NYJetsFan.com Forums: Namath - NYJetsFan.com Forums

Jump to content

Toggle shoutbox NYJETSFAN BANTER

@DWAZ73 : One other thing: Idzik now has landed arguably No. 1 QB, RB and WR in free agency this offseason despite deliberate approach. #Jets
Mr_Jet Icon : (Today, 02:34 PM) Well considering they already retired #28 in honor of Curtis Martin, I don't see Johnson wearing #28.
Mr_Jet Icon : (Today, 02:35 PM) Kind of defeats the purpose of retiring a number.
Mr_Jet Icon : (Today, 02:39 PM) But I know he better not wear LaMont Jordan's number. Or I'll be pissed.
azjetfan Icon : (Today, 02:40 PM) Snell
santana Icon : (Today, 02:41 PM) The title race is real
Chaos Icon : (Today, 02:42 PM) Jordan...what number was he? it was 30sometihng
Chaos Icon : (Today, 02:43 PM) tanaka had a great game today. gave up 2 hits due to bunts. 10K
Mr_Jet Icon : (Today, 02:48 PM) Jordan was #34 with the Jets.
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:03 PM) Tanaka is looking like a stud
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:04 PM) Jets added Vick, Chris Johnson, and Eric Decker to the offense.
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:04 PM) FIRE IDZIK
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:04 PM) And this draft is loaded at the offensive skill positions
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:04 PM) Hopefully we can get anohter starting WR and starting TE in the draft
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:05 PM) Our offense could be much better than last year
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:05 PM) can't get much worse than what it's been the last 2 years
santana Icon : (Today, 03:22 PM) Very cool
HarlemHxC814 Icon : (Today, 03:24 PM) FIRE IDZIK
Jetsfan115 Icon : (Today, 03:32 PM) still need another WR
Jetsfan115 Icon : (Today, 03:33 PM) so i bet powell barely gets any touches this year and goodson gets cut
azjetfan Icon : (Today, 03:34 PM) Goodson is as good as gone.
azjetfan Icon : (Today, 03:34 PM) With all his legal issues and coming off injury he is done. Possibly even in the NFL
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:39 PM) Powell is average anyways.
Chaos Icon : (Today, 03:39 PM) @ProFootballTalk 5m

Per source, Chris Johnson's two-year deal has a base value of $8 million, with another $1 million available in incentives based on yardage.
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:40 PM) He does a lot of things well, but isn't talented enough. Johnson has breakaway ability still and Ivory is man beast running the football
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 03:41 PM) We will get another WR in the draft. Even in round 2 you can get a starting WR
azjetfan Icon : (Today, 04:09 PM) I am still standing by my CB in the first round and WR in the second prediction
santana Icon : (Today, 05:19 PM) The title race is bale
azjetfan Icon : (Today, 05:34 PM) Sidney rice coming in for a visit
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 05:49 PM) I think the Jets are getting themselves ready to draft best player available
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 05:49 PM) Last year they stuck to their board
HarlemHxC814 Icon : (Today, 06:27 PM) if they sign him I think that means they look to take a CB round 1
2JBallar01 Icon : (Today, 06:32 PM) “@AdamSchefter: RB Chris Johnson's 2-year deal with Jets has a team option in it for year two. Jets have option to pick up year two at $4M in February 2015.”
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 06:51 PM) @AlbertBreer 2m
Sidney Rice has agreed to terms with the Seahawks on a one-year deal, per source.
Expand
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 06:55 PM) There is really only 2 CBs worth taking at 18
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 06:56 PM) I rather get a offensive playmaker
ganggreen2003 Icon : (Today, 06:58 PM) LaMont Jordan was 34
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 06:59 PM) liar
ganggreen2003 Icon : (Today, 07:05 PM) He wore #34 when he played for the JETS
ganggreen2003 Icon : (Today, 07:05 PM) I should know I met him at an event in his last year with the JETS before he went to Oakland
ganggreen2003 Icon : (Today, 07:05 PM) GFYS 0099 you shit talker
HarlemHxC814 Icon : (Today, 07:06 PM) http://www.nydailyne...entry-1.1758342
HarlemHxC814 Icon : (Today, 07:06 PM) there's no reason we can't have someone off this site on that list too
azjetfan Icon : (Today, 07:08 PM) Rice resigned with Seattle
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Today, 07:08 PM) did you scare him into going to Oakland?
Chaos Icon : (Today, 08:18 PM) unfortunately those sites are too much bigger than our
Resize Shouts Area

