I agree that his running back - aka Matt Snell - should have been MVP but no way was Namath only a game manager in SB III. He made critical throws all game long to move chains and eat up clock.
This modern age is wonderful. You can find so many video clips, and occasionally full games, on the internet. Being old enough to remember games from the 60's and 70's gives me a different view of the game. You can also tell I'm an old AFL fan because of my love for the vertical game to stretch the field. to me the biggest difference between then and now is back then players played more for the passion of the game than anything else. Most players didn't get paid that much more than the average working slob. It's also why I get so ticked off at some players today who show no passion. And while I understand the need for player safety, sometimes I do miss the days when players really were trying to bury the players on the other team. But even I admit it's a more fun game overall to watch today.
Again, this is an ignorant post from someone who did not see the game. In those days, QBs called all the plays. Namath called a masterful game and from the second quarter on, the Jets offense dominated a Colts defense that was considered one of the best of all time. He them off balance all day. The Colts were expecting a passing offense with Maynard as the focus and double teamed him all game. And don't forget, Maynard was injured in SBIII (although the Colts did not know it). He had a serious hamstring injury and was nothing more than a decoy. He did not catch a pass. Instead, Namath took advantage of single coverage on Sauer and running Matt Snell to the left all day. The Jets had the ball for over 12 minutes in the third quarter and, because the Jets protected a 16-0 lead, Namath did not throw a single pass in the 4th quarter. Namath was the architect and implementer of this game plan.
This is a great thread if you don't read the anti-Joe nonsense. Maybe I'll cut copy & paste all the good stuff into a new thread. I'll title it "Remembrance of things passed"...
God bless, I hear that brother. It's a shame those that did not get to see his greatness, only go by the stats.
I know I'm wrong, we should trust quotes about his ability rather than seeing what he actually did. I never compared Sanchez and namath other than to say through 3 full seasons he has twice as many playoff wins as Joe. I read the mickey mouse article, it does nothing to bolster your argument. a 4 qtr QB w/ an UNDER .500 record. obviously you weren't paying attention, our run game was mediocre for most of the year. The rushing totals were skewed by trick plays and a great start by LT. LT first 5 games: 76 carries, 435 yds, 5.7 YPC, 3 TDs LT games 6-15(didn't play last game): 143-479, 3.3 YPC, 3 TDs That was our lead back whop was well below average for MOST of the season but let's ignore that b/c we ran for 176 yds in a meaningless week 17 game against Buf(where Sanchez barely played by the way) and b/c of Brad Smith trick plays. I don't remember bringing up Sanchez. The article is a joke, it's a typical Joe excuse making article. Who cares how good he was until age 26? he played through age 34, more than half his career came AFTER age 26 and as "great" as he was until age 26 he won 2 playoff games and made just 2 playoff apps while throwing 7 more INTs than TDs- at his peak he threw more INTs than TDs! that should be enough to end this nonsese. would dirty be a better description? if guys today hit like that there would be deaths. That is why the rules are in place. Did Joe play under different rules than other QBs of his era? The bottom line is Joe wasn't durable and others were. we've been over this, he never played 10 full seasons and he wasn't in the top 3 of most categories, just b/c you say it over and over doesn't make it true. He is worthy of the Hall b/c of what he meant off the field not b/c of his career. I didn't disagree but maybe that's why he threw so many INTs? maybe taking a sack now and then would have been a good thing? what did Joe do in his SB other than handoff? you are taking away a big play from Dawson but Joe mostly handed the ball off and relied on his TO forcing a ton of TOs to win that game. Those %s are nice but removing 1973 and beyond he still only led the Jets to 2 playoff apps and 2 playoff wins needing only 1 HOME win(again against a team w/ a better record than beat the Jets that season) to reach the SB.
I said 3 times top 3 in yds AND TDs I'd rather have a QB that finds ways to win games than one who finds ways to put up good #s and lose games. Right now we have neither.
Did you want Namath to go 33 of 40 for 379 yards and 3 TDs in SB 3? He faced a tremendous defense. The 1968 Colts would have been in the same group as the 1985 Bears and 2000 Ravens if they beat the Jets. As it stands they are still considered a top 10 all-time defense. Maynard was not healthy in the game. Watch the game and tell us Namath did nothing and we will call you football blind. You love knocking Namath for interceptions. He threw none on the grandest stage. Mr. Perfect Dawson cannot say the same. You rip Namath for a low completion percentage and then today while backing Sanchez you indicate that that statistic does not matter! You cannot have it both ways.
I haven't ready anything so I am admitting that right away. You can't grade Namath purely on stats. He played in a different era and he also battled through some amazing injuries that would have stopped a lesser man. My older friends who saw him live said he was a game changer and sing hyperbole about him. My dad when he was alive said Namath was the sole reason he became a Jets fan. The numbers aren't the best but life is a lot more than just stats.
