if you dominate your era more than any other player that gives you a strong case for best of all time. The man played 11 seasons and in those 11 seasons: -1st team all pro 8 times -led NFL in recs 8 times -led NFL in rec yds 7 times -led NFL in rec TDs 9 times -2 time NFL MVP -helped GB win 3 NFL titles In comparison, Jerry Rice: played 19 full seasons: -1st team all pro 10 times(52% of time compared to 73% for Hutson) -led NFL in recs 2 times(10% of time vs. 73%) -led NFL in rec yds 6 times(32% vs. 64%) -led NFL in rec TDs 6 times(32% vs. 82%) -helped SF win 3 championships Jerry Rice is far and away the greatest WR I have ever seen, that any of us have ever seen but he didn't come close to dominating his era the way Hutson did his.
he missed him w/ the body, he hit his knee. it wasn't some incredibly violent hit and if he didn't make such a weak attempt at a tackle he wouldn't have been in a vulenrable position.
He obviously didn't "miss" him whatsoever. I really don't understand what you are trying to say in that regard. If he "missed him with the body," what did he hit him with? Would you expect your QB to be an expert tackler...or would you just expect him to run the other way in that situation? You hit a guy's knee like that, and we are talking about trouble. Knees are particularly vulnerable parts of the body, which is why there are rules in place today about going for them. The other guy had excellent points, and you seem to want to deny every one of them. Sure looked like the defender went for his knee while he was on the ground and succeeded.
Not if your contemporaries are weak in comparison. They played in two completely different era's with different styles of play. Hutson played in an era when pass catching, route running and passing offense was in its infancy. He was far and away ahead of the curve. Rice played in an era where the pass (especially in the offense he played in) replaced the running game as the primary way to move the ball. Pass catching, route running and pass offenses were far more advanced and much more widely utilized in Rice's era thus bringing about more better players. Again, it's impossible to compare players from the pre-50's with players of the modern era. Using the method of "who dominated the era more" as evidence to who was better doesn't work. It's way too simplistic and to be honest lazy to be an effective method of comparison.
I was looking at his body not his knee and I didn't see the slo mo replay and later, after I saw the slo mo I saw him go for the knee. he shouldn't have tried to tackle him. I gave excellent points and you guys are denying everyone of them. My case is rock solid, I have no emotion in this debate as I don't like or hate Joe while you guys all love Joe so I understand why you are defending him. It doesn't matter, he dominated his position like no other. As good as some of the Rice era WRs were he was head and shoulders above them all and couldn't dominate the way Hutson could in his era where he was head and shoulders above other WRs. what is lazy about it? it's the only fair way to compare.
Your case is based on what? You didn't see him play, so I fail to see how you could have a "rock solid" case. Your points are basically based on stats from what I see...stats in an era you weren't around to witness. An era that operated completely differently than what you've seen. Look at Johnny Unitas' stats next and tell us how he compares. Give us a rock solid case about his play in the 50s. Your head is more rock solid than your case. What would you have said about him if he didn't go for that tackle? No heart? Is he still "injury prone?"
I compare him to players from his era, I am not comparing him to tom Brady(obviously there's no comparison there). Are you saying namath was as good as Unitas? Hurling insults only further cements my case, it tells me you don't have anything to combat my arguments. are you saying he was durable? durability coutns and he wasn't a durable player, half his career was mediocre. all time great talent, all time good QB
What isn't lazy about it? You are essentially saying that no other WR would ever be better than Hutson by using an extremely simplistic method. It's lazy and uses no thought. There's no doubt Hutson was by far more dominant in his era than Rice was in his. But who were Hutson's competitors/contemporaries? Not anyone on the level of Cris Carter, Andre Reed, Michael Irvin etc. Secondly, your method does not factor in the changes of the game including defenses that played the pass much differently in the 80;s & 90's vs. 30's and 40's. Along with that your method doesn't factor in that pass catching, route running and passing offenses have changed. I've been trying to tell you that you cannot compare players of pre-50's era with players of the modern era. It's impossible. There are no fair ways to do it.
Actually 28 Interceptions in 1967 does sound high doesn't it.... But in 1967 Namaths interception percentage was 5.7%, in other words 5.7% of his pass attempts resulted in interceptions. The NFL/AFL combined average for 1967 was 6.9% of pass attempts resulting in interceptions. In other words Namath was intercepted 1.2% less than the league average based on interceptions per pass attempt, the only way that is a true measure. 28 does sound high, it's true, but as a percentage of plays, he was substantially better than the average. If your going to use stats, make sure you understand stats and how they relate to the overall. By the way, his 52.5% completion rate was above the combined league average as well of 49.7%.
