You are wrong to evaluate Joe Namath by putting his stats up to today's light. I don't know if you ever saw Namath play. Start w/Joe's stats, then take away the bump & run, increase the rouging the passer rules, move the hash marks in and put the goal posts to the back of the end-zone. Add in today's medical ability to do arthroscopic surgery, and you might see Joe's numbers on a par with Marino or Favre. You are really wrong to harp on the INT-TD ratio. The only way you could judge Namath is by his peers, that is, the other AFL QBs of the time. Remember the AFL was a pass-way-down-the-field league, not a dump-off-to-the-backs league, like the NFL was at that time. For the record, Joe's AFL comtemporary QBs: Blanda (HOF) was -59, Hadl was -24, Parilli was -42 and Kemp was -69. Only LaMonica +26 and Dawson (HOFer) was +46, but he ran a backs-oriented offense.
I'm not a lawyer. One of my best friends works for an NFL team and I assisted him for several years. I'm not trying to show off, just saying that I have seen it on the field, and not from the stands. I've seen Ronnie Lott KO people 10 feet in front of my face. Yes, It's changed. Players are bigger and faster. Not arguing that at all. There's also a bunch of players with severe brain injuries, knee injuries, back injuries, etc. from playing in the league when players were not so 'athletic'. Players are bigger and faster yes, but that does not diminish the fact that the players from earlier eras were perfectly capable of crippling someone for life. And they did.
Please show me where I compared his stats to QBs of this era? His peers did not have -47 TD to INT ratios, most of the great ones were positive. Blanda is in the Hall b/c of his kicking and QB play, he wpuldn't be in just as a QB. Parilli and kemp are not HOFers
I didn't dismiss the players of earlier generations, thsoe guys were tough guys but they didn't have to deal w/ athletic freaks we see today. They didn't have to sack a Big Ben or tackle a Brandon Jacobs, guys who would have been big lineman in those days. They didn't deal w/ guys being huge AND incredibly fast and quick. Were thy tough? absolutely, did they hit hard? no doubt about it but nothing like the guys of today. I'm not taking anything away from the old guys but they can't hold a candle atheltically and size wise to the players of today for the most part.
Players don't make the HOF based on pure stats. Intangibles and impact on the game of football are key factors. If you go by stats, Romo would be a first ballot win. That's not going to happen.
Absolutely, no doubt about it. I talk about that all the time. Joe is in the Hall b/c of his impact off the field, b/c of SB III. if you just took his body of work on the field he wouldn't be in.
That's not the original point of the argument. I questioned whether Tom Brady would make it three years in that era. Not how the 2011 patriot team would stack up against a 1967 team, that is a different argument, which I would not dispute. But put Brady on the 1968 Boston Patriots team, with the 1968 rules and playing other 1968 teams. Brady is not an athletic freak that would physically dominate defensive players. of any era. He runs like a slow baby giraffe. He'd get the shit knocked out of him, and it wouldn't even draw a flag.
Brady doesn't look athletic compared to the freakish athletes today but in that era he would look like Michael Vick does today. An injury can happen on a freak play but I'm pretty confident he'd survive w/ little problem since he has never been hurt on a hit in this era- just b/c they have rules to protect doesn't mean he doesn't get hit hard.
Let's just say you are wrong and leave it at that. Brady is not Fran Tarkenton, or Micheal Vick. He has never had wheels. Period. Here's Brady's non injury on a non hit that took him out for a year, and helped cause more rule changes to protect the QB and hamper defenses. [YOUTUBE]nqfEQicw7o4[/YOUTUBE]
My mistake on that, for some reason I was thinking achilles like Vinny but it was that low hit in '08 that tore up his knee. The man has been hit hard his entire career and that is the lone injury that has kept him out for even a single game. Again, Brady looks slow and unathletic against the freaks of today, he'd look much faster in the 60s. It's a QB game, it's not good for the game when QBs are out for the year and w/ players so much bigger, stronger, faster the chance for an injury would be greater than it has ever been if they didn't tweak the rules to protect them.
B-b-b-ut QB's are so much bigger and tougher now too! As I said before, some rules have been changed to protect players. Some rules were changed to make more offense and higher scoring games. In both cases, defenses get the shit end of the stick. I am trying to think of any changes that have benefitted the defense. The only thing I can think of offhand is they moved the goal posts from the goal line to the back of the end zone. Maybe there are others, can't think of any, maybe you can think of some.
In his prime Brady ran a 5.23 forty. In the 60's that translates to a 5.23 forty. He might have outrun the fattest guy on the field. Maybe.
offense draws viewers to the sets and sells tickets, it is an offensive game. I love an old fashioned Defensive struggle but the rules are skewed towards offense. Moving the goalposts certainly helped, the chop block rules would be another, the force out rule, the new interpretation of what is a catch, ... these are a few of the rules that have helped defenses but I agree it skews mostly towards the offenses.
40 time doesn't measure quickness or the ability to allude a rush, that's a reason Brady dropped so far in the draft. It would be like wearing one of those weighted vests then taking it off. He would look much quicker in the 60s or 70s than he does today and so would guys we consider slow like Manning, Rivers, Brees. They all have quick feet but aren't the fastest staright line runners.
I found this video. You could be right about Brady after all. [YOUTUBE]shLIxWKdoRA[/YOUTUBE] I had to use a clip from a video game because this has never happened in real life.
I have a copy of the NBC broadcast of SB III- is this good enough for you? I can't see the video so I guess that ruins your joke?
