Looks like he's gotten under your skin. Just ignore him. Isn't that what you tell people to do- just ignore you, when they respond to your admitted silly message board dumbassery?
He not under my skin at all. Nobody on a message board can get under my skins with words. I have notice the more he talks the more he makes himself look like a fool. He says he don't like being called a lair. Then he says he really don't care who calls him a lair.
Good way to derail a thread. What does all of this self serving crap have to do with JWN. And what's all this gansta stuff all about (as if I didn't already know--see thread on Charleston).
I got trolled so I returned favor. No biggie. You know what I'm talking about, it's your calling card. _
You disrupted this thread for 3 pages insulting the guy. (and visa versa). That's called derailing a thread. Your specialty. Not mine.
Great post, joe. BTW, that poster who said that Tittle hardly played for the Giants was none other than our resident know-it-all, nyjunc.
I totally disagree. Those who argue against Joe are by and large younger fans who never saw him play, who didn't live through that era and have no understanding of what the game was like then. The fact that you did and can say that there is a validity to questioning whether he belongs in the HOF, only speaks to your lack of understanding or your lack of being a true Jets fan. Sandy Koufax was a great pitcher, but he didn't have anywhere NEAR the health issues that Joe had. It's also ignorant to try to compare a pitcher with a QB. If I have to spell it out for you, a pitcher can pretty much singlehandedly win the game for his team. He can throw a perfect game, a no-hitter, give up on a few hits and only a run or two, or a shutout. He can also contribute at the bat (on offense), or if his teammates are able to do anything offensively, they can win. QBs can't play offense and defense. They can't block, catch the ball for receivers, or stop the other team from scoring (unless they don't throw a pick six). Pitchers aren't tackled on the mound. I could go on, but hopefully you get the point and see how foolish your comparison is by now.
I disagree again. If one didn't see the player play at the time he was playing and live through that time, there's no way one would ever truly have an "educated" opinion on the player. You form only a partial opinion and get only a partial understanding of the player because you're basing your opinion on the opinions of others which could be biased (either pro or con) or flawed. You don't know the offensive philosophy or game plans his HC and OC had or what they asked him to do. You don't know how teams matched up against each other. You don't know how well they played in cold weather or the mud, and often times whether they were banged up, battling an injury, or maybe had been sick or drunk the night before the game. Even seeing a few old games or clips or a retrospective, doesn't really give you a clear picture of who that player was. We don't have to form opinions on everyone and everything. That's narcissistic. We can choose to accept what historians or what previous generations said about a player or not, but we'll never know for certain because we weren't there. To pretend that we can is delusional and narcissistic.
I accept what you're saying. But think we can study previous time periods by reading, seeing tape, etc. But the best way is like you say: being there live. Of course most games we've ever watched Namath and others is on TV, not live. I'm sure authors writing about another time period would have loved to be there live too. But I believe it's legitimate to have a very valid opinion on players from the past.
Yeah, Mickey Mantle was my hero while growing up. My prized possessions were my Mickey Mantle glove and baseball cards. I read a biography when young that only strengthened the hero worship and belief that he had been cheated, and could have broken ALL the offensive records. Then as I grew older, I read Ball Four and another Mantle biography that was more honest, and it detailed how sportswriters in that day covered up for players they liked. They covered up how drunk Mantle got many (most) nights, what a womanizer he was (cheating on his wife), how he played games hung over, and what a bastard he could be. I still love him, because I learned that no one is perfect and ALL our heroes are flawed in some form or fashion. He was still an amazing player. I still wonder what he could have accomplished if he never had osteomyelitis, hadn't re-injured his knees on the drains in center field in Yankee Stadium, and had taken better care of himself and not drunk so heavily. The one thing I will always remember about Mickey was that in spite of how his carousing might have lessened his contributions on the field, he still gave his all for the team. I think it was 1968, but maybe it was 1969. They were playing on TV I think on Saturday on the game of the week, and it may have been against the White Sox. The Yankees were terrible. He was near the end of his career. He hadn't started because he had a hip abcess and the announcers said he had a hole the size of a golf ball on his hip. Well, the Yankees got a hit or two I think, and Mickey pinch hit. He got a hit and it was all he could do to run to 1st base. When he got there blood was streaming down his pin-striped leg. That's how I see Namath. A true competitor, who gave his all on the field for his teammates. They both had their personal demons and were less than perfect, but were great, great players.
I truly think Ball Four was the precursor to tabloid journalism in sports. Yup, even as a Met fan growing up I always respected who Mantle was and what kind of player he was. _
