Addendum, 5 to-s from his D yes, but I know 3 of them were near the goal line of the Jets, and I think the other two were inside the 30 if I recall correctly. The colts were running at will against the Jets defense, why they kept trying to pass is beyond me considering they were crushing the Jets D on the ground.
who is comparing passing rules? I brought up pts scored b/c it is an important statistic. GB scored 35 & 33 the first 2 SBs or was that in a different era too? It doesn't mattewr where they got the TOs, that means they got a bunch of extra possessions and the D kept Bal from scoring allowing Super Joe to lead us to only 16 pts for the win. For the record only 1 of the TOs was deep in Bal territory and they came away w/ a FG but they got a bunch of extra possessions and the great Joe namath could only lead us to 16 pts w/ all those extra possessions. The Colts D was great, I imdrestand that but the Jets O was supposed to be great too and they got 4 extra possessions in the game due to TOs. They had allowed 14 in their 1st playoff game, they allowed over 20 pts 3 times and 30 pts once. Bal had turned it over 5 or more times 3 times in 1968: 28-20 win over Atl 30-20 loss to Cle 16-7 loss to Jets which is more important? yards or points? this is where many of you guys fall off track, you cite all of Joe's yards but w/o pts what good are yards? It was 195 net yds anyway andL: John Brodie had 236 Bill Munson 225 Joe Kapp 266 all better than Joe's 195, right? The Jets D was 1st in yds and 4th in pts but how many pts came off Joe INTs and STs? Let's check, shall we? at KC: 80 yd punt return TD at Pats: 4 yd INT return TD, 10 yd fumble return TD at Buf:100 yd INT return TD, 53 yd INT return TD, 45 yd INT return TD. Lost by 2 to Buf team that wouldn't win another game and we gave up 3 INT returns- is this the fault of the D? vs. Buf: 82 yd punt return TD at Oak: 2 yd fumble return TD at SD: 95 yd PR TD vs. Cincy: 0 yd fumble return TD TEN TDs allowed by O and STs- 70 pts. The D actually allowed 210 pts which was 15 PPG which woud have bene good for 2nd in the AFL in pts allowed. Was the Colts D better? absolutely but to act like the Jets D wasn't a big time D is silly especially since they won the SB by turning Bal over all game long. in 1968 when Ball turned it over 5 or more times they allowed less than 20 pts once and that was to Super Joe and all his yards.
You have done it multiple times now even after I corrected you so what else would I think? Please don't make the error again and I won't think you are lying. How do you forget there was 1 playoff game and not 2? I wasn't even alive and I would never make that mistake. Every Jet fans know they beat Oak in their only AFL playoff game in 1968. who cares if reporters and fans wanted Mark benched? he had a rough 2-3 game stretch, it happens but they don't even make the playoffs in 2010 w/o him bailing out the D for blowing late leads. Watch the America's Game documentary on SB III and Jets defensive players were saying how they didn't want Joe to blow games. They knew they were good enough to win if he wasn't giving the other team points. Can you get your facts straight please? jacksonville finished 3 games behind us and we wrapped up our playoff spot in week 16. In the month of december? you mean the first 2 games of december where he had 5 TOs in 2 games, he would have 3 the rest of the season including 3 playoff games and 2 reg season games. so you don't think players hit harder today? seriously? guys playing RB were DL size in Joe's day, there are WRs and QBs bigger than most lineman in his day and they are more athletically gifted and stronger. Sorry to break that to you.
Forget the stats , Namath had one thing our QB at the moment does not and will never possess....heart and the ability to take a hit ( usually illegal ) , get back up and drive his team forward. Was he always succesful ..no ..but after he shot his knee at College his biggest back up asset which was his speed was gone. Namath took hits that today would result in a 6 game ban...the Davidson late hit would send most Qb into rehab ( bad analogy with Joe!!)..but all we hear is how our QB is scared and hesitant...fucking man up and play it like Joe...was he perfect on and off the pitch hell no..but he played the game how it was meant to be played ..with a chip on your shoulder and a fuck you attitude! I would give everything to have a qb like Namath..only SOME Jets fans could call him over rated!
