Ahhh yes, let's dismiss history because it doesn't support our position and rewrite history to make a nonsensical point. Btw, Joe Namath made the Pro Bowl in 1967 because he threw for an unheard of 4000 yards. In 14 games. Nobody did it again for another 10 years. In 16 games. None of us voted for Pro-Bowls back then. I'll go with the voters. Having seen him play, I'll agree with them. If you hadn't seen him play, I'm not sure what the basis is for dismissing those pro-bowl. But if you want to dismiss history, fine. Some awful QBs in that 1967 AFL Pro Bowl. Namath. Len Dawson (HOF). Bob Griese (HOF). Darryl Lamonica. That's a mediocre bunch if I'd ever seen one. Having seen Namath hobble around the back end of his career, I'm not shocked he only made 1 more. Whatever, we all have our opinions. Namath was a great QB. Folks are entitled to think he wasn't great. _
I think that Shula would have improved the org and over a period of time on and off the field made the franchise much better. Obviously there were years with lack of talent. Something Shula never tolerated.
yep, 4000 yards w/ 28 INTs including 9 in the 3 biggest games of the year to cost them a div title. But hey, in the final week w/ nothing to play for he threw 4 TDs and ZERO INTs w/ 343 yards. how impressive! also, they finished a game out of the division, had they beat Houston instead of tied them earlier in the year and everything stayed the same they would have won the division. Joe threw SIX Ints in that tie game including 2 returned for TDs but he did have almost 300 yards! 4 QBs made pro bowl out of 9 teams, a rookie Griese on a 4-10 Miami team who also threw more INts than TDs made it. must have been some heated competition for that PB spot
are you saying his 9 INTs the last 3 meaningful games of the season(where they lost all 3) and his 6 INT game(w/ 2 pick 6's) against Houston didn't greatly contribute to the team missing the playoffs when they missed by a game?
all of what we post here are our individual opinions. to me he represented the team at a franchise function on Nat'l TV, he not only embarrassed himself he embarrassed the franchise. this was his apology: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2003-12-23-namath-apology_x.htm
Joe fucked up but gotta give ESPN credit too they knew he was bombed and kept him on the air for an eternity
they can get some blame too but it doesn't change anything. To Joe's credit that moment changed his life, he saw it, was humiliated by it and made changes. That is something that should be celebrated more than anything else he did.
Susie Culver was cool about it. She was never interested in vilifying Joe. I saw in an interview with her she said that Namath had called her up and apologized and talked to her for 45 minutes. And she graciously accepted his apology. That was a reason people liked Joe. He never tried to come off as the perfect person. And believe me he wasn't. He was just a regular guy thrown into the limelight. But as Sonny Werblin understood he could usually handle it but not always.
The reason for the vast number of interceptions thrown by guys like Namath, and the much lower completion percentages, was not because there was more of an emphasis on the running back. Far from it. Yes, you had the “three yards and a cloud of dust” philosophy held by some teams mostly in what was then the NFL. That’s right, there was the NFL and the AFL. Take a look at the Yards Per Completion statistic, NOT Yards Per Attempt. Yards per attempt statistics remain virtually unchanged, and is really a bogus statistic, since you are accounting for incomplete passes and interceptions in trying to form a numeric perception. Why the NFL continues to use this statistic as something meaningful is beyond me, and there are those who have sharply criticized its use over the past 15 years or so. Namath and his contemporaries played a longer passing game. Guys like Namath, Unitas and Lamonica had mammoth Yards Per Completion statistics compared to the quarterbacks of today. There was no such thing as a Yard After Catch statistic, because it didn’t happen. Guys caught the ball way downfield, and were either tackled immediately, took a couple steps in to the end zone, or were knocked out of bounds. There was no such thing as the “dink and dunk” offense, also referred to as The West Coast Offense, where plays were set up to gain a plethora of yards after a short, more “efficient” pass play was made. Along came The Kansas City Chiefs who took over supremacy in the AFL, with a quarterback named Len Dawson. Dawson’s completion percentage was much higher than his contemporaries, and the Chiefs played to get things set up for the short passing game. This was the beginning of the change. The argument is made today that because interceptions have virtually vanished as a statistic and completion percentages of less than 65% are considered paltry, that it is a more efficient, and therefore more effective game. Did you get that? It coincides greatly with the rise of the corporation in America to godlike status. With the advent of the 1980’s, corporate dress codes were ushered in, taking calls at home as early as 7 a.m. became