 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » brady v manning
shep1582
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DawsLe00.htm
Namath:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NamaJo00.htm
and Dawson took the Chiefs to two SB's, losing the first one to the Packers.
I think it's ridiculous to say Namath was anywhere near as good, quite frankly.
February 12, 2010 at 06:59AM View BBCode
Dawson:http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DawsLe00.htm
Namath:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NamaJo00.htm
and Dawson took the Chiefs to two SB's, losing the first one to the Packers.
I think it's ridiculous to say Namath was anywhere near as good, quite frankly.
dirtdevil
yes, you're right. sorry, i didn't mean to imply that plunkett had only the one, just that stabler wasn't there long enough to get two.
you could make a good case for that, i'd imagine. not in kc though, where they haven't had a quality qb for any length of time since he retired.
February 12, 2010 at 02:50PM View BBCode
Originally posted by shep1582
Plunkett beat both Philly and Washington.
yes, you're right. sorry, i didn't mean to imply that plunkett had only the one, just that stabler wasn't there long enough to get two.
Dawson's stats are incredible. Granted, he played in the AFL before they were filled with great defenses, but it's a joke for anyone to think Namath was in the same class, when you compare their accomplishments. The Chiefs win over the Vikings was just as surprising as the Jets over the Colts. No one thought they could beat the purple people eaters, and KC was a heavy underdog.
Dawson may be the most underappreciated QB of all time.
you could make a good case for that, i'd imagine. not in kc though, where they haven't had a quality qb for any length of time since he retired.
Tyles
February 12, 2010 at 04:34PM View BBCode
Everybody already gets that Joe Namath was an overrated coozehound in a mink coat.
tworoosters
First off I'm going to give the Namath haters the benefit of the doubt and assume they never saw him play, so they just look at the raw numbers and see a guy who completed 50% of his career passes and threw a lot of interceptions. With Namath you have to look past the numbers to appreciate the player, and his impact.
First off Namath, when healthy which was rare, was as complete a QB as ever played . Namath had an unbelievable arm and was the original "gunslinger", long before that guy now playing in Minnesota, Namath threw for 4,000 yards in an era when most QB's rarely threw for 3,000.
Without Namath the AFL would have struggled to continue, his signing with the Jets was the biggest coup in league history and the Jets win over Baltimore gave the league the credibility to create a merger. New York's win over Baltimore has a great deal more significance than KC's over Minnesota because it came first, while the NFL was considered unbeatable.
You simply cannot discount the impact Namath had on the media and the way he literally changed the QB position with his mobility, hard to believe if you only saw him play in the '70s .
I'm not alone in this, Namath, not Dawson, was voted the 1st team QB on the All AFC Team . Bear Bryant, who knew a bit about football talent, called Namath "the greatest athlete I ever coached.". Bill Walsh, who knew a bit about quarterbacks, said of Namath "he the most beautiful, accurate, stylish passer with the quickest release I've ever seen." and Don Shula called Namath "one of the three smartest quarterbacks of all time". When Roone Arledge launched Monday Night Football he insisted that the first game feature the Jets for one reason only - Namath
It's easy to look at the pure numbers and call Namath a hack .
It's hard to look past the drunken old guy trying to kiss a sideline reporter and remember that this guy was a media idol who changed the way his position was played and brought pro football to a level of public awareness it had never had before .
February 12, 2010 at 04:49PM View BBCode
I'm going to play a little game of Devil's Advocate here .First off I'm going to give the Namath haters the benefit of the doubt and assume they never saw him play, so they just look at the raw numbers and see a guy who completed 50% of his career passes and threw a lot of interceptions. With Namath you have to look past the numbers to appreciate the player, and his impact.
First off Namath, when healthy which was rare, was as complete a QB as ever played . Namath had an unbelievable arm and was the original "gunslinger", long before that guy now playing in Minnesota, Namath threw for 4,000 yards in an era when most QB's rarely threw for 3,000.
Without Namath the AFL would have struggled to continue, his signing with the Jets was the biggest coup in league history and the Jets win over Baltimore gave the league the credibility to create a merger. New York's win over Baltimore has a great deal more significance than KC's over Minnesota because it came first, while the NFL was considered unbeatable.
You simply cannot discount the impact Namath had on the media and the way he literally changed the QB position with his mobility, hard to believe if you only saw him play in the '70s .
I'm not alone in this, Namath, not Dawson, was voted the 1st team QB on the All AFC Team . Bear Bryant, who knew a bit about football talent, called Namath "the greatest athlete I ever coached.". Bill Walsh, who knew a bit about quarterbacks, said of Namath "he the most beautiful, accurate, stylish passer with the quickest release I've ever seen." and Don Shula called Namath "one of the three smartest quarterbacks of all time". When Roone Arledge launched Monday Night Football he insisted that the first game feature the Jets for one reason only - Namath
It's easy to look at the pure numbers and call Namath a hack .
