Dawson was surrounded by pro bowl caliber players including at least two strong runningbacks in every season from 65-69. That's why the Chiefs made the playoffs over and over again with silly records. Namath was always a horse short in the playoff races of the day. If it wasn't Emerson Boozer getting hurt (1967, 1968, 1970, 1972) then Don Maynard would go down (1969, 1970), Matt Snell missed the end of 1966 and half of 1967 too. And of course Namath himself could not stay on the field after 1970. When healthy the Jets were dangerous, they just couldn't stay healthy. Namath and Unitas faced off against each other 5 times between 1969 and 1972 including Unitas 2nd half appearance in Super Bowl III when Shula got desperate. Two of the games were among the most prolific passing games of the time with both passers upwards of 350 yards. Nobody argues that Super Bowl III and the prediction are not the primary reason Namath is in the hall of fame. That's why it was #1 on my list. He would not have made the hall of fame only off of that though. You had to have #5 through #2 and the strong suspicion of a lot of people that #0 was there also. That's why a QB with a 64 lifetime rating is in the hall of fame.
Reality the Jets have won 1 SB in over 45 years. Namath was the best player in football for 3 years and carried us to a SB. The simple fact is he was great and no stat junkie is going to tell me different. Junc argued that in he's prime he would rather have Martin then Allen another guy who carried a team to a SB win. Junc likes good consitent playoff teams over SB teams. That favors Martin and disqualifies Namath.
Well Martin was certainly the steadiest player on 6 playoff teams (96-98, 01-02, 04), that argues that he made an impact on the NFL during his career. The teams he played on tended to get shut down by good defenses although his career rushing record in the playoffs (182 carries, 793 yards and 8 TD's in 10 games) makes it pretty clear he was not the problem in those games. The reason I think Martin is an iffy first ballot hall of famer is that he really never was the best player at his position for even a single season. His 2004 season was great but even then Shaun Alexander was clearly the better of the two backs. It's not even clear that Martin was the best back in NY that season as Tiki Barber had the most yards from scrimmage in the NFL that season and began his 3 year run of greatness. From 2004 to 2006 Tiki Barber was 25% better than Martin was in the cherry-picked 3 best years of his career. Go pick 3 Martin years and match them up against Barber from 2004 to 2006 and you'll see what I mean.
let's not act like namath ddn't have help, he had Sauer, maynard, Lamons, Boozer, Snell, etc... They won their playoff games 38-10, 30-14 and 38-9- there was more than any one player carrying them. he was superb in that postseason but I'd love to see the rest of his #s. I don't remember him doing anything against us in '82 and he certainyl didn't do much towards the end of his career. 38-10, 30-14, 38-9- Allen did NOt carry LA to the title. You say namath was the best player in football for 3 years then why did dawson win more and have better #s PLUS beat namath and the Jets at NY in the playoffs?
Len Dawson was a nice QB who would have been a very nice caddy for Namath. The Chiefs were a far superior team to the Jets in almost every aspect of the game including coaching. Dawson was not even close to the threat Namath was on a football field. Allens numbers speak for themselves he absolutely dominated on the Raiders SB run.
The Jets had an immensely talented team around Namath at least in the late 60s PLUS a HOF Coach. You want to say KC was a bit mroe talented? I can buy it but if namath was much better than Dawson he would have elevated the Jets ahead of KC but we didn't finish w/ a better record than KC in any of those years. Dawson wasn't as flashy but he was more effective. Allen had a great '83 postseason but not much else. The man had 3 seasons in 16 over 1,000 yds rushing and just once was he over 1200 yds.
As far as Dawson and Namath, I suspect you never saw either of them play other than a few highlights so I will cut you some slack since your opinion in this case is based on stats and basically worthless. As far as Allen, you left out the fact that he had over 50 receptions 3 times and over 60 twice and he also had a higher YPC than Martin even though he had many more after prime years than Martin. The one year Allen was over 1200 yards was also the one year he got more than 300 carries. He also had 67 catches to go along with 1759 yards more yards than Martin every got rushing in a single season and clearly a dominating season where he was without question the best back in the game. Martin the 1 year he did win the title wasn't even the best back in NY. Martin was on several outstanding teams that were at least as talented as the SB winning teams and did nothing to elevate he's team that's what HOF players do. We won the same amount of games in 06 as we did in 04 when Martin lead the league in rushing. The guy was a very good durable back who was consistently above average until he went over the cliff. For a short time Marcus Allen was a great back who dominated big games.
Why do they keep stats if they are worthless? dawson had better individual #s and his team performed better- do I need anything else to be bale to judge who was better? was Namtah the mroe physically gifted QB? Of course but he didn't get it done on the field long enough and dawson did. Curtis averaged 44 recs a season, Allen averaged 37. So that one year had in '85 was the best year either had but he didn't have any years close to that. Curtis' '04 season was close and Curtis had other years close to his '04 season- he wasn't a 1 hit wonder. The year Curtis won the rushing title he was the best back in football, not just NY. They ahd similar #s but Curtis did it on a better team in bigger games while Tiki was doing it in garbage time. Curtis elevated 2 franchises, he carries Bledsoe and the Pats O to a SB and helped the Jets in the greatest stretch in franchise history. Allen was a great back for a very short time- 1 year while Curtis had mroe than 1 great year.
