sorry NYJET87...i had one too many glasses of wine.....I mean I was 21 when the Jets won the SuperBowl....it was of course January 1969. PS...and I will never forget walking into my neighbor's house after that game filled with Giants fans.....
Stats and wins, we made just 2 postseason appearances w/ Joe. By the way, if everyone had neg TD to INT ratios then why did Len dawson have a +56 ratio? I'm sure you guys would say Joe was better than len but len has better #s and led his team to TWO SBs, 1 SB win and 2 more AFL Championships. I am just using your logic. You want to change examples I guess Brad Johnson is the greatest Buccaneer- is that a better example?
This explaines your love of Herm and Chad. Your goal is getting to the post season. As far as Dawson is concerned, The Chiefs had the best team in football for years and won once with Dawson. The Chiefs and the Raiders and the Colts had a better team than the Jets team that won the SB except Namath was head and shoulders the best player in both leagues that year.
Yiou have to get to the playoffs before you can win a Championship, right? 2 times in a "great" career doesn't cut it and the year we won the Raiders might have been better but we got lucky to get them at home and not have to face KC. We won 1 playoff game at home over oak when it should have been on the road at oak but the Coliseum had a conflict so we got the home game. You think we would have won in oak? The Chiefs/Texans on 4 AFL Championships(2 pre SB era and 2 to get to the SB along w/ winning 1). namath was head and shoulders above them that year? He had just 15 Tds and 17 INts, he played in a division that the 2nd place teams was 7-7 while 3 winning teams beat each other up in the West so the jets only had to face one of them in the playoffs.
You can't compare qbs by just looking at statistics. Comparing Len Dawson to Joe Namath is like comparing Jamie Moyer to Randy Johnson, in their prime.
Then why do we keep stats? When judging QBs I look at a few things- their individual #s, their wins and their ability in close games. I don't have all the close game #s but I do have more than enough w/ the individual career #s and the winning. Talent wise Joe might be 2nd to none but his injuries never allowed him to become as great as his reputation is. Joe is more myth than reality and that is typical Jets luck when we have a player as special as that he gets robbed of his career by injuries.
I think we would have killed them in Oakland. We played them earlier in the year in Oakland and had them beat before a couple of very bad special teams plays cost us the game in the last minute of the game after putting the game effctively away (That was the Heidi game). It was a fluke loss. We also beat the Chiefs in KC that year and beat the 9 & 5 Chargers twice that year killing them in SD. I fully believe we would have crushed Oakland in Oakland that year, we had the better QB and a good enough team around him to beat them anywhere.
We couldn't kill them at home- what makes you think on the raod we would have killed them? Why would we have crushed them in oak when we won 27-23 at HOME? and needed a late fumble deep in our territory to win the game?
Because Shea stadium favored teams with weaker QB play. Namath was a beast on the WC because the weather conditions were better and he was able to move a little better in warm weather. The Jets were a tennant at Shea and home field was never a factor for them.
:lol: :lol: Come on Winston, you can't possibly believe that. Shea favored teams w/ weaker QB play:rofl2: I guess that's why Joe never made the playoffs more than twice and never won a playoff game outside of the '68 season.
It would be interesting if CP lead us to a SB. You could make a great argument then, that he is the greatest all time Jet. Statistically I'm sure he'll finish out better then Joe, well maybe in percentages and rating anyway, but the ultimate determination would probably be how he did it and who he did it against. As of now, Broadway Joe hands down.
