Let's look at Joe's "comebacks": 1966: Trailed Denver by a whopping TD in the 3rd qtr, LED by 6 entering 4th. Won game 16-7. great score but not much of a comeback or late game winning/tying score, right? I made a mistake, he had one game trailing by 10 in the 4th and that was vs. the Pats trailing 24-7 entering 4th and tying it up- Impressive. vs. SD: led 10-9 entering 4th, trailed by a whopping 6 pts and won 17-16. nothing special. at Oak led by 6 entering 4th, trailed by 8 in 4th, scored TD and 2 pts to tie. Good job 1967: trailed by 3 at half at Denver, tied entering 4th. Sorry, that's not a comeback. Won by 14 trailed Hou 28-20 entering 4th- why? b/c Joe threw an INT for TD to make it 28-20. Tied it in 4th for 28-28 tie tariled by 6 vs. Pats at half, tied entering 4th. nothing impressive about this. 1968: trailed 20-16 entering 4th vs. SD, won 23-20. led 13-0 vs. Hou, trailed 14-13, won 20-14 trailed 21-16 vs. Buf, won 25-21 led 20-13 entering 4th vs. Oak, trailed 23-20, won 27-23. This was AFL Title game so my hat is off. Great job though the D saved the game after the TD so great job all around. we can keep looking at this, there's not much that is impressive as far as coming back late i games and always giving your team a chance to win. we had the #5 rush O in 2010, did you watch the games? our top 2 RBs average 4.1 YPC which is good not great. we had some Brad Smith wildcat and Joe McKnight garbage time yards to inflate those #s. Our run game was mediocre most of the season. he threw the Jets to 2 playoff seasons and 1 SB win? That's interestring since we were #1 in D in 1968 and #4 in 1969 and we were 3rd in rush yards in 1969. In the SB our D turned Baltimore over 4 times, Joe threw for 206 yds while we ran it for 142, our D heled the explosive Colts O to just 7 pts- that came in garbage time but it was all Joe. Even in the title game Joe had 266 but we ran for 130 so it's not like he wasn't operating w/o a ground game. Oh and in 1969 hosting the Chiefs he led our O to 6 pts in a playoff loss while throwing 3 INTs and zero TDs but it was all Joe that got us there, right? yards don't mean pts, he threw for 4,000 yds which was great but we were 3rd in pts scored in a 9 team AFL. Good but not great, by the way we were 3rd in D in 1967 too so w/ a good D and w/ all those yds why were we only 8-5-1? I read the article, it did nothing to help Joe's legacy other than to say he was really good before injuries started piling up which we all know. when they start debating the greatness on QBs on who avoids sacks the best then I'll discuss it, maybe that's why he threw so many INTs? trying to throw it away to avoid sacks, is that a good thing? Namath only had 2 postseason wins so how did he lead them to 3? he led them to 2, Sanchez in only 3 seasons has led his team to 4 all on the road. The SB where our D shut out Bal for most of the game and turne the Colts over 4 times yet we only scored 16 pts. I don't judge based solely on stats, Sanchez brought us back numerous times to win games. He was efficient when it mattered most. I'd rather have a guy making plays late in agmes to win than a great stat guy that melts late in games. By the way, I never said Mark carried us or anything like that. he helped us get to 2 title games, he helped us win 11 games and he was a vital part of a team that won 4 road playoff games. Namath was in the top 3 for a decade? Considering he didn't even play 10 full seasons I don't know where you are getting that info. Let's look at his full seasons(or close) before the team got really bad around him 1965-1969 and 1972 1965: 6th pass yds(not top 3), 4th TDs(not top 3) 1966: 1st pass yds, 5th pass TDs(not top 3) 1967: 1st pass yds, 2nd pass TDs- There's one 1968: 3rd yds, 5th TDs(not top 3) 1969: 2nd pass yds, 2nd TDs- there's 2 1972: 1st yds, 1st TDs. there's 3 3 times in his career he was top 3 in yds and TDs, that's very different than every yeam for a decade, right? I shouldn't be amusing you, you should be taking notes b/c you are being roasted.
awesome but those guys didn't hit harder than today's players, they hit illegally but not harder. Again, nowhere have I compared #s of guys from today to #s from Joe's era so you don't need to explain why %s were down and INTs were up but most of the greats in his era had a positive TD to INT ration not -47.