If joe was playing today and had the exact same career he had in the 60s and 70s he'd be bashed up and down all day and night on this board. His legacy would be so much different if he had the scrutiny of today's players and message boards for fans to whine.
Eli Manning has won TWO SBs and he is getting blasted from all angles now and while Eli isn't elite he's had a better career than Joe. Joe would get torched even after winning a SB. The SB glow only last so long.
Another silly coulda, woulda, shoulda from U. All total BS & for Eli last year is done & this year Eli may not Eli of 2011 plain & simple. Some day U will realize that fans are only interested in THIS YEAR not last or 10 or 20 years ago. The FACTs are that JWN is the ONLY lets repeat that ONLY NYJ QB to win a SB that is the REAL TRUE FACT rather U like it or not. Instead of wasting your time posting garbage on this board my suggestion is go back to crying in your milk that another losing season is upon the NYJs :sad:
Junc being argumentative for the sake of it Anyone can argue over stats and Namath was not the greatest NFL qb of all time but he is the greatest NYJ qb of all time. He reinvented the game , dragged it into the modern era Its all speculation but in my view Namath was as hated by the press as was possible at the time , under constant scrutiny and even watched by Hoover ( not the electronics brand) He was an icon...to kids across the States....not just in NY / NJ Never ever will those words be used about any of the god knows how many qbs that have followed him in green and white
it's not about just stats and never has been but you guys will always use that to deflect. it's awesome that he was an icon in a simpler time for sports fans, in today's world he'd be picked apart on a daily basis for his failures. he was a game changer and he was vital to the growth of pro football. I have never debated that but his career was medicore overall, he deserves to be in the Hall for what he meat to the game not for what he actually did.
Aside from 3 seasons he played on below average teams with owners / manager who would not invest or spend money..based on the talent around him from 71 onwards its a miracle he wasnt killed. If jusge him on all areas his contribution to ny jets , part of a superbowl win , record passing yards in a season , his lingering effect on football overall....Joe Namath can never be called mediocre
record passing yards, that's nice that he set that record but they were 3rd of 9 teams in scoring and missed the playoffs in part b/c he led them to losses 3 of the last 4 games. you can use the talent excuse all you want but when he had a boatload of talent he only made 2 postseasons and the win % of Jets QBs from Joe to everyone else from 1970-1976 was almost the same. Shouldn't it have ben significantly better w/ Joe's greatness? More than half his career was not good, he had a few really good years, overall he had a decent career.
arguing with you is impossible nyj, you change teh rules as they fit you. its he lost 3 of 4 when he lost but its about his stats when he won. its just not interesting to argue with someone who constantly changes the rules to fit the argument he is having. i concur with champ on this one. please stop. we see your stance, nobody agrees with it. thats it time to move on.
mediocre/devent- is there much of a difference? It is difficult arguing w/ me b/c I don't stand for the nonsense that most will allow. I don't change anything, show me an example? the 4th loss they were out of contention since Houston won a day earlier. So the last 3 meaningful games he ;ed the Jets to 3 losses while throwing 9 INTs vs. 2-10 Denver: trailed 33-3 before some garbage time pts made the final score 33-24. He threw 4 INTs, he also had 3 TDs but all of them were after trailing 33-3 and all in garbage time but you guys will tell me had had 3 TDs and almost 300 yds passing! vs. 7-5 KC: trailed 21-0 before garbage time TD(INT for TD made it 21-0). 0 TDs, 2 INTs at 11-1 Oak: trailed 31-14 in 4th before some garbage time pts made final score 39-28. Threw 3 TDs but 2 were in garbage time- should that impress me? but again you guys will point to 3 TDs and 370 pass yds. was it all on Joe? of course not but if you are going to pump up all his yds in 1967 shouldn't we discuss the late season collapse he was a major part of?