Nyjunc...you said Joe Namath was more myth than reality??? To make such a stupid statement,,,how old are you really????12??? The 1968 season earned him the Hickok Belt as top professional athlete of the year. Namath was an AFL All-Star four times, in 1965, 1967, 1968, and 1969; and an AFC-NFC Pro Bowler in 1972. He is a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the Jets' all-time team and the American Football League All-Time Team
This is deja vu all over again again. I truly believe that you have neither the right nor the ability to judge a player you never saw play. It is as simple as that. You cannot evaluate a player by reading numbers in a book. Read the testimonials from his peers and you get nothing but praise. There is not a single contemporary of Namath's that says he was overrated. There are many debates where I would never even offer an opinion because I never saw the players play - Willams or DiMaggio? Willie, Mickey or the Duke? Russell or Chamberlain? Robertson or Baylor? Hull or Richard? The same with team debates - how good were the 20's Yankees? The 50's Red Wings? The Celtics? The 50's Cleveland Browns?? The numbers don't tell the story. I'll give you another example - you are a Yankee fan. Any sports fan who has not seen a baseball game for the last ten years would look at Derek Jeter's stats and wonder what the big deal is. He would easily be viewed the most overrated player of this era. In this era of the juiced player, what is so great about 15-20 HRs and 75 RBIs a season??? And how do you measure his defensive abilities or his ability to hit in the clutch if you never see it? You have no conception of what football was like back then - how different the game was and how good Namath was. When a team played the Jets, Namath struck fear in a defense. When a team played the Chiefs, Dawson did not strike fear in the defense. Dawson was surrounded by better players his whole career. Take a look at the HOF and all AFC teams in the same eras. The Chiefs had one of the better defenses in the NFL for a long long time. The Chief defense struck more fear in the opposing teams than Dawson did. Don't get me wrong, Dawson was a great QB. But you can't base your whole Namath argument on comparing him with one player. Look at things like yards passing, TD passes, and all AFL/AFC appearances and Namath compares with anyone in that era. There is simply nobody on this board who saw Namath play and nobody else who was his contemporary (including players, experts, press, coaches) that agrees with you. When so many people who witnessed and lived through something say one thing and you, who never saw or lived through it say another, who do you think has more credibililty? You are a bright guy and very knowledgeable, but you have this argument all wrong. And I'm not even going to use numbers, as I have in the past, to show that, statistically, Namath was superior to his peers in many ways.
Junc, Shea was the single worst stadium in football for a pass dominate team. I absolute do believe it. It absolutely favored running the football and Defense. The Jets were built around a prolific pass offense. Namath was great on the road particularly on the WC. The Raiders were a team built around running the ball and Defense. They had Dixon, Charlie Smith and Pete Banazack in their backfield. Boozer was hurt and had a particularly week season that year. Snell was great but Oakland had the better running game and D and conditions at Shea favored that type of team.
yet he led the Jets to just 2 postseasons and had a TD to INT ratio of -47. Outside of NY namath is widely regraded as one of the most overrated players in all of sports. Then why did they lost at Buffalo that year? It was Buf's only win of the year. They also lost at Oak, they only lost 1 home game that year. To say they would have won at oakland is silly when they lost there earlier in the year and barely beat them at NY. The team lost 1 home game all year in 8 home games and lost 2 on the road in 7 road games. he also led them to a loss at Oakland in 1967 and they lost big at home to Oak in 1969. if we play that game on the road more than likely we don't have a SB and Namath isn't in the HOF.
I know I had to see him play. I know enough about him w/o having seen him play outside of SB III. Bad stats, didn't win- that's all I need to know. jeter is a bad comparison b/c jeter has excellent #s and has won a ton. people don't respect jeter b/c of yanke hatred/jealousy- that's why he's underrated. namath was adored but most people feel he was overrated. No one ever questioned his physical ability and I truly believe had he remained healthy he would have fulfilled that potential but he wasn't and did not.
You ignored why they lost in Oakland that year. Namath iced the game and Oakland hit on two special teams plays for TD's in the last minute and a half of the game. The Jets put up 32 offensive points on the board in Oakland. The Raiders scored 14 points on special team breakdowns. And yes the Jets lost in Buffalo. They went 5 & 2 on the road and 6 & 1 at home. Yes Junc I can see how the home field was a huge factor. Neither one of us can prove this but the fact is the won and on a neutral field beat the snot out of the Colts.
STs don't count? if we take away the Sts mistakes do we also take away the 4 INTs in SB III? W/o those INTs baltimore rolls to a win.
I think the NFL should adopt the Nyjunc QB rating system. Stats only matter when you decide they should and if you don't like a guy then he takes the blame for any defensive/ST mistakes. But if you do like the guy and he has a good defense then he gets bonus points for being a great game manager.
Here we go, 3rd is going to stalk me b/c h lost another argument. According to 3rd daunte Culpepper is better than Namath and is a top 10 QB.
