Let's take 65-69 which was really his best stretch. Only 2 teams made the playoffs which is true but let's look closer: 1965- 4 teams in division, 1 in 4 chance to make playoffs, 25% 1966- 5 teams in division, 1 in 5 chance, 20% 1967- 5 teams, 1 in 5 chance. 20%. This was the first season they had a legit playoff shot. They finished 8-5-1 just 1 game behind Houston for the div crown. They played Houston one time, Joe threw SIX INTs including 2 returned for TDs and the teams TIED. if the Jets win that game and everything plays out the same the Jets win the division. Putting that side, they were 7-2-1 w/ 4 games to play and had a 1 game lead on Houston. the next 3 games Joe threw NINE INTs and the Jets went 0-3 vs. Denver: threw 3 TDs and 4 INTs. sounds nice w/ 3 INTs but team trailed 33-3 in the 3rd then Joe threw 3 garbage time TDs and Jets lost 33-24 vs. KC: threw 0 TDs and 2 INTs including 1 returned for TD in 21-7 loss. at Oakland: 3 TDs and 3 INTs, 2 of the TDs were when trailing by 17 pts in the 4th qtr Houston wins Saturday game in final week to clinch division title then Joe throws 4 TDs and 0 INTs in week 14 win. so Joe cost the Jets a division title in 1967. 1968- 5 teams in division. 20% chance, 2nd place team was .500. Joe threw a lot less so INTs went way down, had benefit of 2 best teams in AFL having to play a 1 game playoff then the winner(Oak) had to travel to Shea where Namath had an excellent game. 1969 5 teams and 2 teams made so there was a 40% chance to make the playoffs. again, 2nd place team was a .500 team in weak AFL East. Jets lose at home to great KC team in playoffs about the AFL All Star stuff. Joe was named an al star to b/c of his popularity in 1965. he did not make it in 1966 so your "1965-1969 all star" comment was incorrect. Made it in 1967, threw for 4,000 yds which was great but almost 30 INTs and cost his team a div title. The AFL had 8-10 teams, earning all AFL was easier than making pro bowl today. 1972 he was 2nd team AP all pro and no one doubts his ability when healthy but durability counts. "consider this" 1966- shouldn't you lead in yds if you lead in attempts? you forgot he led in interceptions too and was 5-6-2 as starting QB that year. Joe had 27 INTs, next highest was Blanda w/ 21. despite being 1st in attempts was 5th in TDs. 1967-awesome that he set yardage record, also led the league in INTs throwing 28 and cost the Jets a div title and trailed for the lead in TDs by 4. 1968- reduced pass attempts, INTs went down, had some big breaks and took advantage. 1972- big year, led an inferior team to being competitive 1974- 2nd in AFC in yds and led NFL in INTs(tied w/ Plunkett) Nowhere have I ever compared Joe w/ QBs of today. that is completely unfair, I understand QBs threw more INTs but he still threw them at a much higher rate and didn't throw enough TDs to compensate for them. Joe threw 173 TDs and 220 INTs, -47 he also was top FIVE in INTs NINE times and led 4 times let's compare to HOF QBs from that 60s/70s/early 80s era Staubach: +44, never top 5 in INTs Tarkenton: +76, 5 times in top 5, led once(Joe played parts of 13 seasons, Fran 18) Dawson +56, in top 5 one time Bradshaw +2, top 5 3 times, led once Griese +20, top 5 once Clearly to be that far negative wasn't the norm for the top guys and I love dismissing INTs and talking about yardage. Joe is an all time great talent but injuries impacted his career. he did not have a great career but he had great seasons, great moments and is possibly the most important player in the history of the sport. He belongs in the Hall for all he meant to the game not for his overall performance on the field.
Very deep...lol...good stuff. Pot calling the kettle....? Mods..can you please help me? Im trying to do the right thing all the time now. I have changed my ways and I seek your guidance and understanding. Well...truth be told, I have no where else to sleep but in this house. Please let me stay...amen.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=7217 Please review and comment. Yes, I understand it's just one game. Also--you should find and watch this game film, it's fantastic.
