Retiring numbers to me is silly because if a franchise does it enough, eventually they are going to run out of numbers. It wouldn't happen in either of our lifetimes, of course. However, it eventually would happen to some teams if the practice of retiring numbers continues. Also, what's the point of retiring numbers if you don't really retire them? See, Seattle Seahawks, 80. The number had been retired until some jerkoff joined the team in midseason in 2004 and couldn't perform in any other number from 10-11, 13-19 or 81-89. I believe this is the only NFL example of a number being unretired, but it has also occurred on the college level. You certainly can have a ring of honor if two teams share a stadium. See Giants Stadium. I don't know if you noticed but the Klecko, Maynard, Weed, and Namath retired numbers (and jacket in case of Ewbank) are nowhere to be seen at Giants home games.
Where are the retired jerseys going? I'll answer for you. They are likely to go on a colored tarp put up on the walls on the field just like they are at the current stadium.
They can do that by doing what the Redskins and Cowboys, to name two teams, do. Put up a metal or wooden panel with the player's name and number. It comes down or gets covered for Giants games. There are ways to handle such a thing. This is, of course, not the point of the thread. Getting back to Hill, what's it going to accomplish if his number is retired? I'll ask those in favor of Hill's number being retired to answer the following question. Is the Jets fanbase so moronic and forgetful that they need a player's number to be retired in order for them to remember and acknowledge that player? Seems to me a better way to honor Hill would be what the Jets are doing this weekend. Then make his name and face visible during home games by utilizing the space on the walls around the inside of the stadium. The Vikings and Patriots are two teams that do this sort of thing.
I like the idea of the Jets honoring one of their alltime greats and also the only LT to ever win a SB for this franchise. Never saw the guy play but I hear he was one hell of a player. The guy played in 8 PB's so even if it the voting is suspect it still he was a very good player in his time.
The All-Pro recognition that he received after eight seasons is the biggest feather in his cap. Quality play on a Super Bowl champion would be #2.
With Namath's inability to stay healthy, that could be a mark against Hill and the line. Joking here a bit. We all know Hill was very good. That does make me think about some of Namath's injuries that occurred in AFL/NFL games. I am most interested in looking at a play against Oakland in 1967 to see which linemen got manhandled by Ike Lassiter and Ben Davidson on the play when Lassiter broke Namath's cheekbone. Finally, it was a good post because it makes me want to look at other tackles who protected HOF QBs' blindsides and see which ones are in the HOF and which ones aren't. I might not get around to that this weekend, though.
This is where you lose me completely. You never really saw any of these guys play so you threw tons of stats that's the good but you made a huge assumption here that Namath was tough to sack because of his quick release. Namath had no lateral movement could barely slide in the pocket and essential took a deep drop and threw the ball down the field holding the ball forever waiting for things to develop. The OL men in those days couldn't extend their arms, the D Line man could go to the head and most NFL teams back in those days ran the ball more than they threw it so most of the OL men real responsability was to get off the ball and create a push as opposed to backing up without the right to extend their hands. Teams that ran the ball allot had OL men that got the attention. The Jets in 66 and 67 threw the ball a ton more than most NFL teams and they didn't dink and dunk they were deep drops with plays developing down the field with a QB who was couldn't move for the most part. In the SB against the best D in the NFL Hill dominated to the point where he was arguably the best player on the field. When the Jets ran the ball Hill pushed the Defense of the Colts all over the field. After 69 Namath was in steep decline and yet statistacally as you point out Hills numbers improved against a larger base of competition. Why is that? As far as retiring his number the Jets are never going to get allot of guys into the HOF until they win big for an extended time. On the Jets only SB winning team Hill was superb, arguably the MVP of that game and he has a record of both excellence and longevity almost unmatched by any other player who ever wore the uniform. You can argue guys were better than Hill in the NFL but as far as Jets history it would be hard to name 5 guys who were consistently as good as Hill for as long a time as Hill for the Jets.
I'm not sure how I lost you completely. I was asking how one could determine whether or not an offensive lineman was any good besides looking at All-Pro recognition, Pro Bowl appearances, and quotes from players, coaches, scouts, and fans. Rushing statistics and passing statistics would seem to hold some value. That's all I was doing there with that.
That wasn't an assumption. Also, I didn't go heavy with the stats at all. I really only bothered looking at the 1970 season because that was the one in which it is reasonable to suggest it may have been Hill's finest season or at least the season in which he ranked highest on the OT list. Other teams were operating in a similar fashion in the late 1960s. The Bengals, Raiders, Chargers, and even the Chiefs at times would air out the ball. Any of us could examine run/pass ratio of all teams during Namath's career. I would bet the Jets would rank high on the list as to percentage of pass plays. The Jets did run the ball well, though. After the merger some of that changed in part due to rules and injuries. Starting in 1970 Cincinnati went to a passing attack based on short timing patterns (now stupidly known as the west coast offense) because they lost to injury a phenomenal passer who had a lethal arm. The Bills were one AFL that couldn't do get it done through the air. Their QB situation in the late 1960s was an utter mess. Then in the 1970s they were a run heavy team. You are correct in that some linemen on run heavy teams got major accolades. Heck, the Buffalo offensive line received its own nickname. In other words, I agree with your comments, but anytime someone throws the you weren't born yet, hence what the heck do you know? comment out there, it is going to annoy. You know, I don't think Jetophile was alive in the 1800s but somehow see knows a few things about Abraham Lincoln.