I am old enough to have seen Namath, though in the 70s when he was on the downhill slope. I remember him throwing a lot of interceptions against Miami. Lots of 70s clips on YouTube, fun to watch the football players of my youth again. Anyway, it's a funny thing, but I remember Namath saying that (i) Griese was terrific (ii) people overrated the importance of the QB position in evaluating teams. Read a couple of books about Namath when I was a kid. Joe Namath and the Other Guys I think was one, can't remember the other. One was about the 1973 season, the other about the '75 season. Of course that was Namath, they wrote books about him even when he and his team were bad. And course I read his "autobiography", about not wanting to wait for tomorrow because he kept getting better looking every day.
I don't care what his #s were, he ld us to just 16 points on a day our D created 5 TOs. How is that a great game? He did face a great D and had a great D backing him up too. we scored 20 pts w/ a mediocre O at baltimore against the '00 ravens D. excuses are great Bal D and Maynard wasn't healthy plus he didn't throw an INT! that's like celebrating a high school kid for spelling cat. The bottom line is he led his O to 16 pts despite the D crating 5 TOs but I am supposed to applud him like Joe Montana in SB XXII. I never said he had a bad game but this notion that he played some incredible game is ridiculous but Joe always needs his backers to throw out excuses for him. when did I rip him for a low comp %?
I never judge purely on individual #s but shouldn't "game changers" win more than they lose? shouldn't game changers lead their teams to more than 2 postseasons? win a postseason game in at least 2 different postseasons?
junc, there's stats and there's impact. suckchez won more playoff games? he was a passenger! now that he has to carry the offense, he can't execute the basics, even with somebody else calling all the plays for him! he doesn't have a good arm, gets picked on short passes, and has NO rings. he couldn't carry namath's jock strap......:rofl:
Well lets see, where to start with your juvenality Regarding 2010. After november the Jets went 2-3. In the two wins. Pittsburgh Sanchez threw 170 yards, 0 TD's. Their other win after November? Sanchez didn't even play. Brunell led the team to a 38-7 victory. In other words Sanchez didn't do squat over the last 5 games of the season, except lose 3 and rode the defense in the one game they did win with him at QB. In other words they got to the playoffs INSPITE of him. Secondly playoff wins? so? Sanchez has also lost twice as many playoff games as Namath. But the truth is Namath had 3 post season wins and 1 loss, Sanchez 4 playoff wins, 2 playoff losses. I'll give up one playoff win for the Superbowl win. What did Namath do besides hand the ball off? He called the whole game, Quarterbacks back then did most of their own play calling. He also threw for 207 yards against the NFL's best defense in an era that just wasn't done in. He also Hit several passes of over 30 yards. Granted he didn't throw a TD, But all said he did pass for more yards the the running game gained. It was a masterful game calling and keeping the Colts off balance. Regarding the "dirty hit" That's how the game was played back then son. Nothing dirty about a legal hit. And that, and worse, happened all the time. Who said anything about 6 years? We were talking total stats over a decade, and he does rank between 1 and 3 in most stats during that decade. PERIOD. As for your lame reference to the namby pamby article, the guy has more credentials than you'll ever have> But then again, your a Sanchez fanboi, you never saw real football.
For 10 Namaths 13 years we did have very winning QB. Two dismal seasons put an end to that, barely, but the fact is Namath the Jets all time TD leader, Yards Leader, oh and WINS. AND he remains the only Superbowl winning QB for thet Jets. And yes you did cherry pick it in top 3 in both categories, which is more than most QB's ever see. And thank you for conceeding that for a decade Namath was one of the top QB's in the NFL... 1/2 of those decades he was top 3 in passing, and 3 times top 3 in touchdowns. Your contempt for Namath blinds your eyes. My suggestion watch the old games, you'll learn alot.
Another stat related dumb ass post. Baltimore came out in max blitz package from the start. Maynard was injured but played. In the 80 TD drive Namath beat Max blitz on numerous occassions. Winston Hill was able to push the DL to the outside and Namath was using his quick release for short passes in the flat to Sauer. The inside trap block was open all game. Snell had a great game because he wasn't getting any contact until 2 to 4 yards past the LOS. The best player on the field besides Namath was Winston Hill.
