the rules in his day.


You do know steroids were rampant in the 70s, right?

average skill guys today would have been top skill guys in the 60s and 70s, athletically they aren't close.

Namath was barely a top player in his era(for only a few years), how would he be in a better era? if they were working out and taking care of themselves the way today's players do they'd make it in the NFL but athletically they would be at a big disadvantage so I doubt Butkus dominates the way he did.

we can take indidiaul players and compare and find similar sizes but let's look at our LB corps from 1981 compared to 2011:

Buttle, Blinka and Mehl: average weight 233
Harris, Pace & Scott: 247
and the guys averaging 247 are much more athletic so not only are youa dding size but athleticism.

It's a completely different game.

I don't claim I watched a lot of 60s and 70s football, I saw games on tape/dvd in the last 15 years but I wasn't around to watch them at the time.

Players today play through pain too, pain inflicted by much bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic men.

[maynardsmyhero-uk]

You have gotta love junc ability to argue all day long.....
Anyone using Sanchez and Namath in the same thread or to prove points is lost....one is playing in a passer and qb friendly era languishing in the bottom 5 of his skillset..the other broke records , trends , won a superbowl , changed the game and played when qbs were hit senseless week after week

[nyjunc]

Originally Posted by maynardsmyhero-uk

You have gotta love junc ability to argue all day long.....
Anyone using Sanchez and Namath in the same thread or to prove points is lost....one is playing in a passer and qb friendly era languishing in the bottom 5 of his skillset..the other broke records , trends , won a superbowl , changed the game and played when qbs were hit senseless week after week

try reading the posts and you'll know I am not comapring the 2 as players but it helps you guys to deflect from the facts so you'll keep posting it.

Joe broke ONE record, for pass yds and was so brutal down the stretch he cost his team a playoff berth. Stop w/ the records nonsense.

[Cakes]

Originally Posted by nyjunc

try reading the posts and you'll know I am not comapring the 2 as players but it helps you guys to deflect from the facts so you'll keep posting it.

Joe broke ONE record, for pass yds and was so brutal down the stretch he cost his team a playoff berth. Stop w/ the records nonsense.

From what facts are people deflecting?

Let me know and I will straighten it out.

[nyjunc]

Originally Posted by Cakes

From what facts are people deflecting?

Let me know and I will straighten it out.

the facts of Joe's overall mediocre career.

[Cakes]

Originally Posted by nyjunc

the facts of Joe's overall mediocre career.

The facts show he was above average from 1965 through 1972 and he was below average from 1973 to 1977. How far above and below in each time period is open to interpretation.

[nyjunc]

Originally Posted by Cakes

The facts show he was above average from 1965 through 1972 and he was below average from 1973 to 1977. How far above and below in each time period is open to interpretation.

'70 and '71 he barely played so it's 6 seasons of a 13 year career where he was above average, that's less than half his career.

[1968jetsfan]

Originally Posted by nyjunc

Again, it's not about fantasy #s. In 2010 w/ a mediocre ground game most of the seaosn, w/ a D that blew leads all season long we won 11 games. he led us to 4-5 late game wins, that means much more to me than any silly fantasy stats.

There were a million guys w/ better #s in 2010 but only about 10(if that) that were actually better.


.

I'm only going to touch on this one point, and this one point only. The others have been gone over to the point of being just silly, you regurgerate the same material over and over.

But I am going to call you on the above. You knock Namath for his numbers, You knock him for not being a top performer because of his picks, his completion percentage, the fact that stat wise he doesn't stand up against his peers.......And then you spout this crap about Sanchez being a top 10 QB in 2010 just because the team won some games, yes the TEAM. Sanchez's 2010 numbers were abysmal.

Here you are playing both sides of the fence, Stats do count when they work in your favor, they don't count when they don't work in your favor. When it's shown that the data doesn't support your argument you flip flop to the "stats don't matter" argument. You can't use both.

But what REALLY kills me is you, in a reply to someone else in this thread you admit that Namath was an elite talent till injuries caught up with him, Yet ignore the 10 years of performance where he did lead the team to a winning career record then you degrade him by calling him over rated due to the last 3 years of his career when he was clearly done, due in large part to his injuries, and in part probably due to his drinking.

I guess Trent Dilfer, by your definition, was an top 10 QB.

sorry but your viewpoint is clearly subjective and not objective.

[1968jetsfan]

Originally Posted by nyjunc

'70 and '71 he barely played so it's 6 seasons of a 13 year career where he was above average, that's less than half his career.