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2

Namath New 2012 documentary MUST watch it

#1 User is offline   ROBJETS Icon

  • LB Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,356
  • Joined: 29-September 05
  • Gender:Male

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:32 PM

Im surprised no one else has said anything.

Anyway there is a 90 minutes episode airing on the HBO`s titled Namath

If you check the HBO`s Im sure you will find it. Its on HBO2E at 7:30 Eastern and shows again on HBO2W at 12:50 am tonight. If you miss those there are more airings of it through the week.If you subscribe to HBO you can go to HBO.com to watch it also.

Excellent documentary.Mostly video content. Not just him speaking. Its a must watch for any football fan.
It is new because it is dated 2012. I learned some things I never knew about him.
0

#2 User is offline   santana Icon

  • I'm batman
  • Icon
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 7,725
  • Joined: 03-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:Keeping this place from breaking... and titties.

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:53 PM

namath*

ill try and check it out

i thought americas game was already more then enough about sb3
Posted Image
Damn it huevos rancheros move out the way!
0

#3 User is offline   HurricaneJet32 Icon

  • Assistant Head Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6,693
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Location:New York

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 30 January 2012 - 08:17 PM

Yeah I saw it...I"m not sure a guy like that could exist in today's NFL. He would be absolutely crucified by the media for his glitz, drinking, talk show, laziness. I mean they get on Sanchez's ass because he's.....from California? I guess...

If Namath didn't win that Superbowl he'd be remembered (or not remembered at all) as a turnover prone quarterback who didn't take the game seriously and didn't put in the work required to be great. If he had taken better care of his body I'm sure he could've played a few more years.
Posted Image
0

#4 User is offline   ROBJETS Icon

  • LB Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,356
  • Joined: 29-September 05
  • Gender:Male

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 30 January 2012 - 08:37 PM

View Postsantana, on 30 January 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

namath*

ill try and check it out

i thought americas game was already more then enough about sb3

Really wasn't much on Superbowl 3. More about his life growing up,baseball,football,college,his drinking,and women galore,his injuries,NFL pay and the bidding wars, as well as the fame.

Like I said it was really good and well put together. I actually thought it was going to be the same stuff Ive seen before.
If you don't learn some new things Id be surprised.
0

#5 User is offline   ROBJETS Icon

  • LB Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,356
  • Joined: 29-September 05
  • Gender:Male

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 30 January 2012 - 09:00 PM

I can see why he is kind of arrogant and why he had a serious drinking problem. The country basically worshiped him like a god. Hell I'm surprised he hasn't died of cirrhosis
0

#6 User is offline   CrazyHorseDave Icon

  • D Coordinator
  • Icon
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 2,071
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 30 January 2012 - 11:40 PM

I liked it .. although I think they focused a little too much on the Beaver falls angle .. I mean did we need to hear from the diner owner AND the barber .. repeatedly?

Lots of great stuff for sure .. but there is so much more to the story that wasnt in there ..

if you liked that documentary .. you will love the book!

http://www.amazon.co...l/dp/0670033294
0

#7 User is offline   Camenzind Icon

  • Pro Bowl
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 435
  • Joined: 19-October 05
  • Gender:Male

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 31 January 2012 - 01:02 AM

I took a look at the career stats for some of the supposed greats -- Namath, Bradshaw, Johnny Unitas, Roger Staubach. I laugh when I hear them mentioned with the modern era greats. Joe Namath was a below average quarterback and Bradshaw wasn't far behind him.
0

#8 User is offline   S-Dubb Icon

  • 2008 Best Insider Award
  • Icon
  • View blog
  • Group: Assistant Admin
  • Posts: 31,128
  • Joined: 02-May 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:---
  • Interests:Hardcore Jets & Knicks fan - Gym rat - health and nutrition - family man and proud father.