Namath averaged one yard more per passing attempt than Sanchez does. Namath's highest was 1972 when he averaged 8.7 yds per attempt. We're still patiently waiting for Mark to break the 7.0 barrier. Namath averaged 3 yards more per completion than Sanchez does. Namath fumbled once every four games. Sanchez fumbles once every 1.5 games. The closest Sanchez will ever get to Canton is when the Jets visit Cleveland to play the Browns. It is like comparing a diamond to a cubic zirconia.
I'd take Davis absolutely dominating the comp in the playoffs and 2 SB in his 2 great years over every Martin year in a second. Take a look at the playoff numbers. Performance in the clutch matters. Campbell is one of the all time greats no doubt about it but as the numbers game gets played the turf changes the rules change and those who never saw him play compare his numbers to future numbers the same arguments made here will be made against him.
You are just hopeless. I guess we should take your reading of football encyclopedia books over Namath's peers and those that saw him play and played against him. If almost everyone from that era considered Namath an all time great, why can't you accept that instead of looking at numbers to try to justify your absurd arguments????? For you to even try to compare Sanchez to Namath is a complete and utter joke.
Again it's clear you never bothered to read the posted article, to which this was addressing. His stats over that 10 year period, even with the partial seasons you mention, still ranks for total stats over those 10 years as top 3 in most categoris over that decade. Had you bothered to read the article you would have known this, instead you went off half cocked and missed the point. Regarding your comments on Namath being the reason they needed to come back or knocking how they came back. A 4th Quarter comeback is a 4th Quarter comeback. How many times did Sanchez's need to comeback spawn from the fact that he was completly inept for 3 quarters. One of the reasons Namath and the Jets had so few 4th Quarter come backs is simple, for half of Namath's healthy portion of his career they were seldom behind to come back from. Namath wasn't a 4th Quarter QB, he was a 4 Quarter QB. Did I watch the season? Yes I did. And you can argue numbers all you want, but 4.1 Yards a carry if you average that will get you a first down, on average, every 3 plays. Sanchez meanwhile averaged a pawltry 6.49 yards per attempt while completing a Pawltry 54.8% of his passes and throwring 13 interceptions....The first two well below league averages and the last exactly at league average. It's pretty sad when your only stat at or above average is your interceptions. But this is a thread about Namath and not Sanchez, and it's clear that when you take Namaths career as a whole, he is one of the top 25 QB's of all time, near the bottom of that 25 man list due to the injuries at the end of his career, but still on that list. And it's also clear that when looked at compared to his contemporaries, as a whole, for a decade when his stats are looked at as a whole on that decade, he was in the top 3. Junc, if your going to argue against a point, make sure you actually read the referred to article.... But then again you did call the author a Namath homer, even though the author said explicitly it was another statistician who brought this to his attention. But okay so maybe that author may possibly be a Namath homer. It's clear from your postings you are a Sanchez Homer. But Tell you what, compare Sanchez's Career numbers to Namaths and the end of Sanchez's career. My bet is his career numbers won't even be close, and Sanchez will have played in the most pass friendly league.
Actually they didn't hit illegally, and that's the point. Those were legal hits under the rules in those days, and those type of hits were not uncommon. And that is my point. I never said the athletes back then hit harder, I've said todays players are faster and stronger. What I did say was the rules did not protect players back then. That hits that would be illegal today were not back then. And back then unless you had an Injury that absolutely kept you from playing (broken leg, etc) you kept playing. You had to if you wanted to stay in the league back then. This of course had the tendancy to make mild injuries in to later career ending injuries. The fact these, as you call them illegal, hits were legal back then, and common, injuries were also common. The game was much more violent back then and cut many careers short, Gayle Sayers comes to mind here as well (perhaps the most explosive RB of all time). That all began to change with the rule changes starting in 1978, especialy for QB's and the past 2 years even for receivers. But the fact remains, QB's were a hunted species back then, Qb's got rushed without mercy, in large part because O-linemen couldn't use their hands to block, and becaues violent and what would be illegal hits today were perfectly legal back then. QB's routinely got piledrived in to the ground, head tackled, speared on the knees and legs with helmets. couple that with ineffective padding, especially on the lower body, and you get a lot of injuries. Like I said, it was a different game back then. Looking at players from that era through today's lenses gives a very inaccurate picture. but back to Namath, and when you look at the first 10 years of his career, even with several of those years being injured years, his cumalitive stats during that period put him in the top 3 in most categories, and #1 in a number of them, when compared to the combined stats of the other QBs of that 10 year span. Again, Namath isn't the best QB in NFL history, he's not even top 10 in NFL history, but he is clearly worthy of the HOF, he is clearly a top 25, AND he is head and shoulders the best QB in Jets history....