increasingly frequent, and the expectation that one would make the corporate environment the centerpiece of their life became the norm. That’s what happened in the NFL. Did you ever hear of a quarterback who could throw five interceptions in a game, and yet his team only lost by two points? Or who could throw six in a game, and hold the other team to a tie? Namath and the Jets tied the Houston Oilers 28-28 in 1967, the first time in his career that Namath threw six in one game. In the following season, the Super Bowl year, Namath had been asked to cut down on his interceptions and run a more balanced attack. Namath responded by throwing only 15 TD passes all season, with 17 interceptions. Each of those categories was 11 less than the prior year. 13 of his interceptions came in the Jets three losses, with Namath throwing five in one game twice. In each of those games, the Jets lost by only two points. Unheard of today, where by the time a QB throws his third of the game, his team is usually on its way to being slaughtered. Brett Favre is called a gunslinger. Brett Favre is, and statistics will bear me out, numbers don’t lie, simply one of the greatest dink and dunk passers of all time, who could also unleash a huge bomb almost at any given moment to drive an arrow in to the heart of the opposing team. But his Yards Per Completion statistics pale in comparison to guys like Namath, Lamonica and John Hadl of the San Diego Chargers. Namath did indeed balance the attack more during the 1968 season as opposed to previous years, at one point going six consecutive games without throwing a TD pass. The Jets won five of those games. But his Yards Per Completion rate was 16.83, a gargantuan number compared to anyone that has come along since the 80’s style corporate football mentality was introduced. It’s a much shorter passing game nowadays, simply put, relying on Yards After Catch rather than the length of the pass. Another case in point is Namath’s favorite target, “Country” Don Maynard, a wiry Texan who has a book out called You Can’t Catch Sunshine. Don Maynard had deceptive but tremendous speed, and was never caught from behind during his AFL/NFL career. His Yards Per Catch lifetime of 18.7, while not the best of his era, was far beyond the receivers of the past three decades. It took Jerry Rice a LONG time to break Maynard’s record of 50, 100+ yard games. Lance Alworth, Bob Hayes, Paul Warfield, look up their lifetime Yards Per Catch rates. Staggering statistics compared to today’s receivers. Back then, a “possession” receiver like George Sauer had higher Yards Per Catch than the “bomb threats” in today’s game. Today’s passing game is shorter, more efficient, more “corporate” if you will, that’s the difference. Interceptions are not a good thing, for sure, and Namath threw too many, even for his era. But he could come right back and throw an 80 yard TD pass on the next series, the ultimate fuck you. Many of Namath’s interceptions happened late in his career, when he had no more legs to plant on, poor offensive line play, and was desperately heaving with his arm only. But no QB of today can throw five interceptions and still keep his team in the game until the final gun. Namath could and did, more than once. Corporate football, rather than a wide open, more free wheeling type of game, take your pick.. They just played a different brand of football, that’s all. Shorter, more “efficient” passes, that’s the difference in today’s game. It’s what the guys in the suits want to see. You don’t see defensive backs getting 10-12 interceptions per season anymore, either. Guys lead the league with 7 interceptions, in a season that’s two games longer than what was played back then. http://www.debbieschlussel.com/62921/happy-70th-broadway-joe-willie-namath-my-fave-nfl-player-ever-back-then-he-was-a-mans-man/
clearly it was a very different era and the AFL at the time was a wide open game and he was a great downfield passer. INTs were up but to throw 47 more than TDs is still a crazy amount under any circumstances in that era. throwing an 80 yd TD after an INT isn't the ultimate FUI, not if the INT was run back for a TD or prevented a score or set up a score for an opponent. It's more than understandable he would throw a lot more INTs than players of today, what isn't understandable is the crazy amount he threw. to throw 6 in a game(that ultimately decided the div title) w/ 2 pick 6's that ended up in a tie is not a good thing. to throw 9 over 3 games with the season on the line is not a good thing. Some INTs don't kill you and I bet many didn't kill his teams but he still threw an extraordinary amount even for that era., this doesn't mean he sucked or anything like that but it is one of the reasons I don't believe he had a great career. Great talent w/o a doubt, great career? that is very debatable.
he threw 111 less times in 1968 than 1967, his INT rate was down which was good but the biggest reason he wasn't in the 20s for INTs again was b/c they cut down on pass attempts. Prorate his INTs in 1968 to his pass attempts in 1967 and he has 22 INTs. did the CS ask him to cut back on pass attempts or did Joe calling he plays make that decision?
