No, it's just an indication of your posting style. When you want to discuss a point intelligibly, you somehow manage to use passable English. When you go into your troll mode, you somehow lose all ability to fashion sentences using proper grammar, diction, syntax, punctuation and spelling. You, like other posters who never saw him play, feel compelled to dump on a QB that is widely recognized by those who saw him and football historians as a great QB, greatest AFL QB in history, Hall of Fame worthy, with articles posted as to why his stats can't be looked at in a vacuum without putting them into historical context yet you refuse to understand them. You just continue to parrot "yo, stats, Joe no hall famer". It's your troll persona. _
There are only 3 receivers in AFL/NFL history to catch 70+ balls and average 20+ yards a catch in the same season. 2 of them played for the Oilers at Jeppesen Field in 1960 and 1961. Not knowing anything about Jeppesen it still seems likely that something, humidity, stadium dynamics, altitude, etc, played a role in the achievement by Charley Hennigan and Bill Groman. The Oilers averaged 18 yards a catch in 1961. George Blanda was an excellent QB but nothing suggests he was capable of making two good receivers have that type of record-breaking season back to back. The Oilers backup QB both years was Jacky Lee and the Oilers averaged 20 yards a catch when he was throwing the ball in 1960 and 18.3 in 1961 in a 204 pass sample. Maynard averaged 20.2 yards on 71 catches in 1967 at Shea, with Namath throwing him the ball. The Jets other receivers weren't in the same range that year and the backup QB averaged 8.7 yards per catch. It took Maynard 6 tries to get into the Hall of Fame, which goes to show that the NFL really did have issues recognizing the talent in the old AFL. Maynard would have been one of the top 3 or 4 receivers for a decade running in the NFL. He finished as the all-time leading receiver and leader in receiving yards when he retired despite catching only 5 balls before his 25th birthday. He was the leader by 1,568 yards when he retired. It took 13 years for Charlie Joiner to surpass him as the record holder.
Except in a past Namath discussion you stated you couldn't stand his opinions of the team, and that he should shut up. Opinions didn't matter that time They didn't suck when Joe took them to a Championship. That's one time they didn't suck
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/the-most-overrated-quarterbacks/6538/ it's more than just fans who never saw him play, search for any overrated list and Joe's name will usually pop up based on the overall play of his career. Again, he meant so much more to the game than what he did or didn't do on the field but to pretend like he made the Hall based purely on his play is just wrong. Talking realistic about former players doesn't mean you hate them or hate the franchise, it means you can remove the pom poms from the discussion. it doesn't change the fact that he helped make pro football relevant, it doesn't change the fact that he helped us win our only SB but we are allowed to discuss both good and bad of al players/coaches/etc...
Just so we're clear for folks who never saw Namath play--Namath was fully able to to take the pounding that he took back in his playing days--he was an extremely tough individual and by that periods standards was a pretty big QB. Even though he was extremely adept at avoiding sacks--he took monstrous hits that would be completely illegal today. Just go watch some of the old Raider or Chiefs matchups. Joe's issues were his KNEES not his ability to take hits. He first tore cartilage in his knee (and some suspect his ACL) at Alabama before he even got to the NFL. He had knee surgery before he ever put on a Jets uniform and proceeded to have 4 more surgeries on his knees--2 on each knee--throughout his career. These were rudinenatry surgeries they had back then, cutting open the knee, cutting out torn cartilage (which made his injuries even more debilitating) and using a knee brace to stabilize torn ACLs. They didn't fix ACLs back then. Had he had modern arthroscopic techniques of today his career would have been vastly different. It's silly to think he couldn't have stood up to today's bigger faster athletes because HE would have been bigger and faster AND he would have had surgically repaired knees--not patchwork of yesteryear. _
the bottom line is Joe played in his era and is evaluated on he played in that era, we can play make believe all day as far as what he would have done in this era or another era but in the era he played he did o have a great career and a big reason why as health. Bad luck for him, bad luck for the Jets but it's reality.
When someone claims things would not have been vastly different had he played in today's era, it's simple to point out that yes, in fact, things would have been vastly different had he played in today's era. Modern arthroscopic surgery would have changed Namath's career. As it would have for many players--like Gayle Sayers. And Mickey Mantle. _
maybe it would have changed? maybe they get hurt in another way? we don't know for sure. all we know is what they did in their era.
his injury at Alabama would've been fixed in an afternoon with Dr. Andrews. Not been a burden his whole career. Based on what I have heard about him he would've dominated in todays era. His play was ahead of the times. When most teams were lining up in the wishbone with an archaic style, he was dropping back and flinging it all over the field like today's QBs. He would've supremely benefitted from both the modern healthcare and the new rules protecting QBs and allowing receivers to get open easier. There is nothing worse than when people who never seen him play trash him based on stats and ignore those that did see him play. That's clown talk. Besides -if we want to talk about changing eras lets flip it the other way. You really think a stick figure, soft bitch like Brady would've had any kind of career in the 60s-70s NFL like Namath? Hell no. Not only would the guy have been too weak and soft to withstand the eras rules of allowing him to take a beating... his entire game is also predicated on short passes, screens and pick plays mostly across the middle. All plays that are possible because of today's rules... In Namath's era Brady's receivers would've gotten destroyed in that era and his entire game would've been taken away. Lets think about what Brady's stats would've looked like in the 60s/70s...
The reason he "couldn't w/stand playing in an era w/slower, smaller players" (as you put it) is because he was basically immobile. He had bum knees as a rookie. Today, he wouldn't have bum knees because of what they now know about knee surgery and being able to do surgery arthroscopically. His knees would have been fixed in college before he ever got to the NFL so he would be more mobile and not hobbling on the field. If you had seen Namath and others play during that era, you would know how QBs and WRs had no protections. They could be closelined, receivers could be (and were) mugged before the ball got to them. With the rules now protecting QBs, and with sound knees and better playing fields, Joe would have been fine from a health perspective. With rules protecting him, better mobility, and rules protecting the WRs and stricter pass interference rules, Joe probably would have only 1/3 or at least 1/2 of the interceptions he had back then. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Come on, guy, don't be obtuse. This is why you wind up getting so many people turning against you.
The site you linked is just one person's opinion, who happens to share your opinion. That doesn't make him or you right. Yes, we are allowed to discuss the pros and cons of players, but obviously, in the opinions of many, if not most, here, you go too far in trying to be what you fall objective, fair and/or honest. Since you never saw him play and saw teams play during that era, you are not fit to judge him or anyone else. It's one thing to look back at old films, but unless you lived through that era and saw all the games, there's no way you can have anything even remotely approaching a "fair", "honest" or "realistic" analysis of Joe and his play. If you want to co-exist on this site and not have people constantly sniping at you, you need to accept that and give it up.
And dollars to doughnuts, those lists were created by younger people like you who weren't alive and never saw games played during that era. Again, going back and looking at a few games a few films or retrospectives of the era doesn't give a clear, accurate view of what things were like. They, like you, are NOT qualified to assess anything about Namath's play or the play of that era.
Especially when all those fans dumping on him only look at those statistics in a vacuum and refuse to read articulate pieces written by football writers attempting to put those statistics in context. _
I guess that's true. Or maybe instead of drinking, he would have done weed or crack or gotten Aids or something. Maybe a meteor would have fallen out of the sky and injured him.