Absolutely, Curtis should go in the first chance there is. They don't come much better than him in terms of the full A to Z package on and off the field.
They keep stats so guys like you can debate on a topic that you have no real knowledge of. Curtis was never the best back in football and Dawson has the same number of rings that Namath does for all of he's big time production.
personal stats, winning and performance in big games are the 3 biggest areas to judge a player. Dawson had better #s, won more and played as well in the SB. Both have 1 SB title, 1 SB MVP but Len had 3 AFL titles compared to 1 for Joe and Len had 5 postseason appearances compared to 1 for Joe. Not to mention len was +56 in TDs to INts while Joe was -47(the argument I always get from Namath backers was that all QBs took more risks ans therefore had alot of INts then why was Dawson +56?). Dawson also had 66 more TDs despite 21 LESS career attemtps. If Curtis wasn't the best in 2004 he was right there along w/ Alexander and if Alexander doesnt' fumble going in for a TD against us then he wins the rushing title but he did and Curtis won it, Curtis also finished 2nd twice including 1999 when he did it w/ Rick Mirer and Ray Lucas as his QBs. Curtis actualyl made Ray Lucas look like an NFL QB. Actually dawson has 2 rings, 1 SB and 1 AFL before there was a SB(plus a 3rd AFL title but they lost the SB). I know "you had to see Joe play" I appreciate that he was the better athlete, looked smoother on the field, and threw a prettier ball- all that is great but production counts more and Dawson produced more while Joe had a couple of big seasons.
Rex Grossman had 5 more TD's than Pennington on 5 less attempts, he also has a better post season record and more confrence rings. By the way Dawson besides himself had 4 other HOF players on he's team Joe had 1 who would never be in the HOF without Joe Namath.
The Dawson-Namath argument is a lot like the Bob Griese-Dan Fouts argument. They're both in the hall of fame but particularly in their prime nobody in their right mind would have taken Griese over Fouts even though Griese won a lot more games. It's all complicated by the fact that Namath got injured so often after the Jets offensive line began to get old. Teams went way out of their way to put a lick on Namath because they knew he was the difference between a good Jets team and a bad one.
Grossman plays in a weak division an confernce, namath and Dawson played in the same conference. Namath had a HOF WR in Maynard and he might not have been his best WR- Sauer was on his way to a HOF career before he quit. dawson had Otis Taylor- I think nmatah had as good, if not better talent than Dawson had around him offensively. Not really, Fouts put up great #s which Namath did not do throughout his career(he has a couple of big seasons) and Griese did not put up great #s which dawson did. Talent wise no question Joe was on top but he did get hurt and that factors in. if he didn't I think he'd be in the discussion for best of all time but unfortunately(and typical jets luck) he did and it robbed him of alot of great Sundays.
Here's the way I'd put it: In an era in which the hall of fame electors were still fairly conservative about who they elected it took them 3 tries to put Namath in to the HoF. There are a whole bunch of reasons that they chose to put him in and a whole bunch that made them wait 3 seasons. I will say that his election and his career stats tells you exactly how good he was for the last 5 years of the AFL. When the AFL All-Time team was selected in 1970 the first string QB was Joe Namath and the second string QB was Len Dawson. That's a lot of people who thought Joe Namath was the better of the two QB's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Football_League_All-Time_Team#Backs Go to the link and look it up if you need to. Then come back and argue why your opinion is more important than the AFL pro football writers of the time.
Namath was the more hyped of the 2 obviously and the more important to the success of the league- he was NOT better on the field. Thereis no way to justify a player who didn't win enough and didn't put up great #s over a winning QB who put up much better #s.
Otis Taylor was faster, bigger and every bit as good as Don Maynard and if Namath was he's QB and Dawson was Maynards, Taylor would be in the HOF and Maynard wouldn't be. Dawson also played with 3 HOF defensive players and the best Kicker in football by far who is also in the HOF.
He was the first player ever to pass for 4,000 yards. Len Dawson never broke 3,000. QB's pass, it's what they do in the modern game and particularly in the AFL. Who would you have taken as your QB starting from scratch in 1971: Terry Bradshaw or Dan Fouts? That's the comparison.
Here comes the excuses. If, if, if. Dawson put up BETTER #s than Namath so how would taylor have better #s if he played w/ the lesser #s wise QB? maynard was putting up big #s long before Namath got to the Jets. despite playing LESS seasons w/o Joe Maynard had 3 1,000 yd seasons w/o him and only 2 w/ him. How do you figure that? if the Jets didn't beat Bal they were going to cancel the SB and KC wouldn't have gotten a chance to crush Minny the next year? Dawson still had a Championship and a SB appearance on his resume before SB IV.