It's hard to look past the drunken old guy trying to kiss a sideline reporter and remember that this guy was a media idol who changed the way his position was played and brought pro football to a level of public awareness it had never had before .
bpearly69
But like you said, he had a major impact on the game for sure, his numbers don't look great but I've never heard sport people ever say oh this guy was famous but his stats suck, seems all you hear is good things so I'm with ya on this one
February 12, 2010 at 05:04PM View BBCode
I never saw him play, his numbers weren't great just looking at them.But like you said, he had a major impact on the game for sure, his numbers don't look great but I've never heard sport people ever say oh this guy was famous but his stats suck, seems all you hear is good things so I'm with ya on this one
tm4559
(he played in an era, when, you know. the quarterback could actually get hit too. not like the babies they have now with that rating pumped up by the stupid rules.)
February 12, 2010 at 05:06PM View BBCode
namath was good. freaking alabama went to the pro set, just for him. he got banged up, and good, when he got to the pros. still he was good, on nothing for knees.(he played in an era, when, you know. the quarterback could actually get hit too. not like the babies they have now with that rating pumped up by the stupid rules.)
Jon
Here's the real answer to the so-called "debate." Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are both great players and you can't go wrong with having either guy on your team. The end.
February 12, 2010 at 05:16PM View BBCode
I thought this was supposed to be a joke thread? Jesus H. Christ, people.Here's the real answer to the so-called "debate." Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are both great players and you can't go wrong with having either guy on your team. The end.
sycophantman
February 12, 2010 at 05:28PM View BBCode
Jon is all sassy today, apparently. We can't all be Suzy Kolber, Jon, let it go.
Tyles
No one is discounting the impact of Super Bowl III and its role in legitimizing the AFL / contribution to the merger. And no one is discounting his impact as a media sensation. As a quarterback, he was slightly above average at best.
February 12, 2010 at 05:28PM View BBCode
Joe Namath led his league in passing three times. In two of those three years, he led his league in interceptions. He was top five in interceptions nine times, or each season in which he appeared in at least 11 games. His completion percentage was just a few ticks above league average; not once did he lead the league.No one is discounting the impact of Super Bowl III and its role in legitimizing the AFL / contribution to the merger. And no one is discounting his impact as a media sensation. As a quarterback, he was slightly above average at best.
shep1582
I made a thread about the game a week ago or so. I rewatched it, and the thing that stuck out to me was the series of gaffes the Colts made. Every freakin' time Baltimore got into scoring range, they turned the ball over. Earl Morrall and the Jets defense and running game won that game (hellooo Buddy Ryan). Namath played well, but he wasn't the key to victory.
All flowery glowing speechifying by former coaches aside, Dawson went to 2 SB's, Namath 1. While I know full well that the Jets victory was more monumental because it was first, the Vikings were as prohibitive a favorite as the Colts were. Everyone thought it was a fluke. Dawson and the Chiefs proved it wasn't.
As far as stats, you can't just lay that off as a sidebar. Dawson's stats dwarf Namath's in every conceivable way. It's like comparing Peyton to Eli. Lenny Dawson was a great QB, and I believe he's the best the AFC ever had, Bear Bryant be d@mned. What do you expect he's gonna say about Namath?
Dawson was also more durable than Namath. That's a huge factor. They did not protect the QB back then like they do now. Unless you hit him after the whistle, he was fair game. Namath missed a lot of playing time, and you can't just discount that.
Dawson wasn't flashy. Namath had a larger than life persona. I did see them both play, in person. In fact, Namath is a key reason I became a Cowboys fan. The first pro football game I ever witnessed in person was the Oilers/Jets 1968 game. My cub scout troop got free tickets. The Jets beat the Oilers 42-7, and Namath seemed to throw a TD on every play. That game left an indelible scar on my psyche. The Cowboys were well on their way becoming America's Team. The Oilers were a joke, so it was easy to love the Cowboys, and root for the Oilers, knowing they'd lose more often than they'd win. Their next winning season was '75 when Sid Gillman was brought in.
Anyway, I ain't trashin' Broadway Joe. He has his place in history, and he deserves it. But Dawson has better stats, his teams won more, he was way more durable, and I think he was a better QB by any statistical measure, and I'm sure I could find quotes talking about him like the ones you found for Joe.
February 12, 2010 at 05:30PM View BBCode
Because I like you, I'll play along. I agree with Namath's HOF induction. My dad told me that the Colts were going to annihilate the Jets, and sat in stunned disbelief when they didn't. It is very much akin to the "miracle on ice". But that game doesn't make Mike Arruzioni a HOF'er.I made a thread about the game a week ago or so. I rewatched it, and the thing that stuck out to me was the series of gaffes the Colts made. Every freakin' time Baltimore got into scoring range, they turned the ball over. Earl Morrall and the Jets defense and running game won that game (hellooo Buddy Ryan). Namath played well, but he wasn't the key to victory.
All flowery glowing speechifying by former coaches aside, Dawson went to 2 SB's, Namath 1. While I know full well that the Jets victory was more monumental because it was first, the Vikings were as prohibitive a favorite as the Colts were. Everyone thought it was a fluke. Dawson and the Chiefs proved it wasn't.
