[ROBJETS]

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.

[santana]

namath*

ill try and check it out

i thought americas game was already more then enough about sb3

[HurricaneJet32]

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.

[ROBJETS]

santana, 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.

[ROBJETS]

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

[CrazyHorseDave]

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

[Camenzind]

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.

[S-Dubb]

Camenzind, 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.

[A1elbow]

Camenzind, 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.

[Camenzind]

A1elbow, 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.

[A1elbow]

Camenzind, 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.

[CrazyHorseDave]

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

[Jetsfan115]

CrazyHorseDave, 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.

[chocomag]

Camenzind, 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."

[Camenzind]

chocomag, 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.

[Smedsthejet]

Camenzind, 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.

[chocomag]

Camenzind, 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.

[Jetsfan115]

Camenzind, 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

[Camenzind]

chocomag, 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.

[chocomag]

Camenzind, 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.