    Twitter: @NYJETSFANCOM

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 31 January 2012 - 08:53 AM

View PostCamenzind, on 31 January 2012 - 01:02 AM, said:

I took a look at the career stats for some of the supposed greats -- Namath, Bradshaw, Johnny Unitas, Roger Staubach. I laugh when I hear them mentioned with the modern era greats. Joe Namath was a below average quarterback and Bradshaw wasn't far behind him.


It was just a different time, different game. Namath was one of the prettiest passers I've ever seen. Marino threw a great ball but Joe threw it with such grace. I never seen the doc, I'll see it soon but I get your point. One thing I will say about the Jets. It's been miserable for fans. Even if you think about our greatest team/greatest QB he still really wasn't all that great. It's hard to argue with that. Pretty miserable existence we've had.
0

#9 User is offline   A1elbow Icon

  • LB Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,890
  • Joined: 07-October 09

  • NFL Team:

Posted 31 January 2012 - 09:01 AM

View PostCamenzind, on 31 January 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

I took a look at the career stats for some of the supposed greats -- Namath, Bradshaw, Johnny Unitas, Roger Staubach. I laugh when I hear them mentioned with the modern era greats. Joe Namath was a below average quarterback and Bradshaw wasn't far behind him.


So much is different. Obviously the rules favor passing more than ever (hands off on receivers and protection for the QB unlike how safties could take out undefended guys or the Raiders could target Joe to take him out with cheapshots). There are a lot of other things too. The theory of the game and how it is implemented have changed. Coaches and players know more about what to do and how to do it. So many indoor stadiums these days. People talk about Brees and Manning, but Rodgers and Brady have done what they've done in cold stadiums with no roof. Players are in better shape.

I don't think you could just time-pluck most of those QBs out of the sixties or seventies, give them an offseason, and they would throw for 5000 yards, but I also don't think they would look stupid.

Also, Bradshaw was a roider, so he was just a f***ing meat head cheater.
Posted Image


Exterminate all rational thought, that is the conclusion I have come to
0

#10 User is offline   Camenzind Icon

  • Pro Bowl
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 435
  • Joined: 19-October 05
  • Gender:Male

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 31 January 2012 - 11:51 AM

View PostA1elbow, on 31 January 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

So much is different. Obviously the rules favor passing more than ever (hands off on receivers and protection for the QB unlike how safties could take out undefended guys or the Raiders could target Joe to take him out with cheapshots). There are a lot of other things too. The theory of the game and how it is implemented have changed. Coaches and players know more about what to do and how to do it. So many indoor stadiums these days. People talk about Brees and Manning, but Rodgers and Brady have done what they've done in cold stadiums with no roof. Players are in better shape.

I don't think you could just time-pluck most of those QBs out of the sixties or seventies, give them an offseason, and they would throw for 5000 yards, but I also don't think they would look stupid.

Also, Bradshaw was a roider, so he was just a f***ing meat head cheater.

I'd offer that defenses are much more sophisticated today, not to mention defenders are bigger and faster. I say what is being done today is more extraordinary. Some of the vintage quarterbacks such as Len Dawson had respectable numbers. Yes, Namath had a quick release and threw a pretty ball. So did Jeff George. Neither one was a great quarterback.
0

#11 User is offline   A1elbow Icon

  • LB Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,890
  • Joined: 07-October 09

  • NFL Team:

Posted 31 January 2012 - 12:17 PM

View PostCamenzind, on 31 January 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

I'd offer that defenses are much more sophisticated today, not to mention defenders are bigger and faster. I say what is being done today is more extraordinary. Some of the vintage quarterbacks such as Len Dawson had respectable numbers. Yes, Namath had a quick release and threw a pretty ball. So did Jeff George. Neither one was a great quarterback.


