He's in the Hall for '65-'69 & Super Bowl III. There are others who have a lot more INT's than TD's in the HOF. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LaynBo00.htm http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BaugSa00.htm http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WateBo01.htm
He's in the HOF because the writers that actually voted for him saw him play and he was absolutely great.
Here we go with this argument again. You can't compare eras. Namath's numbers in the late 60's and early 70's were good. I'm not going to look it all up again. He led the league in yards passing multiple times and set an NFL record for yards passings that took two extra games a season and almost 20 years to break. He was All-AFL and All-AFC multiple times. You can't just look at TD to Int ratio. And you have to realize that Namath's numbers are skewed because of playing with a horrible team his last 3-4 seasons.
As I'm sure you already know, nyjunc is extremely stubborn. Good luck with him. Here is one of the better Namath threads, of which you participated- http://forums.theganggreen.com/showthread.php?t=4174 One of my contributions to it-
We're doomed to disagree, but here it is: if a player gives his best effort every week, he keeps his job. That much is obvious. But at some point, even giving your best doesn't keep your job. When you begin competing against guys 10 to even 20 years younger than you for your job, and you keep that job, that in itself is something special. Being an old man in a young man's game isn't something merely "good" players can pull off. Then, when you add in the iron man factor; playing through the pain and never taking a day off, during a time when most of the peers you came into the league with are long retired; that's its own form of greatness. For another instance, Clay Matthews should be in the Hall now as well. For the same reasons I just explained. And the final factor for Monk, he broke the consecutive games w/rec record. That's a very rare air; only surpassed by Rice, a man whom has been referred to as the greatest of all time. I believe that record deserves to be mentioned alongside most rec yards and total catches, I would gather you disagree.
They did have almost the same # of yards and had the same # of recs but Clark had a TD and Monk did not so he gets the edge again. That was Monk's only non-1 rec Super Bowl in 3 SBs. Comments aren't always truthful, look at the Pats comments last yera when they got Welker saying how much they feared him and how he killed them when in reality he didn nothing against them. Monk was a well respected player and the vet on those teams. I doubt you'll find comments saying Clark was more feared but as a neutral observer(actually I wasn't nuetral b/c Monk is from the next Town over and I rooted for him) Gary Clark always stood stood out and I watched alot of Skins games b/c they were always good and on TV around here alot. He was a great talent but so is Ricky Williams. REicky only had a short stretch of greta yeras just like Namath but Ricky isn't imporrtant to the growth of the league and the image of the league the way Namath was. SB III was a huge game in the history of pro football and the attention he brought to it and brought to the game in general made him a HOFer moreso than his play on the field which was great for s hort period of time before the injuries limited his play. Palyers don't get in on great a ability, they get in on great play(they are supposed to). What do you mean here we go again? I said he belongs in the Hall just not for his overall playing career. There is not an argument that he wasn't great long enough. That had to do w/ his injury problems. he was 1st team all-NFL once(68) and 2nd team twice(67,69) and all-AFC team once(72). That doesn't sound like alot in 12-13 years. his #s are skewed playing w/ horrible teams his last 3-4 seasons? I'll put his LA season aside. In 1975 he had 28 INTs, in 1967 he had 28 INts. Late in his career w/ a bad team he threw 28 and early w/ a good team he threw 28. In 1966 he threw 27 so 2 of his 3 of his highest INT years came early in his career when he had good talent around him. There goes that argument. Namtah was an immense talent and in many respects he was bigger tha the game. He transformed the game from the olden days to the modern era. He helped grow the game but due to injuries he was not great on the field long enough, that's just not debateable. How many great seasons(and what were the years?) do you think he had? What's wrong w/ being stubborn when you can back things up? it's not like say "Namaty stunk" and run and hide. What does the completon % have to do w/ anything? We all know it was a different game, I did not compare Namath to any QBs of the last 15 years but thanks for bringing those guys up: Bart Starr: 152 TDs, 138 INTs(+14) Sonny Jurgensen: 255 TDs, 189 INTs(+66) Johnny Unitas: 290 TDs, 253 INTs(+37) Len Dawson: 239 TDs, 183 INTs(+56) Joe Namath: 173 TDs, 220 INTs(-47) John Hadl: 244 TDs, 268 INTs(-24) ONLY Hadl was close to his ration and he still had him beat by 23 and Hadl won as many Championships as Joe but led his team to 4 more title games.
