Joe Namath...The Most Overrated Hall Of Famer Ever?

For some guys, overall impact on the game trumps stats.

I could not agree more

in the football's biggest stage warrants a possible HOF induction???

This has been discussed before. I, too, question his HOF legitimacy, but you can't understate the SB win. It was one of the biggest upsets in professional sports history, it literally saved the AFL and forced the merger. The AFL was also much more of a long ball league, so QB's generally had more INT's and lower completion %'s.

However, on the flip side, that postseason represented the ONLY postseason victories of his career, and the SB win had more to do with Matt Snell and the Jet D than Namath. I still think he didn't deserve to get in.

you cant really correlated past numbers to this day in age when it is a "different game"...but a QB should be valued on Wins and Losses no matter the era; a 62-63 career record isnt excusable. If Broadway Joe played in this day and age his numbers are more comparable to Jon Kitna type of a career than a HOFer

cmon man. SB 42 was great, but Namath's victory over the Colts is a cornerstone of the NFL legacy

keep in mind the sport hasn't quite evolved to the pass happy league that we're in now. he recorded the 1st 4000 yard season. that's pretty impressive considering it only took him 14 games. i doubt many of you could even name a jets receiver when he played without having to google it.

1. Career stats for QBs back then were not, in general, as good as they are today.

2. If the Giants - Colts 1958 championship game was one major step towards the modern NFL, Joe Namath and his contract resulting from the AFL-NFL competition was another major step. Near the end of career, with knees that were ridiculously bad, there was an unwritten rule that nobody took shots at Joe's knees. He made all those DL too much money to permit it.

He obviously got in because of the guarantee and the overall impact of that game. Don't think any other victory in Football history compares though.
Namath came along at a great moment to get inducted.

You can't compare the Giants win with the Jets'. The Jets win was a tsunami on the sports landscape, nobody expected it. not only that, but it saved the AFL, and was the single most important factor in the merger.

Don Maynard and George Sauer Jr.. No Google necessary and they were a fairly talented duo.

I don't know if I'd call Namath a great QB because the term is used way too loosely and because much of his career was diminished by injury but if you ever saw him play, you wouldn't have any questions. And, the bigger the stage and moment the better he was. He had an incredibly release and a major league arm. I love Phil Simms but he's not in Namath's class.

It's not like Namath was throwing to scrubs.

one of the best marketing tools and a flamboyant image that brought the league to a whole new audience. I think barring injuries he could've had better numbers. I think he got in for his personna more than his performance.

Surprising how often fans sidestep the title itself. Few players have achieved the "fame" that Namath has due to "the guarantee."

There are plenty of guys who looked like great QB's, but didn't always play that way. As for "playing well on a big stage", umm, when? Other than the '69 season, the Jets never won shit. No postseason wins outside of that season.

Namath's numbers don't fare well even compared to his contemporaries. He was the classic gunslinger, but more often than not, shot his team in the foot.

at the younger BBIers. My point remains that that's a completely different era, you can't just compare him to someone playing now and say you don't understand how he could get into the HOF. Johnny Unitas' career QBR is 78.2, he had a lengthy career, but his numbers will never jump out at you and wow you.

It's clear he made it for one reason - SB III. You can talk different eras all you want, but throwing 47 more interceptions than touchdowns is not HOF caliber in any era. Look at him versus his contemporaries - Dawson, Griese, Lamonica, Gabriel, Tarkenton.....none of those guys threw more picks than touchdowns, and they all played in the same era.

Comparing George to Namath is comparing Billy Wagner to Mariano (not that Namath is as good as Mariano). They're not in the same league in any way.

if a QB is HOF worthy based upon one win, albeit a milestone one only diminshes the credibilty of Canton...

I was never a Broadway Joe guy, but then again I was to young to see much of his career, although the Suzy Colber thing made me like him a little more....

but at some point, the HOF has to be about production. I remember the SB win, it was a landscape changing event, so I can see people giving it considerable weight. I just don't think the rest of his career measures up.

1-those who make their case via stats

2-those that saw him play

I saw him play..He belongs

can throw out. He is a historical football player and deserves to be a HOF'er

go watch some of the games and his college career too. Unfortunately he played for the Jets.

?

and for the record - Phil Simms threw 199 TDs versus 157 INTs

the merger already took place - the win helped to legitmize the AFL and propel the NFL into what it is today. Also he was one of the first big name college stars in 1964 who signed with the AFL and did not sign with the NFL team that drafted him. So yeah it was more about the history than the stats.

But don't try to sell me on him belonging for what he did on the field.

as well. from everything i gather, his knees failed on him and cost him some prime years. It's rather unfair to compare eras when the league was in its infancy, the game hasn't quite evolved where you can make apples to apples valuations of players in a different time period, and then throw in 2 extra games you have skewed yardage totals as well.

the merger had already been agreed to, even if the official agreement hadn't been signed. And the Jets signing Namath was the first blood drawn between the leagues, so he certainly influenced the merger.

Injuries are injuries. Mark Bavaro would've been in the Hall of Fame with good knees. Life sucks sometimes.


I grew up worshipping Don Mattingly. I had a Mattingly jersey. I had a Mattingly model glove (even though I've never played first base in my life), I had the Mattingly "Hit Man" poster, I had Mattingly rookie cards, I went to Don Mattingly Day when they retired his jersey. For 4 seasons, Mattingly was the best player in baseball. Then he hurt his back, was never the same player, and thus does not belong in the HOF. Much as I love the guy, I can admit that. I'm sorry that Joe Namath's career suffered as the result of his injuries, but it's not the Hall of Guys Who Had The Talent If They'd Remained Healthy.

My reaction to the posts here is based on evaluating him based on statistics. Maybe there are those here who saw him play in college and the Jets and didn't think he was anything special (and by the way I am a Jet hater). I saw him play both and, in my opinion, if he was reasonably healthy, he would have been one of the immortals. But, that's just an opinion because he was never reasonably healthy. He had horrible knees throughout. I could be wrong about this but I think that a professional QB who saw Namath play would say that he was a special player and there is no doubt that he belongs in the HOF statistics aside. I think that those who know the game would rate him that high.

but others will point to the fact that Mattingly never got to the postseason. Another example would be Sandy Koufax. Absolutely dominant for 4-5 years, won a couple of championships, but a bad elbow shortened his career. He's in, and deservedly so. I just don't think Namath had the number of dominant seasons someone like Koufax had.

He was a new kind of player. He made football a part of the larger American culture, more important than just the sport. His impact was large and undeniable.

but he had a 3 year window where he was throwing the ball as well as anybody in terms of yardage and TD's. how's a 4000 yard season not dominant when you're playing in a 14 game season?

The game was huge and Namaths performance in it was good but relatively forgettable.

When one asks the question, "Specifically, why is he in the HoF?" what is the answer?

Because of the guarantee? Because he played a good but certainly not great game?

What if he was quiet leading up to the game and went 17-28 with 206 yds and 0/0? He just plays a Trent Dilfer type game and he is in because he made the guarantee?

That SB win was the most influential win in NFL history, no doubt about it and that is a team distinction for the Jets. The HoF is an individual distinction.

Mattingly got to the postseason in 1995 and actually had a monster series including a Game 2 HR and a Game 5 double, both which gave the Yankees the lead. They would have made it to the ALCS had Blackjack McDowell not crapped all over himself.

But blame for the 1995 ALDS rests largely with John Wetteland (who the Mariners absolutely owned) and Buck Showalter, for leaving Cone in Game 5 when he was clearly totally gassed and let the Mariners tie the game.

say fuck the stats. He should be in the HoF.

Why even have voters.

and the stats do not tell the story. But for you guys that are downplaying how bad the stats are, you cannot just say "I saw him play and he is a HoF QB" and act like we are the ones off our rocker because those are some terrible numbers. 62-63? 220 INTs vs 173 TDs? That is awful...

So can someone convince me why he is a HoF QB? What did he do that would make you ignore his losing record and terrible numbers? Please do not involve his personality either.

You have stats make your own call. All has been said above. If that doesn't meet your calculated standards, then so be it; nothing can be said to change your mind. But he is in the HoF so the voters think he deserved it.

But they're not meaningless. I think we got a good firsthand look this season at how damaging turnovers are to a football team's ability to win. He didn't have a great winning record. He had a short prime due to injuries. Like I said, it's pretty clear that he made it for impact on the game rather than performance.

different era where stats dont tell the whole story. A definite Hall of famer.

was a big part of the merge. And that game. On stats alone, not even close.

Lynn Swann got lucky because of the big stage. I always thought Stallworth was better. Just not prettier doing it. Jimmy Smith wasn't that far off Swann's talent and most people have no idea he was their 3rd WR.

Terrel Davis? Nope

How about the Ron Guidry vs Koufax similar stat argument. One is an obvious HOF'r and the other isn't. There are circumstances and Namath had enough to get in...

Why does Namath compare unfavorably to the top QBs of his era? Go and look up guys like Unitas, Dawson, Griese, Lamonica, Gabriel, Tarkenton, Staubach....hell, Earl Morrall threw almost as many TDs as Namath - and had more TDs than INTs, too.

The 1958 Jints - Colts overtime game and Joe Namath winning SB III those were two huge events and for Namath that got him into the HoF.

You can either get in on stats. Or you need to be especially memorable.

Namath was especially memorable. The ironic thing is that he was so drunk on the night of the alleged "Guarantee," that he was barely coherent.

And that's fine. I can buy that.

be a good comparison, but look at Gayle Sayres he played 5 good years in the NFL and is in the Hall Of Fame. Terrelle Davis has similar stats and was as dominant for as many seasons as Sayers and isn't in the NFLHOF. Gayle Sayers was a dominant runner and brought noteriety to the NFL with his dominance

it was by no means unusual in the 60's for a top qb to have as many or more int's than td passes.

These guys played under a different set of rules. Receivers could be hit until the ball was in the air; pass blockers had to keep their hands inside their shoulders; pass rushers could head slap the pass blockers; there was no in-the-grasp rule; no intentional grounding outside the tackles; roughing the passer was an occupational hazard; no throwing the ball out of bounds to escape the rush.

To compare completion percentages and int's from that era is an injustice to qb's who had to play under an entirely different set of rules than today.

Namath was one of the best qb's in pro football. He threw for over 4,000 yards in 1967- and it took 12 years, a 16 game season and rules changes for someone to break his record by 80 yards.

Namath was also a skilled tactician (qb's called their own plays) and a deadly long passer. He's not in the HOF solely for SB III. The Super Bowl victory was confirmation of his merits as a leader, tactician and passer just as SB IV was confirmation of Lenny Dawson's. It is a shame that destroyed knees and the deterioration of the Jets after 1969 robbed him of some of his legacy.

where his passing numbers were right up there with those guys. i think his 4000 yard season was the most impressive, that was unheard of and unapproached until Dan Fouts 12 years later.

some great points.

says it best Namath was ahead of his time as a passer!

.

to all! who spell out the case that he was ahead of his time!
;-)

TD/INTs

Dawson - 239/183
Griese - 192/172
Unitas - 290/253
Staubach - 153/109
Gabriel - 201/149
Lamonica - 164/138
Starr - 152/138
Jurgensen - 255/189

Same era.

i doubt any of those QB's had a better 3 year window than Namath's 1966-1968 season. like Favre, you'll have accept his interceptions, but he could throw the ball.

.

he didn't make it in the HOF for being chopped liver. you guys are acting like Trent Dilfer got in for making a guarantee.

make the srgument that if Phil Simms had another Super Bowl he'd be in, if he didn't go down right before SB25 who knows!

That's cool and all, but....

Namath:
1966 - 49%, 3379 yards, 19 TDs, 27 INTs
1967 - 52%, 4007 yards, 26 TDs, 28 INTs
1968 - 49%, 3147 yards, 15 TDs, 17 INTs

Lamonica:
1967 - 52%, 3228 yards, 30 TDs, 20 INTs
1968 - 49%, 3245 yards, 25 TDs, 15 INTs
1969 - 52%, 3302 yards, 34 TDs, 25 INTs

Oh, and Lamonica's record as starter in those three years was 36-4-1, versus Namath's 29-12-1. They were pretty much equals in that time period as far as performance goes. Yes, the Super Bowl does give Namath an edge - even though he didn't play particularly well in it.

for getting off topic. I just think that aside from Namath's stats yes the SB played a big part in his getting into the HOF

believing that he is not overrated.

It would be one thing if he put the Jets on his shoulders and beat the Colts on his own. But by all accounts it was the running game and the defense that won the game.

If one game (had they lost) can keep him out then I do not think one game can get him in. Especially considering I think we would call his performance forgettable compared to other facets of the game. Good not great.

wasn't he known to be a pretty prolific passer for the time period he was in? He wouldn't have got in without a Super Bowl, but he was as good as anybody else for a brief period.

minds of those who think he should be in and we are not going to change the minds of those who think it is a calculation. Ergo, this is not worth arguing about.

How many of the people who are knocking him ever saw him play? Not saying that if you saw him, you'd say he was a definite HOF but he's not one of those who are just stat QBs. There are QBs out there who can be bad for 3 quarters and throw 2 TDs at the end to win the game. To me, Namath was that type of a QB. I think he did well in clutch situations. I also recall hearing Phil Simms say that Parcells told him that you'll never be a great QB if you're not afraid to throw interceptions. Something like you have to force the ball sometimes. Maybe I'm off a little on the quote but that was his point. Again, I hate the Jets but the stats don't give Namath his due.

I think you're really minimizing what he's accomplished. Who cares if his stats didn't wow you in the Super Bowl. He still made no mistakes in that particular game, and they won. I'm not sure if you understand how heavily favored Baltimore was going into that Super Bowl. That's like if Stan Humphries guaranteed that the Chargers would beat the 49ers in 1994.

albeit in the latter half of his career (I was 8 when they won the SB). There is no denying his talent, but the landscape is full of guys who had spectacular talent, but ordinary results. However, I also understand how he helped revolutionize the passing game, and, as I've mentioned numerous times, the legacy of the landmark SB win.

At the end of the day, though, you are what your record says you are. Sub-.500 career record, no postseason wins outside of that remarkable SB run, and very poor completion % and TD/INT ratios (yes, even for his era) tell me he doesn't quite measure up.

I didn't see Johnny U play for the latter half of his career either, but there is no doubt in my mind that he was a HOF'er.

would not measure up to Namath's guarantee. I've thought long and hard about it, but I cannot think of anything that approaches it. More akin would be if Mike Eruzioni had predicted the US hockey win over the USSR in 1980. The Jets win was that unexpected.

around here is just getting silly.. Namath is in the HoF and deserves to be there...

Indeed he was - after all, his nickname was the Mad Bomber. My point is simply that I've never heard anyone opine that Lamonica should be in the Hall, but he stacks up pretty damn well to Namath in his prime - and Namath's brief peak period and SB III are the reasons he's in the Hall. Nothing Namath did after 1969 got him enshrined.

If they had lost that SB and the game was not iconic, would he be in the HoF?

If the answer is no, then using the same logic, I do not think he should be in because they won. And certainly not because of the guarantee. It was great for football but it should not get you in the HoF.

They won because of the running game and defense. Yes, he played mistake free football and that was a big part of it but is it big enough to put him in the HoF?

Even by the era's standards his production was less than others that are not in the HoF. Not just TD/INT ratio but wins/losses which is a statistic that transcends generations.

If he had a boring personality and played in a boring market he doesn't sniff the HoF. And to me, a great personality should not get you in just as a boring personality should not keep you out.

was as unexpected. So if Tom Seaver pitched .500 ball the rest of his career, would he be in the HOF? No way. And anyone who saw him pitch would say he looked like a HOF pitcher.

the NY press corps whooping up enthusiasm for him.
His initial $400,000. contract was an historic first.
It's hard to beat the NY press when they want to make someone a hero.
I had great admiration for Joe Namath when he injured himself making a tackle in a PRE-SEASON GAME.
Not smart, but dedicated to the game.

The NFL AFL Merger merger was in 1970 but the NFL AFL Merger agreement was finalized in 1966 so any outcome of this game would not have effected anything.

Was what got him in, imo.(shameless ref to the song)

Namath was an icon in need within the big apple. The AFL needed someone to carry the torch. The players union needed players like him to but more coin in theier pockets.

I spoke to doctors who has worked on him and they said he never would have been given his first deal if they really looked at him closer and in more detail.

Kind of like Mantle hurt early on in his career never really hurt anyone, played the icon role well even if he really did not care to, and played hurt to the best of his ability. Everyone who saw him play also though wow, and just think if he was really healthy too.

Men at that time wanted to be him, or like him, or hang with him, Ladies wanted him.

I also remember Namath....he was a gunslinger.....because of that, only one year in his career did he throw more td's than int's.....from 67-69, he was awesome......when he was healthy, with good knees, he scared the crap out of you.....But you must remember, most of the qb's at that time had a lot of ints, especially in the AFL, which attracted it's fans based on the offensive show they would put on....

But the knees went south, and has been mentioned before, really did nothing after '69, though he did have a couple of "good" seasons in his last 8 years......

Without a doubt, the SB victory was huge.....you have to remember, at that time, the AFL was looked down upon by the NFL.....after all, hadn't the NFL won the first two SB's by lopsided scores? I think the Colts were a 2 td favorite....Earl Morrall, was MVP, 26tds/17ints/57%/2909yds.......Namath in comparison was 15tds/17ints/49%/3147yds......

The Colt defense was the best in football.....How could they possibly lose? But lose they did.....but maybe the football Gods had something to do with it. too....Morrall led them to 3 td chances in the first half, and came up shooting blanks.....A sure TD pass, bounced off a TE in the endzone for an int in the endzone.....a bad throw by Morrall was intercepted at the 2.....and then the flea flicker.....just before the half, the Colts got into Jets territory.....this play was called earlier in the year, and Jimmy Orr caught it all alone near the endzone for a td.....same play called, and for some reason Morrall threw it to another back, and it was intercepted.....Jimmy Orr was all alone near the endzone, and Morrall said he didn't see him.....so instead of of a 7-0 game at the half, it could have been at least 7-7, or even 14-7 or 21-7, but the usually unflappable Colts didn't make the plays, and the Jets did....Colts then brought in Unitas, in the last quarter, which I thought was a mistake, but Johnny was a shell of himself.....

Namath didn't have a great game, 17/29, 0 tds, 0 ints, 195 yards(net).....As mentioned, it was more the opportunistic Jet defense and Snell that won that game.....

But Joe gets the credit, because he guaranteed it.....if he never did(rumor has it, alcohol had a lot to do with it) make that guarantee, would he be in the HOF?

He still might have.....Good example was Gayle Sayers....really only played 4 seasons, yet is in the Hall? Why? Because when he had two good legs under him, he was one of the greatest......the same arguement could be made for Namath too, if he had two good legs.....because when he did, he was one of the best....

Fairy Tale is, that Joe caused the merger after that game....false....fact is, Joe caused the merger when he signed, at that time, a huge contract coming out of college in 1965....a lot of the NFL's big name draft choices were being signed by the AFL....the NFL saw themselves losing money competing for these players...that's what eventually caused the agreement to merge in June of 1966.....

Lamonica should be in the HOF. The Mad Bomber and Namath were the two guys that scared the shit out of opposing defenses.

I think he made the HOF for historical reasons. He was the 1st pick of the draft in both NFL and AFL. He was also credited with helping bring about the merger. As far as talent is concerned he had a great and accurate arm. On the negative side he couldn't read defenses and didn't call audables. Whatever passing play he called he threw regardless
of the coverage. This would explain the high amount of interceptions.

because AFL continued to compete after Jets won SB.

Had Jets lost, it may have been much tougher to attract talent without over paying for it. Some AFL teams might have folded.

So Namath got in( got votes) because he was a "poster player" for the AFL to keep AFL going after Jest won SB.

A number of HOF members are in because of what they did to promote the NFL game of football.

Simms only played the QB position... in time he may get votes and get into the HOF via his bradcast contribution as well as his play.

why he has a Hall of Fame bust