I didn't see Babe Ruth play to know he great he was either. Namath fans always fall back on that but -45 TDs to INTs and 2 postseason apps is awful in any era.
yep, won a division where the 2nd place team was 8-8 then needed 1 win to get to SB while the 2 best AFL teams in the reg season played a week earlier.
Yes let's discredit Namath's SB because the Oilers were 6-6-2 and the AFL for having their playoffs formatted the way it was. Because that's logical. Oh brother.
I don't discredit what he AND his teammates did, just stating a fact. he had it much easier and only led 2 teams to postseason and had 47 more INTs than TDs but other than that he was spectacular.
A significant portion if not the majority of the best players in Babe Ruth's era weren't even allowed to play.
So now it's "teammates" but when it's your boy it's about HIM winning games. You claim you don't discredit him only to then discredit him in the same post with a sarcastic remark. But yup you "don't discredit Namath". And if he really had it much easier as you claim the Jets should've had more success during that era, if we're going by that logic.
when I ever claim Mark won all those games? I always said he helped us reach 2 title games. since you brought him up, the equivalent of what Joe did to reach a SB would have been for the NFL to grant us a bye to the title game and have us play at home against Indy and pitt. think things may have been different? was that his fault? should we invalidate Mantle, Aaron, Mays b/c Int'l players didn't play?
You use playoff wins as a stat in defense of Mark. You blame the defense in the two losses and you diminish the run game's impact in the playoffs. It's not Joe's fault that the AFL's playoff system was set up the way it was. You can't discredit him because of it. And like I said before if it's truly that easy we should've had more success. So that argument is thrown out the window.
I speak realistically, to the uniformed they like to pretend Mark was somehow carried as if we had the '80s Bears D's(who never won anything w/o quality QB play either). I am discrediting him, just stating facts.
You say this yet when it suits your argument you're quick to point out how the Jets were built on defense and implying that they should've done more to win the games or put put Mark in a position to win games. You can't have it both ways. No one is discrediting Sanchez the problem is you want to give him more credit than he deserves. He was simply asked to run the offense and make timely throws/plays and let the run game and defense do the heavy lifting. In the playoffs he did just that he managed to not turn the ball over and he ran the offense. You make it seem as if no other capable QB couldn't have done what he did.
Many more or even less capable QBs could have done what he did but just as many have failed given the opportunity. That's why he deserves the credit for at least that even though his complete body of work may be criticized. Having the ability to do something and actually doing it in high pressure situations are a lot further apart from each other than they seem. If it was that easy, teams with suspect QBs but good running games and defenses would be winning road playoff games and making to the AFCCG all the time.
Here's my thing, I give him credit because he did what was asked of him and he didn't really screw up. We were built on the run game, defense and special teams. Mark was an average AT BEST QB. We've seen teams built similarly to those Jets teams have success with average/mediocre QB's. Those late 90's early 2000's Bucs teams, early 2000's Ravens, 90's Steelers etc. The 85 Bears and 90 Giants as well. So the formula can work. That just shows how good of a team we really had in 2009 and 2010. How much credit should I give to a guy that was simply asked to just manage the game? He did what he was supposed to do. It wasn't like we had a subpar team and was depending on Mark to do more (Andrew Luck and the Colts).
I just find it funny how some can be willing to cut certain high draft pick some slack for not being able to learn the playbook or contribute as a rookie while at the same time can't bring themselves to acknowledge what Mark was able to do in the playoffs as a rookie and second year player at arguably the hardest position in all of sports was a tremendous accomplishment even if simultaneously he was one of the worst QBs in the game at times during and after those runs. Sorry for the run on.
Who is this "how some can be willing to cut certain high draft pick some slack for not being able to learn the playbook or contribute as a rookie" Secondly speaking for myself he gets credit for playing a role in those playoff wins. You just want him to get more credit than he deserves.
What does being average, below or above average have to do with what he was able to do? The Bucs, Bears and Giants did it with veteran QBs. If anything what Mark did was way more impressive considering he was a rookie and 2nd year player. Do people place an asterisk next to Big Ben's first SB because he was not asked to do much? Funny thing is that Ben's stats were much better during that SB run than the other 2. Lastly there's no need to try to ascertain what degree of credit to give. Just give him credit and move on. If you do not struggle to criticize him, you should not struggle to give him credit.
If I was referring to you, I would have quoted you like I did in the other posts. What more credit? I don't have a credit ruler.
What Mark did as a Rookie in the playoff is unprecedented. Essentially the same team with a HOF qb could not even make the playoffs. In 2010 he carried the team in several games had several comebacks and played great in the playoffs beating Manning and Brady back to back. This has not happened a lot actually I do not think anyone else has done it. So to say any average QB could have done it is just not true. In 2011 was progressing nicely unt il he got hurt and the collapse. In 2012 he struggled again down the stretch with one of the worst offenses in NFL history. Mark plays last season we make a big run I the playoffs most likely losing to Denver. You dismiss what a great job MM did last season with a vet QB the offense would have been Al of better. Geno has big shoes to fill taking over for Mark. From what I have seen so far Geno is not the best QB on the roster and may not be the second best. Simms was throwing into some tight windows and for Geno to be successful be needs to be willing to throw into tight windows or we will see a lot of three and outs.
I give him proper credit, folks like you pretend he did nothing. Sure he could have done more but our D didn't hold Pitt or Indy to 7 pts like the '68 D did in SB III. mark never led his O to less than 17 pts in a playoff game like the 16 needed to win SB III. Not many could have done what mark did, supposed better QBs would have taken more chances and turned it over more. Look at the SD playoff game, Rivers is supposedly a far superior QB, he had more talent around him, was at home yet the difference in that game was at QB. Rivers made the big mistakes, Mark didn't. QB is not all about fantasy #s, it's about making big plays in big spots and avoiding the big mistake. Some QBs have been able to do that, others haven't. we don't make those runs w/ many QBs.
As I've mentioned before I live in Chicago. Just this weekend I was in the barber shop talking football. I asked all the Bears fans in the shop would they think of Rex Grossman differently had the Bears won that SB. To a man they all said no, he was a bum and he would deserve no credit. I guess I'm wired differently because any QB that was part of bringing my team the chip would be forever held in the highest esteem for that accomplishment no matter what he does in the future on or off my team. I see it as compartmentalizing.