While it might be true that players are overall better athletes, you have to take it in consideration the conditioning programs. Guys can just physically do things that the majority of players at the time couldn't. Players have physical conditioning that allows them to stay longer and perform feats they couldn't do at the time. QBs are probably largely less affected by this. A QB at the time could probably throw many of the passes they do now, but the receivers at the time might not be able to turn, twist or dive in ways as many do today. Maybe they could, I don't know. Offensively, what they did back then can't compare to today.

However, I mostly just think it is harder to judge football players from different eras than any other sport. That's probably just sort of because I'm biased (baseball being a horrible "sport" and my dislike of the NBA), but I find it easier to imagine great baseball players from the beginning of the century holding up against modern players and sixties and seventies era basketball stars doing the same than taking some of the position players of NFL lore and putting them into today's game. I wouldn't imagine Namath in anyone's top ten QBs all time, but I'm talking more in general.
Posted Image


Exterminate all rational thought, that is the conclusion I have come to
0

#12 User is offline   CrazyHorseDave Icon

  • D Coordinator
  • Icon
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 2,071
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 31 January 2012 - 10:44 PM

Namath wasn't about Stats .. he was about style .. not only did he win our only Super Bowl .. he guaranteed it and won it with an attitude .. made all the doubters eat their words .. and there were plenty of folks who thought Old Joe was nothing but a loud mouth hippie .. betting against us as 18 point dogs .. he made them all look like fools

He is the original Joe Cool .. and in many ways bigger than the game .. lets put it this way .. I knew who Namath was before I knew much about football or The Jets .. and he never became arrogant or too full of himself .. confident yeah .. you have to be .. but there are plenty of guys who have done much less and think much more of themselves

Joe has always been great to the fans .. and you can tell he really does love us .. I had the pleasure of meeting him once when they released that book a few years back ( http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_vtp_b_2 ) and he was doing signings .. the guy running the thing was very clear .. no hand shaking and no conversations .. put the book down get it signed .. move along .. well I put my book down and wouldn't you know it .. Joe reached out to shake my hand! and ask me what I thought of the team .. he really liked our O-Line at the time .. seemed like a genuinely good guy to me .. which made me all the more pissed when the producers at espn let him go on instead of realizing the condition he was in and bailing out sooner when they could have .. but I digress


Stats are over rated ... cindy may have 3 rings (or 4 depending on how Sunday goes).. but she will never be as cool as Joe

I'll take him over any other player .. ever
0

#13 User is offline   Jetsfan115 Icon

  • Assistant Head Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Assistant Admin
  • Posts: 23,538
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cali

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 01 February 2012 - 02:15 AM

View PostCrazyHorseDave, on 31 January 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Namath wasn't about Stats .. he was about style .. not only did he win our only Super Bowl .. he guaranteed it and won it with an attitude .. made all the doubters eat their words .. and there were plenty of folks who thought Old Joe was nothing but a loud mouth hippie .. betting against us as 18 point dogs .. he made them all look like fools

He is the original Joe Cool .. and in many ways bigger than the game .. lets put it this way .. I knew who Namath was before I knew much about football or The Jets .. and he never became arrogant or too full of himself .. confident yeah .. you have to be .. but there are plenty of guys who have done much less and think much more of themselves

Joe has always been great to the fans .. and you can tell he really does love us .. I had the pleasure of meeting him once when they released that book a few years back ( http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_vtp_b_2 ) and he was doing signings .. the guy running the thing was very clear .. no hand shaking and no conversations .. put the book down get it signed .. move along .. well I put my book down and wouldn't you know it .. Joe reached out to shake my hand! and ask me what I thought of the team .. he really liked our O-Line at the time .. seemed like a genuinely good guy to me .. which made me all the more pissed when the producers at espn let him go on instead of realizing the condition he was in and bailing out sooner when they could have .. but I digress


Stats are over rated ... cindy may have 3 rings (or 4 depending on how Sunday goes).. but she will never be as cool as Joe

I'll take him over any other player .. ever


I just got done with it and I thought it was great. really gave you a whole new perspective on how he was as a person.
Get it done MT
Posted Image
0

#14 User is offline   chocomag Icon

  • Drafted Rookie
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: 11-September 05

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 01 February 2012 - 08:10 AM

View PostCamenzind, on 31 January 2012 - 01:02 AM, said:

I took a look at the career stats for some of the supposed greats -- Namath, Bradshaw, Johnny Unitas, Roger Staubach. I laugh when I hear them mentioned with the modern era greats. Joe Namath was a below average quarterback and Bradshaw wasn't far behind him.