Namath carried the Jets on his back to a SB and was the best passer of his era which very few even Lombardi would disagree about. A better example than Ricky is Terrell Davis who clearly belongs in the HOF for the same reason Namath belongs. The guy was absolutely great and dominated on the big stage and got the bling.
TD was playing at a Godly level in nhis few great seasons, Namath wasn't playing at that level and the Jet D sure would have a problem w/ you saying namath carried the Jets on his back especially considering they were the top ranked D in the AFL in 1968 and held the Colts to a garbage time TD(I know Baltimore had plenty of chqances but they didn't score). If namath carried the Jets on his back to a SB why couldn't he carry the Jets to another playoff win the rest of his career? Why could he only carry them to 2 postseasons? You want to get into best pure passer then maybe I'll agree that doesn't mean he was the best QB. Not many QBs have been better passers than Vinny but he's not going to the Hall. Brett favre is not a pretty passer and he's going to the Hall so Lombardi or anyone else calling him a great passer doesn't prove a thing. he was a top player for a very brief stretch, he didn't do it long enough. TD won 2 SBs, rushed for over 2,000 yds oncem rushed for over 1500 yds 3 of his 4 full seasons, averaged 4.8 YPC in those 4 years, averaged over 100 yds a game in those 4 years, he truly carried a team on his back to a Championship, was 3 time all-pro in 4 full years(Namath was a 1 time 1st team AP in 7 full years), in 8 postseason games he had 7 100 yd games and the only game he didn't have 100+ yds he only had 14 carries but averaged 6.5 YPC. In 8 postseason games he averaged 5.6 YPC, averaged 143 yds/game and scored 12 TDs. TD is not a good comparison.
The reason Namath couldn't carry the Jets beyond the 68 season, is the same reason Chad is a washed up QB, his body was simply done. He was throwing off his back foot a majority of his playing time because his knees were simply gone from day one he was in the NFL. In spite of that he clearly changed the game, dominated the game at times and carried the team to a SB against what was considered the greatest team in NFL history at the time. He also carried the Jets past the Raiders who were better on both sides of the ball than the Jets. I recoginize you never saw Namath play or a lot of great players. I never saw Otto Graham play and foolishly leave him out of the conversation of top QB's of all time. It's natural just like most of the people on this board think Straham has the most season sacks in NFL history. Looking at stats, very few past HOF players belong to be mentioned in the same breath as Montana or Young. If Montana had played in another era without the WCO he might never have been mentioned as a great QB? You can think what ever you want, its grounded in no real knowledge just a pool of stats that can make an argument but have no basis on tangible reality. I recognize my bias based on time and limited knowledge and I recognize your bias based on stats and even more limited knowledge.
Why couldn't he lead them to more playoff wins in '67 or '69? I have watched that game from start to finish, explain to me how he dominated the game? The D created TO after TO which set the offense up qwell but namath was only able to put 3's on the board which kept Bal in the game. The ground game dominated as he didn't have to throw a pass in the 4th qtr. The D created 5 TOs, that's why we won that game. I never saw Graham or Unitas play but I have read up enough and seen enough about them to include them in my top 5. Why would I want to takle anything away from the face of the franchise we both love? I hate saying neagtive things about Joe but I am honest. Strahan doesn't have the most sacks even since they started counting sacks in '81 and Strahan should not be a HOFer. Most people(I think) realize the sack wasn't kept until '81 and Gastineau wasn't the true single season record holder until the Strahan sham b/c guys like Deacon Jones apparently had more than 22 in a season they just didn't count them. One thing I do not do is compare players of different eras. It's not fair b/c the game has changed. I don't look at Joe's TD to INT ratiop and compare him to today's QBs b/c it's a different game I compare him to those I showed in my earlier post. Guys who played in his era and he comes up short. I have read, seen more footage, saw SB III to be knoweldgable enough in this discussion. he was a big hero to the older jet fans so you guys cannot seperate yourself from that. I don't have that bias and any neutral observer will tell you namath had an overrated career. When I was a kid I thought Ken O'brien was great, I thought Toon was as good as Rice but as you grow up and understand the game better you realize you were just being biased towards players you loved. That is the problem w/ the Namath debates.
