Flbillsfan#1 Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 A record based on a stat. 4,000 yards is a stat. Just like TD to INT ratio is a stat. 2699 YDs is a Stat. Namath's 4000 YD's are a RECORD. There is a world of difference between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoverbills Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Wins/losses is only one out of a multitude of things you look at. Manning, while a good QB, is not an elite QB. He is an oft-erratic game manager, who relies on his running game and defense to win. The problem with Cutler is that he is a turnover machine, with 20 last year. Cutler had 18 int. last year that equal to 2.9 int % for the year. Payton Manning Career int % is 2.9%. Cutler did have 616 att. last year. Do you know that Edwards int. % was 2.9 last year. But Edwards doesn't throw TDs. Last year was the first time that Eli had a 60% com. rating. Never threw over 60% before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Are you denying that Namath had many very crappy seasons? Namath is considered very overrated by A LOT of people that NEVER saw him play. Fixed. 38-24-36 36-26-36 34-22-34 Pick a woman. Myself I want to see them, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is just as STUPID to say this QB is better than that QB based on stats as it is to pick a woman from those numbers alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Stats don't mean CRAP. The proof of that is stats that have been posted on this board that would make Trent Edwards APPEAR to be a GOOD QB when thus far he has been Nothing more than MEDIOCRE. I did not quote a stat, I quoted a RECORD. Wow, you held off for quite some time before detouring to your inevitable dig on our starting QB. Nice restraint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 Wow, you held off for quite some time before detouring to your inevitable dig on our starting QB. Nice restraint. I never mentioned your QB. Tom Brady does not play for the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 All three are HOF players and you can debate the merits of each. Namath however had a GREATER impact on the NFL than ANY other player PERIOD. When the NY Jets signed Namath the AFL & NFL were at WAR. The AFL was in danger of folding at that time. Namath's signing by the Jets gave legitamacy to the upstart league, & the NFL eventually realized it needed to make peace with the AFL. The AFL was still looked down on as an inferior minor league by the NFL & much of America until Namath & the Jets beat the Colts in Super Bowl III. If you are a Buffalo Bills fan today, you can thank Joe Willie Namath. Without him the AFL & Buffalo Bills could well have folded. What Namath had on all the other QB's when he entered the NFL was the media and his own flamboyance. One cannot speculate what he would or could have done had he had healthy knees. All there is to go on is what he did during his career. Before the injuries to his knees, he as quite an athlete, but how that would play out in the NFL is only known by the gods. With that said, Joe Willie Namath had the sweetest, quickest release I have ever seen. He seemed he could merely flick his wrist and throw one 60 yards. Was that enough for the HOF, no. Yet he did add luster to the AFL and was a principal in it's success as noted above. Joe's contributions simply can't be measured purely by his stats alone. As for Tarkenton, I always disliked that noodle armed champion of the dink pass. His was a career of dinking and dunking and longevity. By the way, I'm old enough to recall Namath and Tarkenton in their prime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Are you denying that Namath had many very crappy seasons? Namath is considered very overrated by A LOT of people. no I'm not...but he was practically a cripple by then...I dont judge Gayle sayers by his post knee injury seasons. Quality over quantity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 What Namath had on all the other QB's when he entered the NFL was the media and his own flamboyance. One cannot speculate what he would or could have done had he had healthy knees. All there is to go on is what he did during his career. Before the injuries to his knees, he as quite an athlete, but how that would play out in the NFL is only known by the gods. With that said, Joe Willie Namath had the sweetest, quickest release I have ever seen. He seemed he could merely flick his wrist and throw one 60 yards. Was that enough for the HOF, no. Yet he did add luster to the AFL and was a principal in it's success as noted above. Joe's contributions simply can't be measured purely by his stats alone. As for Tarkenton, I always disliked that noodle armed champion of the dink pass. His was a career of dinking and dunking and longevity. By the way, I'm old enough to recall Namath and Tarkenton in their prime. Well if you want to say that Namath meant more to football than a guy like Tarkenton you might be right. However what he could have been and what he meant to the league doesn't make him a better QB than Tarkenton. Namath lost more games than he won as a starter, threw more ints than TD's, and produced 4 pro bowl seasons (with one being his rookie year a selection by any measure he didn't deserve). Tarkenton not only left the league with most of the passing records, but had 9 pro bowl selections, and a 124-109 record as a starter. I just don't see the appeal of Joe Namath. The guys all sizzle and little steak. He put a very good run of four years where he had two great seasons and