Hopefully you are too young to know what you are talking about. And for the record, those QB's played in the "modern era."
0

#15 User is offline   Camenzind Icon

  • Pro Bowl
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 435
  • Joined: 19-October 05
  • Gender:Male

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 01 February 2012 - 12:56 PM

View Postchocomag, on 01 February 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

Hopefully you are too young to know what you are talking about. And for the record, those QB's played in the "modern era."

Quite the contrary actually. As it has been put to me, some people can't let go of nostalgia to look at things objectively. Namath was not a great quarterback and that's a fact. Perhaps he had the physical tools. Perhaps he was cocky. Perhaps he is good to the fans. That doesn't make him a great quarterback. Mark Rypien won a Super Bowl too.
0

#16 User is offline   Smedsthejet Icon

  • Assistant Head Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 8,247
  • Joined: 10-April 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 01 February 2012 - 05:25 PM

View PostCamenzind, on 01 February 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

Quite the contrary actually. As it has been put to me, some people can't let go of nostalgia to look at things objectively. Namath was not a great quarterback and that's a fact. Perhaps he had the physical tools. Perhaps he was cocky. Perhaps he is good to the fans. That doesn't make him a great quarterback. Mark Rypien won a Super Bowl too.


It's what he meant to the game though surely? Few have had more significant wins in their career than Namath did in Super Bowl III.
0

#17 User is offline   chocomag Icon

  • Drafted Rookie
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: 11-September 05

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 04 February 2012 - 07:22 PM

View PostCamenzind, on 01 February 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

Quite the contrary actually. As it has been put to me, some people can't let go of nostalgia to look at things objectively. Namath was not a great quarterback and that's a fact. Perhaps he had the physical tools. Perhaps he was cocky. Perhaps he is good to the fans. That doesn't make him a great quarterback. Mark Rypien won a Super Bowl too.

Once again. I would be interested in knowing if you had seen him in his prime? My guess is no. And for the record, I won't even go into the other QB's mentioned as statements about Bradshaw, Staubach, Unitas, etc. are just ridiculous.

Some people are stat geeks. All that matters is how many yards, interceptions, TD passes, etc. Sometimes you need to see players play to understand their worth. We can't really compare the rest of the team, the rules in those days (DB's with license to crush WR's, QB's getting hit well after the play, elbows through the face mask, etc.), or the running game.

You say if Namath hadn't won that game. Well, he did. And he wasn't favored as Rypien was or Dilfer was. His team was an 18 point underdog and he called almost every play at the line of scrimmage. Oh yeah, he called his own plays and at the line. Today, the QB can't be touched, the WR can't be touched and the lays come in over microphones in their helmets.

I'm not saying that makes them less talented. Just that it is a different game. Namath built the AFL into the AFC. He had the quickest release I have ever seen (including Marino) and his accuracy deep was incredible.

But his stats aren't as good as Donovan McNabb's so I guess that means he wasn't as good a QB. Maybe you should just punch your numbers into a computer and you can rate all the players based on that.
0

#18 User is offline   Jetsfan115 Icon

  • Assistant Head Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Assistant Admin
  • Posts: 23,538
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cali

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:35 PM

View PostCamenzind, on 01 February 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Quite the contrary actually. As it has been put to me, some people can't let go of nostalgia to look at things objectively. Namath was not a great quarterback and that's a fact. Perhaps he had the physical tools. Perhaps he was cocky. Perhaps he is good to the fans. That doesn't make him a great quarterback. Mark Rypien won a Super Bowl too.