I enjoy the Namath debate because it shows that football stats are NOT baseball stats. With baseball, although there are some "corrections" you have to make for different "eras" -- a 300 hitter is a 300 hitter. Granted in the 1970s you had 15 guys with 300 or better and now its more. Of course, ERA's now are much higher than 30 years ago -- but even those can be compared and adjusted for era. Football though is very different. First, the careers are much shorter. Second, the game has changed in a major way -- size of players, etc. With regard to Namath: 1. He caused the merger between the AFL and NFL 2. Basically compiled his stats in 7 seasons -- and was a top 10 player (if not higher) when he retired. Also, he was better than the QBs of his era with only a few exceptions. (Made probowl 5 times) 3. Passed for 4000 yards when no one had ever done it. 4. Was top 4 in yards per game almost every complete season (often behind Tarkenton who is a HOF'er on great teams)
No not quite true with your #1. The merger had been agreed to prior to SB3. The win in that game engineered by JWN certify that the AFL was at the same level as the NFL which is why that game is so important since the NFL had whomped on the 2 other AFL teams that they played prior to SB3.
So you don't have any bias? There isn't a single person on this board that doesn't have bias. There is a difference between bias based on hero worship, and not seeing a player play I agree. Namath didn't have an over rated career from my point of view, he had at best a mediocre career and certainly based on his ability a dissapointing career. I believe it was mostly do to injury and the fact that he was in constant pain from the first day he stepped on the field as a pro. I have no illusions about Namath's Career which was tragic and not that great. I don't consider that I over rate his career, just acknowledge his awesome talent that I did enjoy a great deal, just as I did with Toon. What he did have was moments of sheer dominance and brilliance that had rarely if ever been seen at that point and fortunately as a Jets fan he was able to string enough of it together in one season to carry a good team but far from the best team in football to a SB victory. I have no illusions about Bo Jackson, he did not have a great NFL career. He clearly was one of the single most talented running backs I have ever seen and if he had carried his team to a SB, like Namath I would have no issue with him being in the HOF. Brilliant talent, even fleeting deserves it's place in the hall.
Sure I have bias but I try to put it aside such as in a discussion like this where I hate speaking the truth about the face of our franchise. I'd much rather be on your side telling everyone how great he was. I 100% agree w/ your 2nd paragraph and that is what I have been saying for years on this board.
See, I watched all those games, too. Aside from the 2nd half of Monday night games when I was in elementary school, I really probably did see all the Redskins games that were televised between 1984 and 1992 with Monk on the team. I remember a big scuffle in the Redskins-Cowboys game in 1984. There's just no signature Gary Clark moment for me. I don't remember one particular play that stands out. I do remember several Monk plays, though. They include the aforementioned plays in two different games against the Bears and some plays against the Falcons in a December 1989 game. He also made some key catches in the Denver game in 1986 (6 for 129 yards and 1 TD). That was the late game on a Saturday evening. It was one of the best regular season games I ever saw. The Broncos won 31-30. Earlier that day, the Jets got spanked by Pittsburgh, 45-24 at the Meadowlands. To me, Clark did not stand out more than Monk. There was a reason I posted completion percentage numbers in that thread. Here, I posted that quote as a preview of the type of information that is contained in that thread. This way, posters new to the site and/or Joe Namath may be enticed to check out that old thread. You dig?
I remember many Clark big plays, Clark always seemed to be downfield making a big catch like the one that put Wash ahead in SB XXII, the '91 Sunday Nighter against the Giants when the 7-0 Skins were down 13-0 at NYG and Clark caught 2 2nd half TDs including the go ahead 54 yd TD in the 4th. he had over 200 yds agaisnt that great '86 Giants D in a Monday Nighter, he caught the GW TD in the '87 NFC Title Game against Minny. he was a big play WR. A big scuffle is what you remember about Monk? That was Monk's best year and in the 2 games against Dallas he didn't have a big game in either. Wash didn't even make the playoffs in '89 so how big of a moment could that Atlanta game have been? I really liked Art but Clark was always the guy making plays. Obviously they both made big plays in their careers but Clark always stood out to me.