Joe had a tremendous impact on the game of football but did not have a great career. Joe was 2-1 as a playoff starter, in 2 of the 3 games he led his O to 16 and 6 pts, in mark's worst playoff game he led his O to 17 points. In the 16 pt game his D produced FIVE turnovers but we know it was all Joe that game:breakdance: Sorry if the facts bother you. after November? January doesn't count? November doesn't ciunt? They had a terrible 2 game losing streak where the O and D stunk at NE and the O stunk vs. Miami. In the biggest game of the year against the eventual AFC Champs on the road in a building we had NEVER won in before Mark helped us beat Pittsburgh w/a rush TD(those count too, right) then leading us to the GW FG before the D held on(barely). The next week at the team that hosted the NFC Championship Game he led our O to 27 pts and the D gave up 38, is that his fault? We had a 2 game losing streak where one of the games was his and the O's fault, 2 of the 3 losses the D allowed an AVERAGE of 42 PPG but that was all on Sanchez, right? just like the '68 jets foricng 5 TOs while Joe leads the Jets O to 16 pts in SB III was all Joe. Mark led us to late game wins over Denver, Cleveland, Houston and detroit. 2 of those games the D blew late leads. we don't make the playoffs w/o those wins. Mark has 2 road playoff losses where he led his O to 17 points each loss, Joe never played a road playoff game and in his HOME playoff loss led his O to 6 points. Oh he called the whole game so he was responsible for the whopping 16 pts after 5 TOs were handed to his offense? Is that a positive? Why must you lie? Joe has TWO postseason wins. Oak and Bal in '68 and one postseason loss- KC in '69. I'd give up 2 playoff wins for the SB(not 1) but Sanchez didn't get the easy road to a SB that Joe had needing just one win, a home win against a team w/ a better record that BEAT the Jets in the reg season. It's dirty in today's game b/c guys are so much bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic. A hit like the one to Joe's knee today would snap a leg off. You don't have any idea what "most" means, do you? That's great that he has more credentials than me, that doesn't make him right. It's just a lame article skewing the criteria to make Joe look better than he was. Some of us w/o credentials can see, those like you that wear #12 underoos to bed can't see it. made the playoffs TWICE in his career, that's not winning. ok, so why couldn't he lead them to more points despite getting 5 TOs from his D?
There you go again, comparing scoring and passing rules from the post 1978 period to the pre 1978 period. You just can not wrap your head around the difference in both the ability to pass and the ability to score. The 1968 Jets were 18 point underdogs going in to that game. And the Colts walked through a Jets defense that picked up 4 picks deep in their own territory. I don't recall for certain but I believe 3 of the picks came inside the Jets 20. For example the Colts had given up more than 10 points in Just 6 games all season, inlcuding 2 playoff games and the Super Bowl. They held Opponents to 7 or points in 7 of those 17 games, including 4 shutouts (1 in the NFC championship game shutting down teh vaunted Browns). The Colts D had forced 3 or more turnovers in 10 of those 17 games. Namths 197 Net yards was the 3rd highest total Against the Colts Defense in those 17 games. The 2 teams that threw for more yards Against the Colts defense than Namath? All lost. the 49er's there over 200 yards, lost the game by 28 points. the Lions lost by 17... Context is EVERYTHING. The 68 Colts had allowed only 2 200 yard passing games all season, they had held 4 teams to under 100 yards passing. As for your claim that the Jets had a great D backing him? I've already pointed out that it wasn't. But I'll refresh your memory. The Jets Defense that year did rank #4, out of 10 teams. AKA AVERAGE. The Jets Defense did rank 4th in the league in points allowed, out of 10 teams. They allowed 280, the 3 teams in front of them? Cheifs 170 points, Raiders 233, and the Oilers 238. What the Jets Defense did excel at was picking the ball off, 28 picks in 14 regular season games. By contrast the Colts had allowed just 144 points all season, and scored 29 picks. The Jets had a good Defense, the COLTS had one of the all time great defenses that ranks up with the Bears legendary 85 defense. But you go ahead an compare the 2000's stats and numbers to the pre 1978 stats and numbers. But nice try.
I didn't lie, I made an error, I forgot that in 1968 there was only 1 playoff game and not 2 in order to get to the Superbowl, A mistake, not a lie. But that doesn't change the fact that Joe DID win the Superbowl and Mark, while having twice as many post season wins as Namath, he also has twice as many play off losses as Namath. And yes January and Feb counts, but you don't play then if you don't make the playoffs, and Marks struggles in 2010 had fans and reporters crying for Sanchez to be benched, He nearly cost the team the playoffs with stupid turn overs down the stretch, in a repeat of 2009. I suggest reading this peace from December 2010. http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2010-12-15/if-jets-sanchez-struggles-again-ryan-must-bench-him Or maybe this piece from December 2010 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/12/rex-ryan-almost-benched-mark-sanchez/ If the Jags hadn't lost their own games the Jets wouldn't have made the playoffs. Same story in 2009 when teams SAT their starters and allowed the Jets to make the playoffs. In the month of December 2010 Sanchez was a turn over machine, 4 or 5 interceptions, I think 5 fumbles . (I know he had 4 fumbles against the Dolphins). And there you go with your todays "supermen" a hit like that would snap his legs off comment. I got news for you, an object in flight decends at an equal pace and speed, It's called the laws of Gravity, once the other player launched himself he was decelerating and falling at the speed of gravity, at which point the force is a question of mass. I got news for you, Gravity is one thing that works today the same way it worked back then, with the same force. A Player moving downards decends just as quickly as a player today, no slower, no faster. since the blow on Namats knee was form a spearing downwards motion the speed between then and now would be roughly equal in force. The Since the blow to the knee came on a downward motion instead of a level motion horizontal velocity would have actually decreased the severity of the blow causing a more glancing effect as opposed to a more direct impact effect. Unless of course your proposing that todays players can actually push off against air to gain additional downward velocity. Got news for you Jimmy Olsen, Today's players aint no supermen. But go ahead, fool yourself with the NFL packaging of todays ultra beasts.