The stats I don't have an issue with it's your implication that a QB with a quick release wouldn't have had the crap kicked out of them, been sacked or other wise hurt if they had a good OL. It shows a complete misunderstanding of what a quick release meant in the era when the QB wasn't protected.
For what it's worth, I actually don't care much about whether or not certain players belong in the Hall of Fame. It's just fun to comment on old players. I think I am more concerned about fairness and maybe that's the only reason I get involved in these discussions. When I see a comment such as, "Hill belongs in the Hall of Fame", I immediately say to myself, "C'mon, there's probably 25 players easily more deserving and maybe another 25 equally deserving." And that's only looking at players who would be senior candidates. That's not even getting into more recent players. How the voters will judge players like Carnell Lake, LeRoy Butler, John Lynch, Kevin Mawae, etc. is going to be very interesting. It's easy to enshrine guys like Junior Seau, Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, and Jerry Rice.
It was my fault if I implied the only reason he didn't take a lot of sacks was due to the quick release. QBs get sacked for a number of reasons. In addition to having a quick release, Namath was afforded a quality pass pocket which we've seen many time on films and the older posters saw in live action at the time. His footwork in the pocket was exceptional. A good comparison can be made to Dan Marino. Two guys slow as molasses, quick releases, good pass protection, etc.
LMAO... did I ever SAY any of the things you put in italics? So... you think because Klecko has been ignored by the HoF voters he isn't worthy either? I saw Hill play. So he wasn't very good because Namath had a quick release? Screw your rankings and wherever you got them from. Hill should be a HoFer. I saw him play. He was the best O lineman the Jets ever had... with the possible exception of Mangold.
Did I ever write that YOU (or any other particular individual) wrote those things? I did not. Those were stock quotes created based upon comments made by multiple people on this board through the years. I did not write that Klecko has been ignored. If you're asking, then I'm telling you he's not been ignored. winstonbiggs made things more clear and presented quality stuff. Ain't nothing wrong with that. You, on the other hand, presented nothing but tripe. First of all, you cannot read. I did not write that Hill wasn't very good. Read above and count up the number of times I wrote that Hill was very good. The rankings can be found in multiple NFL encyclopedias (ESPN, Total Football). They are not made up rankings. They are not subjective. Okay, how the players got voted to All-Pro teams in the first place is subjective. However, the rankings as presented above are not subjective. You are not telling me anything special when you write that Hill was the best offensive lineman the Jets ever had and that he should be a Hall of Famer. We all know Hill is probably the best lineman the Jets ever had. But, why should he be a Hall of Famer? Do you understand the logjam of other deserving players from the first six decades of NFL action? Tell me why Hill deserves enshrinement over Johnny Robinson, Mac Speedie, Jerry Kramer, Jim Tyrer and the other 51 players I noted above. Failing that, are you simply in favor of greatly expanding the HOF and putting all these guys in? Finally, wow, you saw him play. My father saw him play and is just as big a Jets fan as you and I. My father doesn't believe Hill belongs in the Hall of Fame. But, screw all that. People who saw Hill play and had Hall of Fame votes once Hill became eligible obviously didn't think enough of the guy because he hasn't ever reached the finalist level. That speaks volumes. If there was a voter campaigning on Hill's behalf, the person didn't offer a convincing argument.
Wow,,, have a brew, relax. O lIneman have been very ignored by the NFL HoF, but that does not make it right. I could name 4, 5, 7? players ahead of Hill here. You want to give the HoF voters respect? What in the F were they thinking when they repeatedly voted against one of the most game changing, dominant LB's of his era? Was it beacuse LT was so good? After being voted down year after year. this LB who should have been a first ballot HoF, had to wait YEARS until these idiot voters finally gave hin his due. Hint: He played for KC. I'm not saying Hill is a shoe-in... just that he belongs. I saw him play. Happy your father got to see him too. You did not. Ranking a OL can not be done from ESPN, CBS.... one has to have watched the man play the game. You did not. So calm down. Take a breath. And disagree with me based on your research.
Yeah, that's very difficult to do after you consider I spent an hour on the long post I wrote in the late morning and then have you show up and insult me. Is it safe? Is it safe? Can I quote a movie that was made before I was born? Is it safe for me to discuss Derrick Thomas? I was alive for his whole career. Again, my life's not affected one way or the other as to which guys are in the HOF and which are not in. That said, I wasn't a huge Thomas fan. Obviously, he could rush the passer. I didn't like other parts of his game. He was always the weak link in the front seven on those good Chiefs teams. He was not particularly good in coverage, either. Thomas was more flashy, but was he a better player than Neil Smith? I'm not sure. I wrote on late Saturday morning that it is very difficult for us to rank present day linemen. We don't truly know what the heck we are looking at with these players. We are not privy to blocking assignments. It is much easier to judge skill position players and some defensive players. If you go back and read my post from the late morning, you'll see that my main objective was to ask why Hill deserves Canton enshrinement. What stats, if any, should be considered? How much stock should be put into postseason awards? Now as for you having watched Hill play, how many other tackles were you watching on a regular basis? There was no NFL Sunday Ticket back then, games weren't replayed on NFL Network the following week, very few people had VCRs, etc. Were you able to truly rate other offensive linemen from around the league?