As far as stats, you can't just lay that off as a sidebar. Dawson's stats dwarf Namath's in every conceivable way. It's like comparing Peyton to Eli. Lenny Dawson was a great QB, and I believe he's the best the AFC ever had, Bear Bryant be d@mned. What do you expect he's gonna say about Namath?
Dawson was also more durable than Namath. That's a huge factor. They did not protect the QB back then like they do now. Unless you hit him after the whistle, he was fair game. Namath missed a lot of playing time, and you can't just discount that.
Dawson wasn't flashy. Namath had a larger than life persona. I did see them both play, in person. In fact, Namath is a key reason I became a Cowboys fan. The first pro football game I ever witnessed in person was the Oilers/Jets 1968 game. My cub scout troop got free tickets. The Jets beat the Oilers 42-7, and Namath seemed to throw a TD on every play. That game left an indelible scar on my psyche. The Cowboys were well on their way becoming America's Team. The Oilers were a joke, so it was easy to love the Cowboys, and root for the Oilers, knowing they'd lose more often than they'd win. Their next winning season was '75 when Sid Gillman was brought in.
Anyway, I ain't trashin' Broadway Joe. He has his place in history, and he deserves it. But Dawson has better stats, his teams won more, he was way more durable, and I think he was a better QB by any statistical measure, and I'm sure I could find quotes talking about him like the ones you found for Joe.
Tyles
February 12, 2010 at 05:33PM View BBCode
(It is outright R-word to suggest that Joe Namath was superior to Len Dawson. There's no reason to storm this hill.)
shep1582
ignore the thread if you think it's stupid.
February 12, 2010 at 05:39PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
just cuz you don't like me benne? you gotta be an r-word?
ignore the thread if you think it's stupid.
dirtdevil
February 12, 2010 at 05:44PM View BBCode
look, jeff hostettler just isn't getting enough credit in this thread. he has as many superbowls wins as len dawson and joe namath and has directed as many game-winning 4th quarter superbowl drives as toy aikman and steve young. therefore, jeff hostettler should be in the hall of fame.
tm4559
morral is actually the greatest QB of all time. he beat the colts almost singlehandedly that day.
February 12, 2010 at 05:44PM View BBCode
Originally posted by shep1582
I made a thread about the game a week ago or so. I rewatched it, and the thing that stuck out to me was the series of gaffes the Colts made. Every freakin' time Baltimore got into scoring range, they turned the ball over. Earl Morrall and the Jets defense and running game won that game (hellooo Buddy Ryan). Namath played well, but he wasn't the key to victory.
morral is actually the greatest QB of all time. he beat the colts almost singlehandedly that day.
tworoosters
Rypien was 5-2 (.714) in playoff games while Staubach was a laughable 11-6 (.647) and Dawson an even worse 5-3 (.625).
Namath, it should be noted was obviously better than Dawson or Staubach due to Namath's .667 winning percentage in playoff games, but even Namath was not as good as Rypien - you can't argue with the numbers.
Plus both Staubach and Dawson lost Super Bowls so they are both, well losers .
[Edited on 2-12-2010 by tworoosters]
February 12, 2010 at 05:52PM View BBCode
I still go with Mark Rypien, especially because he's Canadian .Rypien was 5-2 (.714) in playoff games while Staubach was a laughable 11-6 (.647) and Dawson an even worse 5-3 (.625).
Namath, it should be noted was obviously better than Dawson or Staubach due to Namath's .667 winning percentage in playoff games, but even Namath was not as good as Rypien - you can't argue with the numbers.
Plus both Staubach and Dawson lost Super Bowls so they are both, well losers .
[Edited on 2-12-2010 by tworoosters]
dirtdevil
February 12, 2010 at 05:54PM View BBCode
mark rypien was no jesse palmer. (thank goodness)
tm4559
sorry. his wife is a little bit on the league average side.
February 12, 2010 at 05:57PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
manning wins. Can we stop now?
sorry. his wife is a little bit on the league average side.
Tyles
February 12, 2010 at 05:58PM View BBCode
(Can we agree it's stupid to judge a quarterback solely on Super Bowl wins and playoff record, or must we belabor the point?)
tm4559
(we also shouldn't just take that QB rating as a straight ranking. it is a good place to start, i suppose.)
February 12, 2010 at 06:01PM View BBCode
we don't have to belabor it, no.(we also shouldn't just take that QB rating as a straight ranking. it is a good place to start, i suppose.)
Tyles
February 12, 2010 at 06:02PM View BBCode
(Has anyone cited QB rating in this thread? I tend to ignore that stat altogether, put particularly across eras.)
tm4559
February 12, 2010 at 06:09PM View BBCode
(sorry, i thought qb rating had to be the underlying assumption for the trashing of namath, since it is usually the first place they go. never said namath was better than dawson btw. just that he was good. and he was good. on the level with players like, i don't know. sonny jurgenson, maybe fouts, stabler, players like that.)