Which, even by your definition of Namaths career, is 6 seasons more of being above average than Sanchez.

[nyjunc]

Originally Posted by 1968jetsfan

I'm only going to touch on this one point, and this one point only. The others have been gone over to the point of being just silly, you regurgerate the same material over and over.

But I am going to call you on the above. You knock Namath for his numbers, You knock him for not being a top performer because of his picks, his completion percentage, the fact that stat wise he doesn't stand up against his peers.......And then you spout this crap about Sanchez being a top 10 QB in 2010 just because the team won some games, yes the TEAM. Sanchez's 2010 numbers were abysmal.

Here you are playing both sides of the fence, Stats do count when they work in your favor, they don't count when they don't work in your favor. When it's shown that the data doesn't support your argument you flip flop to the "stats don't matter" argument. You can't use both.

But what REALLY kills me is you, in a reply to someone else in this thread you admit that Namath was an elite talent till injuries caught up with him, Yet ignore the 10 years of performance where he did lead the team to a winning career record then you degrade him by calling him over rated due to the last 3 years of his career when he was clearly done, due in large part to his injuries, and in part probably due to his drinking.

I guess Trent Dilfer, by your definition, was an top 10 QB.

sorry but your viewpoint is clearly subjective and not objective.

Not one person has effectively countered any of my arguments, you can keep deflecting and now usuing others to try to do what you couldn't do but any objective person reading this knows who presented the better case.

At what point did I call mark great? at what point did I say Joe sucked? at what point did I say mark was top 10?The mark #s have nothing to do w/ this argument and it is another weak attempt to deflect from your weak argument.


where is this 10 years of performance? please show me? you keep saying that, I keep PROVING it isn't true and then you repeat it as if it is true. Please show me anything where he had 10 years of great performances?

More than half his career was mediocre or worse.

Yes, Trent Dilfer is a top 10 QB all time

Originally Posted by 1968jetsfan

Which, even by your definition of Namaths career, is 6 seasons more of being above average than Sanchez.

Sanchez has played 3 full seasons, Joe played 13 and at no point did I say mark was a better talent than Joe or that he would even have a better career but please keep deflecting from your weak argument.

[Aewhistory]

We would be the Cardinals!

Originally Posted by Acad23

Good work by all who bothered to respond to the silly notion that Namath is "over-rated". There's a reason he's still the face of the franchise 45 years after SBIII.

He's one of the few bright spots in Jets history as a franchise, and there's "fans" here that feel the need to disparage that?

I'd understand if some fans of another team want to argue about Namath's legitimacy, but it's confounding when a fan of the Jets doesn't lionize the man.

Whether they liked him off the field, NFL players & coaches of the time never doubted his ability on the field...but there's a few Jets fans that do?

Eliminate Namath from Jets history and all we'd have is 53 years of misery.

[1968jetsfan]

Originally Posted by nyjunc

Not one person has effectively countered any of my arguments, you can keep deflecting and now usuing others to try to do what you couldn't do but any objective person reading this knows who presented the better case.

At what point did I call mark great? at what point did I say Joe sucked? at what point did I say mark was top 10?The mark #s have nothing to do w/ this argument and it is another weak attempt to deflect from your weak argument.


where is this 10 years of performance? please show me? you keep saying that, I keep PROVING it isn't true and then you repeat it as if it is true. Please show me anything where he had 10 years of great performances?

More than half his career was mediocre or worse.

Yes, Trent Dilfer is a top 10 QB all time



Sanchez has played 3 full seasons, Joe played 13 and at no point did I say mark was a better talent than Joe or that he would even have a better career but please keep deflecting from your weak argument.

Junc, You say I keep deflecting, but you dismiss all evidence provided, Including outside analysis from reputable sources. You want to dislike Joe, that's fine. But since you continue to ignore any evidence provided or discredit it and then claim "lame deflections" then I am done with you.

You ignore everything but your opinion, despite the facts. When you can't support your argument you shift positions and change the criteria of judgement. Anyone who reads all of your responses can plainly see that.

My position hasn't changed. Namath is a top 25 QB, is worthy of the Hall of fame, both on merit of his first 10 years of his career, how he changed the passing game and him leading the team to Superbowl III. You've insisted on hanging the entire judgment of his career based on the last 3 years of his career while ignoring the previous decade and how he compared to ALL other Quarterbacks during that decade on a total stat basis for that 10 year period.

But like I said, if you want to hate Namath, fine. If you want to claim "victory" in this thread that's fine to, anyone who's read the thread however most likely won't agree.