Joe Namath - HOF - Can someone explain why please?

[Tom 1860]

Hello all,

I don't get this, he predicted a famous win (and then led his team to victory), he gave the AFL some hype/credibility...

I can think of a few retired QB's who will never make the HOF, but led their team to a SB victory (Hostetler, Rypien, Brad Johnson, Dilfer, Plunkett) and just about all of them had better stats. I can also think of three of others who likely don't make the HOF (Eli Manning, Flacco and Wilson), although it is tough to predict.

I know about the women, the alcohol and the celebrity (notoriety?), but its not like this guy had the playing talent of LT, so they just went with the on field stuff. It seems to me that it went the other way and the on field stuff was ignored with 'Broadway Joe' and the voters went with the fame?

I have no idea why this is in my head right now...

[Pruitt]

My father always said that namath was one of the greatest QBs he'd ever seen. Compare his stats with others of that era and then think about what he symbolized to the league.

That would be an intangible asset. I mean, if you were to just look at stats, than why is Gale Sayers in the HOF? Or Marion Motley?

[Tom 1860]

My father always said that namath was one of the greatest QBs he'd ever seen. Compare his stats with others of that era and then think about what he symbolized to the league.

That would be an intangible asset. I mean, if you were to just look at stats, than why is Gale Sayers in the HOF? Or Marion Motley?

I know he had the 1st ever 4,000 yard season as a passer, but I also know he only threw more TD's than picks during 1 of his 12 professional seasons.

I think the point with Sayers was that he had 3.5 huge seasons, then injury struck and despite having one more great season following the injury, he was done...

It weird looking back at stuff without having been around when it actually happened. I suppose I shouldn't really get into it, but Namath always made me think of George Best without the talent. It was great for the media and Namath helped promote his sport by being on the front page of every newspaper. The difference with George Best is that he was also on the back pages every week due to his sporting ability and was without doubt the best player of his generation.

[DSafetyGuy]

Players and coaches from that era (1960's-70's, generally) cite the difference in how football was played then. The passing game was completely different. Much more physical pass coverage was allowed and passing offenses were designed to be higher-risk downfield throws instead of the short-range passes that are an extension of the run game that most teams employ now.

In the AFL in 1968, only three of ten teams had more touchdown passes than interceptions (9 of 16 NFL teams did). Namath's Jets were one of those three teams and they only had one more TD than pick. As a whole, the AFL averaged an interception every 17.8 pass attempts. The NFL rate for that season was one interception every 18.3 attempts. In 2013, there was one interception every 36.1 attempts.

In that same season, the AFL as a whole completed 47.4% of all passes and the average yards per completion was 14.6 yards. The NFL was at 51.6% and 13.6 yards/completion. Last season, 61.2 % of all NFL passes were complete and 11.6 yards per completion.

Stats for all QBs, not just Namath, pale in comparison to what we've seen for the last few decades.

[kranepool]

I can also think of three of others who likely don't make the HOF (Eli Manning)

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Wait. You were serious?

[Tom 1860]

I can also think of three of others who likely don't make the HOF (Eli Manning)

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Wait. You were serious?

DSG was just talking comparative stats from different decades and offensive/defensive philosophies and rules... To which I say, Eli Manning has 2 rings, but I am not convinced that in the era of pass happy offenses and defenseless pass defenses, he is up to the mark either. He does not have a great passer rating and he has thrown hell of a lot of picks.

With the rule changes helping passers, does every QB with good (not great stats) make the HoF from now on? Big brother, Brady, Brees are locks, but is Eli. I can see that, but I don't have to agree.

Charles Haley has 5 rings and he is not in the HoF, so entry should have nothing to do with winning SBs. It does have hell of a lot to do with winning SBs, but it shouldn't.

If he gets in, he gets in and I would understand why. I am just saying that I am obviously not as impressed with him as you are.

[rass]

Charles Haley has 5 rings and he is not in the HoF, so entry should have nothing to do with winning SBs. It does have hell of a lot to do with winning SBs, but it shouldn't.

I'm sure you know this, but given that statement on Haley it should be thrown out there that QBs are judged differently from everyone else, especially by the sort of old school sports reporters who still hold the keys to the kingdom in the HOF.

[Tom 1860]

Charles Haley has 5 rings and he is not in the HoF, so entry should have nothing to do with winning SBs. It does have hell of a lot to do with winning SBs, but it shouldn't.

I'm sure you know this, but given that statement on Haley it should be thrown out there that QBs are judged differently from everyone else, especially by the sort of old school sports reporters who still hold the keys to the kingdom in the HOF.

To qualify what I was saying... For QBs, SB wins are key, for everyone else they matter not. I would prefer that SBs have very little impact upon voting, but I am not that stupid.

The fact that Peter King (lets see if that Swamp thing still works) gets a big fat say in this really grinds my gears.

[Yard of Junk]

Hello all,

I don't get this, he predicted a famous win (and then led his team to victory), he gave the AFL some hype/credibility...

I can think of a few retired QB's who will never make the HOF, but led their team to a SB victory (Hostetler, Rypien, Brad Johnson, Dilfer, Plunkett) and just about all of them had better stats. I can also think of three of others who likely don't make the HOF (Eli Manning, Flacco and Wilson), although it is tough to predict.

I know about the women, the alcohol and the celebrity (notoriety?), but its not like this guy had the playing talent of LT, so they just went with the on field stuff. It seems to me that it went the other way and the on field stuff was ignored with 'Broadway Joe' and the voters went with the fame?

I have no idea why this is in my head right now...

If you have a chance, watch the documentary "Namath" that was on HBO a few years ago. Interesting for exactly how much of an icon he was, but also for the football footage. What surprised me the most was some old college footage from Alabama. The guy could run before he blew out his knee.

[sancarlos]

Joe Namath really didn't do much in the second half of his NFL career. But, he certainly got points for greatly helping legitimize the AFL. First by signing with them out of college during a time when that was rare for big-time college stars, then for putting up passing stats (although it should be noted that the AFL was much more pass-happy than the NFL), then for the AFL's shocking win in the third Super Bowl. It really was shocking in the day, as they were huge underdogs, and the old guard dismissed the quality of AFL football. You can understand that from Jerry Kramer's Instant Replay, which was written after the second Super Bowl. I think the fact that he was beloved by the New York City media played a big part in his legacy, too. In sum, I think Namath deserves the HOF, but more for off-field reasons, than on-field.

[Shirley]

I can also think of three of others who likely don't make the HOF (Eli Manning)

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Wait. You were serious?

That is a very precise statistic that makes Eli look as good as possible. All of those QBs played in and/or won at least twice as many championships (I say that instead of "Super Bowl" for Bart Starr's sake) than Eli. It's a bit misleading to just use Super Bowl MVP there. Also, all of those guys led teams that pretty much dominated the league for a decade or so.

Eli's Giants were surprise winners both times they won the Super Bowl. His Giants have never been the best team in the league and they've only won 10+ regular season games 4 times in his career.

That said, he'll probably make the HOF and he probably deserves it, but he's not in the company of those guys above.

[The Sybian]

I can also think of three of others who likely don't make the HOF (Eli Manning)

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Wait. You were serious?

That is a very precise statistic that makes Eli look as good as possible. All of those QBs played in and/or won at least twice as many championships (I say that instead of "Super Bowl" for Bart Starr's sake) than Eli. It's a bit misleading to just use Super Bowl MVP there. Also, all of those guys led teams that pretty much dominated the league for a decade or so.

Eli's Giants were surprise winners both times they won the Super Bowl. His Giants have never been the best team in the league and they've only won 10+ regular season games 4 times in his career.

That said, he'll probably make the HOF and he probably deserves it, but he's not in the company of those guys above.

I don't think Eli is a shoe-in for the HoF at all. I wouldn't vote for him. He is good to very good, but by no means great. I can only recall one stand out season for Eli, and several bad ones. I think too much weight is placed on winning Super Bowls for QBs. I get why, and I think it matters more fro QBs than any other position, but winning 2 SBs alone doesn't make a HoF career. I wouldn't say Eli was the main reason the Giants one either of his SBs. The first one was clearly the defense leading the way.

[mister d]

If the Ravens win the Super Bowl this year, will Flacco just be coasting out the rest of his HoF career from 2015 through retirement?