Now your just being plain, well there is no nice way to put it, ignorant. if you wathed the slow motion there was direct contact on Namaths knee, The commentary even states as much. Your argument has passed in to the incredulous. Tell you what, I'm not fast, I'm not conditioned, but how about you lay down on the ground and I come in helmet first on your knee while your vulnerable and extended on the ground...we'll see how well your knee holds up after a dozen or so of those type of hits over a season...and no modern football gear allowed, only the padding of the day. Honestly I'm game, but your responsible for your own hospital bills after the test Again, it doesn't matter how how fast or how strong players are in those types of hit, with poor padding and the right angle a 10 year old could take out your knee. But, that argument aside, How about an objective outsider's view of Namath? From a real statistician. http://www.footballperspective.com/joe-namath-has-become-footballs-most-misunderstood-quarterback/ good luck debunking that one bucko.
As Namath would say after that injury "I only know one way to play, 100%" or something to that effect, too tired to look up the exact quote but that pretty much sums it up. But even then, it wasn't the tackle that did in the knee, it was the late hit from another Lions player after Namath had missed the tackle.
Well, I'm a long-time lurker here. I've seen you say MANY times that Sanchez was a top 10 quarterback in 2010. How can you justify that while at the same time say what you are saying here? You are looking at the stat sheet with Namath, pure and simple, and yet you forbid others to do the same with Sanchez. Total double-standard. There was a completely different evaluation process of QBs when Namath played I'm saying that you haven't seen Unitas play, either. Which insults have I hurled? None, really. Is telling you that you are wrong, or at least uninformed, is an insult? And I'm saying that Namath got banged up pretty badly, which could happen to anyone.
Cris Carter, reed, Irvin- all good players but none were anywhere near Jerry Rice just like the WRs of Hutson's days weren't anywhere near him. I am not comparing them to each other, I am comparing them to players of their eras. That is very different. 28 is high no matter what way you look at it. The top 5 QBs in the AFL in 1968: Hadl: 24 TDs, 22 INTs, 5.2 Lamonica: 30 TDs, 20 INTs, 4.7 Namath: 26 & 28, 5.7 Dawson: 24 & 17, 4.8 Kemp: 14 & 26, 7.0 the only QB in the top 5 he was bettre than as far as TD/INT and INT% was Jack Kemp who led Buf to a 3-8 record as a starter. take your own advice- if you are going to use stats, make sure you understand stats and how they relate to the overall. Being above league average tells us nothing, he's supposed to be an all time great(according to you guys) so I hope he'd be well above the league average. it was a cheap hit but it wasn't anything brutal. that article sounds like a Namath fan- one of the best at avoiding sacks? seriously? and no one is comparing his #s to modern QBs #s, we compare them to QBs of his generation and he doesn't hold up bucko. through age 26? so through 5 seasons he was great but you do know he wound up playing through age 34 and playing 13 seasons, right? so that would tell us more than half his career was mediocre or worse, right? Bucko, basically that article is saying what I have been saying. Injuries derailed his career buit again injuries count and his career overall was a mediocre one. Thank you for reinforcing it bucko. what does one have to do w/ the other? Mark sanchez in 2010 helped us win 11 games, despite an inconsistent ground game and choking D where he had to lead us to late game TDs/FGs to win 4-5 games. Joe never had to do that in any particualr season. Joe never brought a team back from 10 down in the 4th, mark did that in 2010 on the road w/ under 5 mins to play. That's why I think Mark had a top 10 type of season despite the #s, I judge QBs based on winning and making plays to win not based on fantasy #s. Joe didn't win enough and let's not confuse this- I am not saying Mark is as good as Joe was or will ever be as good as Joe was but I bet he has a better overall career when his career is over b/c more than half of Joe's career was mediocre or worse. I haven't seen Unitas play but that doesn't stop me from knowing he had a MUCH better career than Namath and is a top 5 all time QB. I am allowed to read, watch and hear about various players I never saw play then offer an opinion. which insults? Namatah did get banged up throughout his career, it's what kept him from truly being an all time great.
Ok. But that doesn't prove that "Don Hutson is the greatest WR to play the game". It only proves that he was more dominant in a weak era than Rice was in a much better era. Carter, Reed and Irvin were much better in comparison than Jim Benton, Wayne Milner (who should not be in the PFHOF) or Charley Malone. And that's my point why your method is way too simplistic to be useful when making the above statement.