did unc really come into this thread and try to poop all over it comparing sanchez to namath? jesus thats just troll like. sorry guys i really have nothing to add here other than i really enjoyed reading your posts 1968jetsfan, i wasnt lucky enough to see the game played before 1980 so i appreciate your insight.
Hadl and Plunkett are on the bottom. Dawson, Griese and Namath all won Super Bowls. Griese did not do much in his wins. A huge chunk of Dawson's yardage came after Otis Taylor broke a tackle. Namath played the best of all these guys on the biggest stage. For that reason I would have to go with Namath. The goal is to win games. To win games it helps to score points. Namath was pretty good at directing the Jets to points. Lamonica is one of the best QBs not in the Hall of Fame. At 132%, he is 7th all-time in relative scoring offense (team's point totals in his starts compared to the league average) behind Frank Filchock, Benny Friedman, Sid Luckman, Cecil Isbell, Arnie Herber and Bob Waterfield. Young, Griese and Graham round out the top 10. Seven of the 10 are Hall of Famers. Namath finished at 107 percent. He was at 116 percent after 1972. That is a big number. Joe Montana was only slightly better at 118 percent. The terrible finish to Namath's career hurt him quite a bit and I think it is a key reason we are seeing nyjunc constantly kill him in these threads. Hall of Famers below 105 percent- Aikman and Tittle at 104 percent Jurgensen at 103 percent Parker at 91 percent If Griese played for the Jets would he have thrown the ball more than 15 times a game on a regular basis? Probably. Would he have fared as well as Namath?
I'm going to re-address this because I realize I missed several points. 1st, using your stats for those years (and I note cherry picked which two stats, but we'll let that slide). You claim top 3 in yards 3 times? but by your own number you list him #1-3 in 5 of the 6 years you listed, number 1 in 3 of them. Second point, When does it matter? in the 4th quarter? It matters all game long. Period, a game is 4 quarters long, not 3. When you stink up the joint for 3 quarters and put the pressure on your defense to bail your ass out, your not contributing much to your team. I prefer a QB who plays well through 4 quarters, keeps the defense rested so they peak in the 4th quarter instead of playing like crap for 3 quarters and hoping your defense keeps you close enough to even have a chance in the 4th. Unlike the 1960's when points were scarce and 30-40 point games even more scarce in today's game 30 point games, by one team, are pretty damn common. But you claim you'd rather have a QB that ranks high in the 4th quarter rather than melts, but you fail to point out any case where Namath melted in the 4th, since you were making the comparison. And yes you did say that in 2010 Sanchez carried a weak running game and a pourus defense. Both demonstrably wrong. Though they were a little weak in the 4th quarter, but that's what happens when your qb is going 3 and out for 3 quarters or turning the ball over deep in your side of the field. AND you DID say that Sanchez in 2010 was a top 5 QB. But that's okay, you change positions and points faster than Romney between speeches. Sanchez plays as short passing game in a league that averages over 60% completion and still can't get over 57% in any season, with most being under 55%. Namath Played a vertical deep passing game in an era that was not pass friendly.
I did as well. Very well done, 1968jetsfan. It may have fallen on deaf ears in nyjunc's case, but you did a hell of job regardless. Very well said across the board.
hey they were great posts! i always appreciate guys talking about what they saw in games that were before my time. you can tell so much more by listening to someone who watched them than you can from any kind of record book. there are things i have learned about namath in this thread that i did not know before.
Broadway Joe was no more than a game manager back in the superbowl and actually his running back should of been MVP