two good seasons. Other than that run from 1966 to 1969 what did he do? Now Namath is in the Hall because of what he meant off the field However you can't say that on the field he was a hall of fame guy. If 4 years makes a HOF career than Kurt Warner should get his speech ready. There is no way Namath is the best QB of his generation. Most important maybe but not the best on the field QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endless Ike Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 no I'm not...but he was practically a cripple by then...I dont judge Gayle sayers by his post knee injury seasons. Quality over quantity. so boobie miles should probably be in the NFL hall of fame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Well if you want to say that Namath meant more to football than a guy like Tarkenton you might be right. However what he could have been and what he meant to the league doesn't make him a better QB than Tarkenton. Namath lost more games than he won as a starter, threw more ints than TD's, and produced 4 pro bowl seasons (with one being his rookie year a selection by any measure he didn't deserve). Tarkenton not only left the league with most of the passing records, but had 9 pro bowl selections, and a 124-109 record as a starter. I just don't see the appeal of Joe Namath. The guys all sizzle and little steak. He put a very good run of four years where he had two great seasons and two good seasons. Other than that run from 1966 to 1969 what did he do? Now Namath is in the Hall because of what he meant off the field However you can't say that on the field he was a hall of fame guy. If 4 years makes a HOF career than Kurt Warner should get his speech ready. There is no way Namath is the best QB of his generation. Most important maybe but not the best on the field QB. This will be my final post on Namath. As I said before, you can't judge Namath by his stats, you had to see him play. I will grant you he did not have longetivity due to his knees, but he was the best QB of his generation & the vast majority of people that saw him play will agree with me. My original post was to dispute the contention that Namath is overrated which I believe I have done. The only people that think he is overrated are the people that NEVER saw him play & therefore don't know what they are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KollegeStudnet Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 one accidental Super Bowl win = Higher pay then Ben Roethlisberger "Huck it Chuck it Football" *is being sarcastic* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 This will be my final post on Namath. As I said before, you can't judge Namath by his stats, you had to see him play. I will grant you he did not have longetivity due to his knees, but he was the best QB of his generation & the vast majority of people that saw him play will agree with me. My original post was to dispute the contention that Namath is overrated which I believe I have done. The only people that think he is overrated are the people that NEVER saw him play & therefore don't know what they are talking about. Stats are results they are what Namath did on the field. Namath had a 4 year stretch where you could say he was a really great QB. In those 4 years (1966 to 1969) he had a Super Bowl victory, three winning seasons, and the best stats of his life. Other than those 4 years he sucked. He had only 4 winning seasons in his playing time 3 of which came in a 4 year period. Yeah I didn't see him play but isn't that being a little subjective with your analysis. If you look at how many games he won it was all stacked in a 3 year period the rest of his career he was a loser big time. Maybe the people who saw him play overrate him because they saw him play thus those who take a more objective look (With things like stats) and say what was so great about him? By any objective measure Joe Namath is overrated big time and is not the best QB of his generation. The only way you can put him on top of his generation is taking a bias subjective view of having seen him play to put him over every QB from the mid 1960's to late 1970's. Saying Namath is the best QB of his generation is like saying Kurt Warner is the best QB of this generation. Better than guys like Brady and Manning who never had a big gap in the middle of their greatness like Warner. (Unlike Namath Warner at least had a second run in him). And than 30 years from now when some kid says Warner only had like 5 good years Brady is better me saying well you had to see him play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I never mentioned your QB. Tom Brady does not play for the Bills. Wow. Another direct hit. Did someone help you come up with that one? If Namath had lost that SB no one would ever be foolish enough to say he was the "best of his generation." Go back to jplosman.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Wow. Another direct hit. Did someone help you come up with that one? If Namath had lost that SB no one would ever be foolish enough to say he was the "best of his generation." Go back to jplosman.com. Here's a BETTER idea YOU go back to your Pats* board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Here's a BETTER idea YOU go back to your Pats* board. Can't you at least come up with something original? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Can't you at least come up with something original? To quote Kid Rock: Nobody wants you around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Stats are results they are what Namath did on the field. Namath had a 4 year stretch where you could say he was a really great QB. In those 4 years (1966 to 1969) he had a Super Bowl victory, three winning seasons, and the best stats of his life. Other than those 4 years he sucked. He had only 4 winning seasons in his playing time 3 of which came in a 4 year period. Yeah I didn't see him play but isn't that being a little subjective with your analysis. If you look at how many games he won it was all stacked in a 3 year period the rest of his career he was a loser big time. Maybe the people who saw him play overrate him because they saw him play thus those who take a more objective look (With things like stats) and say what was so great about him? By any objective measure Joe Namath is overrated big time and is not the best QB of his generation. The only way you can put him on top of his generation is taking a bias subjective view of having seen him play to put him over every QB from the mid 1960's to late 1970's. Saying Namath is the best QB of his generation is like saying Kurt Warner is the best QB of this generation. Better than guys like Brady and Manning who never had a big gap in the middle of their greatness like Warner. (Unlike Namath Warner at least had a second run in him). And than 30 years from now when some kid says Warner only had like 5 good years Brady is better me saying well you had to see him play. There is no doubt that injuries shortened his career. Also, it is well known that he didn't take very good care of himself. The thing is, he was picked so early, and signed for so much money for a reason. Bear Bryant called Joe Namath "the best athlete I ever coached." In addition to his skills, Joe Namath owned New York. It is hard to describe, but Derek Jeter x 5 might be a good comparison, except that Jeter seems much smarter. Derek stays away from the publicity as much as he can, but he parties his a$$ off with the hottest women in New York, perhaps the entire world. Imo Jeter is the most "cool" athlete to play in NYC in my lifetime. Namath was "Broadway Joe," because he was out there to be seen at nightclubs with his choice of 10s. The man owned NYC. He told the press that the Jets were going to beat the Colts before the SB, and the Colts were a 17 1/2 favorite. Namath (and KRC might pull my coat on this) was the biggest single reason for the big merger. Don't get me wrong....there were other reasons, but imo the NFL really wanted Namath in the league. In summary, his stats aren't so great, but they only tell a small part of the story wrt Namath. His accomplishments and personna tell us much more. PS: Since you never saw him, in terms of comparing qbs, picture Roger Staubach type touch with a stronger arm and even more accuracy. Did you see Staubach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 eli does not deserve to be the highest paid..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 There is no doubt that injuries shortened his career. Also, it is well known that he didn't take very good care of himself. The thing is, he was picked so early, and signed for so much money for a reason. Bear Bryant called Joe Namath "the best athlete I ever coached." In addition to his skills, Joe Namath owned New York. It is hard to describe, but Derek Jeter x 5 might be a good comparison, except that Jeter seems much smarter. Derek stays away from the publicity as much as he can, but he parties his a$$ off with the hottest women in New York, perhaps the entire world. Imo Jeter is the most "cool" athlete to play in NYC in my lifetime. Namath was "Broadway Joe," because he was out there to be seen at nightclubs with his choice of 10s. The man owned NYC. He told the press that the Jets were going to beat the Colts before the SB, and the Colts were a 17 1/2 favorite. Namath (and KRC might pull my coat on this) was the biggest single reason for the big merger. Don't get me wrong....there were other reasons, but imo the NFL really wanted Namath in the league. In summary, his stats aren't so great, but they only tell a small part of the story wrt Namath. His accomplishments and personna tell us much more. PS- sorry to make you feel old but I didn't see Roger the Dodger play either. PS: Since you never saw him, in terms of comparing qbs, picture Roger Staubach type touch with a stronger arm and even more accuracy. Did you see Staubach? I get the point of Namath being the most important QB of his generation. In regards to the whole importance of the AFL and his importance to the merger of the the AFL and NFL I get it. But you can't tell me that he was the best QB of his generation when there are guys like Starr and Tarkinton who blow Namath and his ON FIELD accomplishments out of the water. Namath scoring lots of hot chicks and partying didn't make him a better QB than Tarkinton or Starr (Who you never know maybe they were the Hugh Hefner of Minnesota and Green Bay but no one cared to follow their off field exploits). I get the aurora of Namath and the whole you had to be there thing. But once you separate yourself from who he was and look at what he did he wasn't that good (like I said a really good 4 year run and thats it). Most important QB of his generation yeah but don't pretend he was the best QB of his generation because it just isn't true. PS- I didn't see Rodger the Dodger play either hate to make you feel old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 No. But if he is or becomes the highest paid QB, than it is, what it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts