Personally, I did not see him play during his career, so maybe there was somethings I missed. I was looking into Hall-of-Famers one day and say Joe Namath. I was surprised at his unbelievably mediocre statistics: Here is what I found:
His record: 77 wins 108 losses and 3 ties, doesnt sound like hall of fame stats to me. Heck, its not even .500 football.
His .501 career completion percentage, man, is it just me or did Michael Vick threw better passes than this guy?
His 27 663 career passing yards, okay, its respectable, but even Jake Plummer threw 1590 more yards than this guy in only 3 more games.
His TD to INT ratio: 173-220. Wow, he threw more picks 47 more picks than TDs in his career. There are a bunchloads of guys who threw better TD to INT ratios and isnt in the hall.
Yes, I knew he garanteed the colts vs jets game, but all it proves is that this guy is confident in his abilities to lead his team, just like a lot of other QBs.
So why is he in the HOF?
2007-08-24 19:25:26 · 22 answers · asked by Blue Jay Z 4 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
I am not trying to critisize Namath in any way. I hope people will stop seeing this question as an "attack" on Joe. As I said before, I did not get to see him play.
Judging from stats, his "prime" was mediocre at best.
He did win the superbowl for the AFL, but according to wikipedia, his defense came up with 4 interceptions, so your really cant say he "singlehandly" won the superbowl for the AFL. Besides, I am pretty sure there are also other factors.
I am just simply saying what I saw, from stats and all, and ask the question.
I hope people will stop seeing this as an criticism to Namath.
2007-08-25 03:05:17 · update #1
Also, which season was considered his "prime", judging from stats again, i guess it would have been the 1969 one, where he completed 185 passes out of 361 attempts for 2734 yards and 19 tds and 17 picks.
2007-08-25 03:10:11 · update #2
I'm old enough to remember Namath at his best and at his worst. At his best, he was an above-average quarterback. After the injuries started wearing him down, he was absolutely horrible. Namath is in the Hall more because of his image then anything else. Yes, he won a Super Bowl at a time when nobody thought any AFL team could ever win one. But if Namath had spent his career playing for the Chargers, the Oilers, the Bengals or any of the other mediocre teams of his time, he would have been looked upon as an average quarterback at best. The fact that he played in New York certainly helped him, and the fact that he was quite the ladies man helped him even more. He was the face of the NFL for a few years, and certainly contributed to the game's popularity, but to me, he's just not a Hall of Fame player.
2007-08-25 03:58:13 · answer #1 · answered by artistictrophy@sbcglobal.net 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Joe Namath Hall Of Fame
2016-12-12 11:58:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Joe Namath Stats
2016-09-28 00:46:53 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This Site Might Help You.
RE:
Why is Joe Namath in the Hall Of Fame?
Personally, I did not see him play during his career, so maybe there was somethings I missed. I was looking into Hall-of-Famers one day and say Joe Namath. I was surprised at his unbelievably mediocre statistics: Here is what I found:
His record: 77 wins 108 losses and 3 ties, doesnt sound like...
2015-08-07 17:13:38 · answer #4 · answered by Logan 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If what everyone said here is true (yes 8 years ago), if he was put in the Hall of Fame for him being a pioneer for the sport, being the man for placing the Super Bowl on the map, SURE! I'm all for it! But him being in as a player? Just because he had a good game in the superbowl (17 for 28, 206 yards, which is maybe OK), doesn't make the rest of his career as a QB HOF worthy!
People say just some QBs today wouldn't last 5 years in 60's and 70's NFL...well he wouldn't have been on a team after 5 years.
2015-09-30 12:22:14 · answer #5 · answered by Aminal 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Johnny Unitas is considered one of the greatest if not THE greatest of all time.. He had about 40 more tds than interceptions.. His percentage was a little over 50 percent. The game was different.. Grinding it out. Playing smart. ZERO protection for the QB.. Peyton Manning would be paralyzed from all the hits his back would have taken in Unitas day.. Or Namath's day. Drew Brees would NOT have survived 5 seasons. Today's game is SO inflated.. Put Namath OR Unitas into today's game and they are 50000 to 60000 yard career passers with HUGE td totals.. Namath changed the game. Passed for over 4000 yards when 3000 was virtually UNHEARD of. When people talk about a quarterback, their is a reason they say things like: "He is GOOD but he is no Johnny U." The quarterbacks are SUPER inflated today. To the point of being ridiculous..
2014-03-26 01:20:47 · answer #6 · answered by P D 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The biggest thing was that the Jets were the first AFL team to win the super bowl. After Namath QB'd the Jets to the biggest upset in American Football history the 2 leagues finally combined to the NFL that we now know. Prior to that, the AFL was thought to be inferior.
2007-08-24 19:36:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
If you£In the event that you} realized a premier doing baseball staff was playing an underperforming one, the obvious bet will be on the best performing team. But what if your plumped for group only sidelined their three most readily useful people through recent incidents would they be this type of strong competitor to gain that match now? Zcodes System, from here https://tr.im/eqRY1 , will give you all that type of information to be able to have better likelihood of winning the bets.
The sports in Zcodes System are picked in order that allow you to take part in large quantity betting at bookies because of their reputation and are opted for using around 80 different variables that govern each game such as for instance: person situations, incidents, team variety, home or out team, goalies, past performance, predicted potential efficiency, instructors, events, importance of match, rivalries and much more
That is the place where a little bit of information can and typically may derail you and where a large amount of in-depth, as much as the moment information can cause you to a winner. Time and time again.
2016-05-14 10:04:22 · answer #8 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have to keep in mind that a lot of those stats were accumulated well after his prime. Have you watched Favre lately? Namath basically didn't have any knees for the second half of his career. His numbers in his prime were very good. That offense was near unstoppable when he was young.
2007-08-24 22:37:57 · answer #9 · answered by Buy Sam a Drink 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why am I defending Joe Namath?
Namath pre-1970 97 TDs 104 Ints 1.07 int./TD ratio
Namath post-1972 (not counting Rams in 1977) 63 TDs 93 ints 1.48 int./TD ratio
Namath should have retired when injured. Hindsight, however, is 20/20.:D )
(Yes, Interceptions to TDs. :D I’m not saying he was good, I’m saying he became horrid after the injury.)
He also became the poster boy for the AFL merger “proving” they were as good as the NFL.
Also keep in mind all QB stats before Montana are a bit screwy by our standards. (Higher ints. and higher ypa) He lead the league many of those “pitiful” years.
For raw data:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/NamaJo00.htm
2007-08-25 00:25:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