I have never seen the actual game just the NFL films stuff on that game. here is a video from the Jets site: http://www.newyorkjets.com/videos/v...s-Unitas/8db0a3b2-0911-43d4-9adc-5d6fe0f57da4
Don't tell us what the book says were interceptions; tell us about those interceptions. Did Namath just throw a lousy ball or was he clobbered from the blind side as he released it? Did the receivers just drop the ball, pop it up or let it get wrestled away? How many were tipped at the line? Without such information all you have is an empty statistic which may be all YOU need, but I want more. I suspect others here do too. If you don't know, how can you make an informed judgement?
Agreed--- this is an important distinction for a lot of reasons. Not least of which is that Namath was throwing bombs down the field, and a healthy portion of his INTs were 40 yards down field on 3rd and 8. Not a whole lot of difference between a play like that and a punt. INTs in a modern offense are much more likely to be on a 6 yard attempt. Obviously this isn't a 100% case in either direction, but I think the impact of Namath's INTs was considerably less compared the impact of an INT in 2015.
As usual, you present a fractional picture, concentrating mainly on one stat - interceptions. You also mention games, but as a later poster mentioned, you provide no context for the interceptions or cause, just anecdotal facts that they occurred. As for 1967, you just ignore the role Namath played in the team's 8 wins. Without Namath, do the Jets even compete for the division? How did the rest of the team play in the 5 losses? Please stop with this cherry- picking of facts and games. How's this for a fact? The week after the Jets tied Houston, the Oilers beat KC 24-19. Dawson threw three picks (one returned for a TD) and no TD passes. Maybe the Jets lost a playoff spot because your hero Dawson had a horrible game ? The fault in your logic and arguments, which comes from not having seen the players play, is thst you leave out context and facts that don't support your argument. Take Dawson. He played in a completely different offense - one that was based on running the ball and a strong defense. The Jets were far more dependent on Namath and the pass than KC was on the pass and Dawson . You also leave out that Dawson fumbled 50 more times than Namath and was sacked about 100 more times. Convenient. How do these 150 additional negative plays by Dawson, plus having the advantage of a better running game and defense factor into the comparison? Maybe things like that explain why Namath was the all time AFL QB, as voted by his contemporaries, and not Dawson. The same can be said for other QBs on your list. both Tark and Bradshaw had 50 more career fumbles and 200 more career sacks. We all know how superior Bradshaw's Steelers were to Namath's Jets. Despite your repeated arguments, interceptions only tell a small part of the story. If stats were everything, there would be no Brady vs Manning argument. Manning's career stats blow Brady away. But we have context because we have witnessed their careers. You do no have the benefit of context when you analyze Namath. You only have tapes and stats. Namath's interception stats are also skewed by him playing on horrible teams and horrible knees at the end of his career. . He was -27 from 75-77 in TDs to Ints, which make those numbers look far worse than they really were over his career. And while Namath may have thrown the most interceptions in some seasons, he was pretty much middle of the pack in interception percentage, which is a much more telling stat considering the number of passes he threw relative to other QBs of the day. Another stat you ignore because it hurts your "interception" argument. Again, context is key, but you always ignore context unless it supports your opinions. As for playoff chances, with four teams in a division and two wild cards teams today have a much better then a 25% chance of making the playoffs.
Why are people arguing with somebody whose entire agenda is to get in an argument and then to get the last word? That's what makes these threads interminable.
Namath is tied for 18th on the all time INTs thrown list. Half (9 for the math challenged) of the players with more are in the HOF. Favre and P. Manning are also ahead of him and will be HOFers soon enough. So really the argument that his TD/INT ratio isn't up to snuff is really just an argument that he didn't throw enough TDs.
Exactly. That's why I have him back on permanent ignore. IMO the best thing that could happen to this board would be for him to be permanently banned. He drags the site down and causes a lot of the frustration, anger and negativity, and then plays hurt and innocent. He knows very well what he is doing. He's a manipulator and gets a sick thrill from seeing people get involved and wrapped up with him. In all the years I've been posting on Jets fan sites and all the boards, he's one of only two that I believed needed to be a mental institution getting treatment. Totally delusional, and by far, he's the most ignorant in spite of his use of his football encyclopedia and stat sheets.