I don't think it is something that can be proven but I do know Don dominated the oposition of WR in his era greater than any other WR in league history.
Ahh where to start, in 1966 Namath led the Jets to 2 game winning drives in the 4th Quarter and 2 game tying scores in the 4th quarter (remember back then there was no overtime in regular season games). 1967 2 game winning 4th quarter drives, 1 4th quarter game tying drive (again no overtime played) 1968 4 4th Quarter game winning drives. 1969 3 4th Quarter game winning drives. and so on. It's true Namath never lead a team back from 10 points down in the 4th quarter. However, he did lead the team in 3 comebacks of 8 or 9 points down and 1 comeback from 17 down going in to the 4th quarter, though granted that game did end in a tie, they didn't play overtime in regular season games back then. But your technically right, he never led the team to victory in the 4th quarter down by 10. But he did put 17 on the board to avoid a loss in the 4th quarter. But you do master yourself at cherry picking stats, You mention Sanchez leading the team to an 11 win season, in a season that the Jets did have the #5 rushing offense, the #3 Defense...but yeah Mark led the team to the playoffs. But since you talk about "playoffs" Sanchez "led" the jets to two playoffs series. Namath threw the jets to 2 playoff series and 1 Superbowl win. all by the time He was 26. Did I mention setting passing records that would last until the pass friendly rules of 1979 and beyond? yes I did say he was just above average on completions and interception percentages....But he also led the league in almost every other catagory. Including a passing record that would stand until 1979 and Dan Fouts, and it took Fouts 16 games. Only one player was even close to the record in that time, Jurgenson. But yeah, go ahead and accuse me of cherry picking. And clearly you didn't even read the article, since you keep referring to 5 years, the article included his first 10 seasons. Over that 10 years he was in the top 3 in nearly every category and #1 in a number of them. And despite Playing in an era not friendly to QB's if you go all time, and this is admittedly somewhat cherry picking up to age 26, Namath only trails Dan Marino in productivity of 20 Hall of Fame QB's, or soon to be QB's including Brett Farve, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady. As for your reference on Namath avoiding sacks not comparing to todays game, okay so it's okay for you to use Hudson for standing head and shoulders over his peers at the time in receptions or yards, but it's not okay to use that same standard for Namath on avoiding sacks, YPA, Total yards, etc? Yeah right. There you go with the double Standard again. Okay so Sanchez has led the Jets to 4 post season wins, Yippee... Namath by Sanchez's age had led the jets to 3 post season wins, and one of those was the Superbowl. Of course if you want to cherry pick then I can to, Namath only lost 1 Post season game over 2 post seasons. Sanchez has lost two...but that is cherry picking, but hey what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You've stated Sanchez was a top 10 Qb in 2010? In exactly what Category? Imagination? He was bottom 1/4 in every category and hiding behind a defense that covered him and an running game that kept the other teams defense focused on the run. Remember the running game in 2010 was a top 5 out of 32 teams and the defense was also top 5 out of 32 teams. Namath in the Superbowl year had a #8 running attack (out of 10 in the league aka bottom of the pack) and the #4 Defense (out of 10 in the league, so middle of the pack), So if you go to the superbowl with a bottom of the league running attack, and a middle of the pack defense, I wonder who's shoulder your riding on? So exactly how did Sanchez lead the team? Sanchez? And don't blame me for the Sanchez comments, you brought him in to this. Junc, you only use the information that suits your cause, in one case you'll go by stats, in others you'll go by eyes, in others you'll go by imagination. Facts are facts, over the course of a full Decade Namath was the leader, or in the top 3 of that 10 year period....For 10 years you talk to any player from the era, he was the most hated QB by most defenses, but he was also the QB they feared facing the most. Keep on trying Junc, your amusing me.
As for not comparing pass rushes and sacks, ha.....Watch Films of Butkus, Deacon Jones, Jack Lambert, Alan Page, merlin Olsen, Gerry Philbin, Doug Atkins, Bubba Smith, ETC. Granted the hit on Namath's knee wasn't vicious on that specific play, but watch how the game was played, watch Night Train lane (albeit slightly before Namaths career), Ray Nitshke, and most of the above. Want to see explicitly why passing percentages were down and interceptions up prior to 78? Just watch this clip. Especially the clip right before the 5 yard contact zone and the section on how offensive linemen had to block in the day and why QB's in the "day" were constantly being harrassed. Your right, it doesn't compare, QB's were getting pummeled because O-linemen couldn't use their hands. http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...hings-that-Changed-the-Game-1978-rule-changes