How could I make that mistake? Easy, the NFL had two play off games the AFC only had 1. A fact that slipped my mind. As for Marks rough 2 or 3 game stretch. Sanchez has NEVER, EVER been more than a bottom 1/4 QB. He'd been lucky to be on a team that followed it. Facts are straight, read the news accounts of the period to refresh your memory, The Jets backed in to if you remember, the Jets lost that weekend. If the Jets had lost and the Jags won, then they could have wound up tied in the final week of the season had the Jets lost again and the Jags won again. The Jags lost their last two games, the Jets won one of their last two games. hence finishing 3 games up. Do the math, do your homework. Also I was correct when I said he lead or was in the top 3 in passing 5 times and top 3 in TD's 3 times during that 10 year period. My facts were accurate, you tried to disguise things by only counting years he was top 3 in both categories, that's called cherry picking stats. It's true the Jets Defense didn't like Joe, he was flamboyant. And of course they toot their own horn, but remember the Colt's running back Matt ran for I think it was 117 yards, on 11 carries. Even if you take out his 58 yard run he was still averaging about 5 yards a carry. But the Jets defense was also jealous of Namath, he was very well paid for the day and got ALL the headlines. Like you said, you weren't even born yet....I watched them play. Yes today's athlete are better conditioned. But do they hit harder? Their capable of it in some cases, but the fact is most players today shy away from contact when possible. But you distort what I said, two objects falling fall at the same rate, no matter the size. Now the size does equate to more force, however faster speed negates that force to a degree due to the angle of deflection, unless of course your insinuating that a player can accelerate in a downwards motion...hint, you can't accelerate in a downward motion unless there is something above you to push off on. Simple phsyics. grade school physics. But by focusing on speed you miss the point. If your playing against players of equal size then the effect is negated relative to each other. In part because of the more sophisticated equipment used today that help absorb shock. It's one of the reasons there are much fewer Concussions today than in the past, look at the lining, or facemask for that matter, of a 60's helmet. The shoulder pads from that era and the rest of the gear. It makes a difference. But you see, here's your problem, your young, and you idolize the players of your generation and can only relate based on todays game. I challenge you to watch as many games from the 60's and 70's as you can, then come here and talk. Till then, good luck because your focused through biased eyes. You call the hits of the day dirty hits, or cheap hits, and by todays standards they are...but that's today's standards. In today's game they zoom in and show the occasional blood like it's something new, back then broken noses, fingers, dislocated bones, and usually players played through it. Several cases where guys broke their arm and was back on the field by the next half. Was that right? No it wasn't, neither were "Cheap hits". And that goes back to the point of why players then were more apt for injuries, regardless of speed. Poor equipment, no rules to protect players, etc. And it doesn't matter how hard you hit, all you have to do is hit hard enough at the right angles when players are vulnerable and that's that. Players used to play to actually hurt the other guys, that's serious. Was it right? No, but that's the way the game was played then. But here's the deal, Players aren't that much heavier, on average today than 1970, with the exception of the Oline and D-line. QB's also gained.but lets look at averages for the years correlated. QB's now 224 Then 208 16 pound diff. RB Now 218, then 210. 8 pounds diff full Backs now 248, then 226. 12 pound diff (FBS have become primarily big body blockers, they ran more in the 60's) Wide Recievers now 201, then 192. tight ends 253 then 227 OT's now 314-then 260. Big difference OG now 323 then 254. Again big diff Center now 299, then 245 big diff DE now 263, then 252 DT Now 306, then 256 Big Diff LB now 237 then 227 DB's 196, 185 So on average, apart from QB's and linemen the difference tends to be between 9- to 15 pounds. It's also worth noting that the fastest 40 time for any NFL player was turned in by Bob Hayes, who played back in the day. Players are slightly bigger, on the whole today, and most of them are more muscular, especially the QB's, But faster? That's hype for the most part.