you can't be a stat geek , especially when you go that far back. the NFL was a rushing league back then. he was the 1st Qb to pass for 4000 yards and to really air the game out. all the other QBs back then were game managers. Also take in effect the Wrs weren't as big and athletic as they are now and the fact DBs were able to rape WRs and now they can't sneeze on them
Get it done MT
Posted Image
0

#19 User is offline   Camenzind Icon

  • Pro Bowl
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 435
  • Joined: 19-October 05
  • Gender:Male

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 06 February 2012 - 12:25 AM

View Postchocomag, on 04 February 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Once again. I would be interested in knowing if you had seen him in his prime? My guess is no. And for the record, I won't even go into the other QB's mentioned as statements about Bradshaw, Staubach, Unitas, etc. are just ridiculous.

Some people are stat geeks. All that matters is how many yards, interceptions, TD passes, etc. Sometimes you need to see players play to understand their worth. We can't really compare the rest of the team, the rules in those days (DB's with license to crush WR's, QB's getting hit well after the play, elbows through the face mask, etc.), or the running game.

You say if Namath hadn't won that game. Well, he did. And he wasn't favored as Rypien was or Dilfer was. His team was an 18 point underdog and he called almost every play at the line of scrimmage. Oh yeah, he called his own plays and at the line. Today, the QB can't be touched, the WR can't be touched and the lays come in over microphones in their helmets.

I'm not saying that makes them less talented. Just that it is a different game. Namath built the AFL into the AFC. He had the quickest release I have ever seen (including Marino) and his accuracy deep was incredible.

But his stats aren't as good as Donovan McNabb's so I guess that means he wasn't as good a QB. Maybe you should just punch your numbers into a computer and you can rate all the players based on that.

How many 20 plus interception seasons did he have in a time when the pass attempts don't come close to today's standards? How many big wins did he have? How many winning seasons did he have? Just because he was a pretty passer doesn't make him a great quarterback. He had one really good season. I understand the game. If you did, you would understand that your sarcastic retort is actually accurate: Donovan Mcnabb is twice the quarterback Namath ever was.
0

#20 User is offline   chocomag Icon

  • Drafted Rookie
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: 11-September 05

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 06 February 2012 - 09:42 PM

View PostCamenzind, on 06 February 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

How many 20 plus interception seasons did he have in a time when the pass attempts don't come close to today's standards? How many big wins did he have? How many winning seasons did he have? Just because he was a pretty passer doesn't make him a great quarterback. He had one really good season. I understand the game. If you did, you would understand that your sarcastic retort is actually accurate: Donovan Mcnabb is twice the quarterback Namath ever was.

In that case I am sure Donovan will make the Hall of Fame on his first ballot. And as for attempts, Namath had many games where all he could do is throw the ball. The defense knew it and so did everyone in the stands. However, sarcastic or not, I still have not heard back from you as to whether you had seen him actually play.

As I assume that not to be the case, let's try this one. 35 years from now, your kids will be watching the NFL and because the game has evolved they tell you that Tom Brady, Drew Brees, etc. were overrated hacks because they never threw for 6,000 yards in a season. They never threw 75 TD passes either. You sit there and say "you're right. Those guys stunk". I don't think so. At least I hope not.

There is more to the game than taking stats and reading them. Fran Tarkenton retired with the best stats of any QB ever (at that time). But he was never the best QB in any given year.

Sports makes for excellent debates and your philosophy has a certain amount of merit. It's just a shame you won't realize the other side until you are on it. As for the sarcasm, it wasn't intended as an insult. I would not want to do that to you. But let's go back to your original statement lumping Unitas, Bradshaw, and Staubach into that group. So Donovan McNabb by your standards was a better QB than the best QB's of that era. Maybe that's true. After all, his many Super Bowl rings - oops, forgot he doesn't have any. But those clutch performances - oops, his own teammates watched him barf on the field in that crucial game. But he must have had more completions and attempts and less int's than those guys so he must be better.

Speak to people who have seen Namath and those guys and McNabb. And then let me know the next time they do a 90 minute documentary on McNabb. I wouldn't want to miss it. So far its been Campbell's soup commercials.
0

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2


Fast Reply

  

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users