SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com ยป Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
ShareThisJoe Namath is a legitimate Hall of Fame Quarterback
If you haven't been keeping up with the comments to the previous post about amazing stats and context, well, shame on you, because there has been a lot of interesting discussion about a lot of things. One of the things that came up was a discussion of player talent with some references to Joe Namath. I'm going to just quote some comments from BSK, responding to JWL:
Are you we thinking of the same Joe Namath? He of the 173/220 TD/INT ratio? Of the 62-63-4 record as a starter? Of the career completion percentage of 50.1%? Of the career 65.5 passer rating? And while perhaps Namath would have had a better career despite his injury, the fact is the injury happened, his career numbers were pretty poor, and by no legitimate statistical measure can you say he was a legit HoF. Take away the story of Super Bowl III and his personality and it wouldn't even be up for discussion. And that is the problem with the HoF.
And later . . .
Now, what happened on the field obviously went better for Namath than (Bo) Jackson, but neither really did anything particularly exceptional when it's all said and done with. My point was that there are supremely talented players who, for one reason or another, don't live up to that talent (or the perception of their talent). Unfortunately, we cannot give them credit for what they did not actually accomplish. Namath gets no bonus points for what might have been had he not hurt his leg before he even got to the NFL, just like Jackson gets no bonus points for what might have been. To say that Namath was a top 5 QB and then say that my statistical demonstration of exactly why he wasn't is off the mark is laughable at best.
If you read the title of this post, you might correctly guess that I am going to try to show that by legitimate statistical measures, Namath was a legitimate Hall of Famer. While I am quoting BSK here, because he just happens to be the one making comments in a post this week, I don't think he is exactly in the minority. I see lots of comments about Joe Namath not being a Hall of Fame caliber quarterback, or talking about how bad his numbers were. Joe Posnanski wrote about Namath and his "shockingly bad" numbers on his blog two years ago.
I guess I should first point out that Chase Stuart wrote a series of posts on the Greatest Quarterbacks of All-Time last summer, and in the most recent version, Namath ranked #24 all-time. Now, Chase is a Jets fan, so perhaps you think that Chase, just because he sponsors Namath's player page at PFR, was cooking the books to make Namath look better. Actually, we had a lot of discussion behind the scenes about that series. Chase was contemplating including a completion percentage calculation as part of the updated formula, and I am actually the one who deterred him by showing him some numbers about teams with similar YPA's and different completion percentages, and the resulting win/loss and points scored. I should probably do a separate post on that this off-season, so I'll just say that for now, it didn't appear that including completion percentage would actually better measure value. Namath, as we know, had a relatively low completion percentage, so including that would have lowered him in the rankings.
So, we see that in what I would hope would pass as a legitimate statistical measure, Joe Namath ranks as a valid Hall of Famer, even without "the guarantee" and the New York media. So let's break down that a little further and discuss why some think he is not, and why I think he is.
1. When we cite things like quarterback rating, completion percentage, and interception ratio, we are going to find that they do not favor Namath. Of course, quarterback rating is over-reliant on completion percentage, and interception percentage also plays a big factor, so mentioning those things and also citing qb rating is redundant.
2. As we know, qb rating does not include sack percentage, though I argued a few months ago that it should. This also disfavors Namath when we cite qb rating, because he had a quick release, which is statistically confirmed by his extremely low sack percentage relative to his era.
3. I talked about quarterback personality types this summer and one of the traits I used was the Gambler trait. If you threw more interceptions and more incompletions because you were avoiding sacks, you were a Gambler in my book, and Namath was an extreme Gambler. Of course, this isn't necessarily bad for your point production and value, even though it is bad for your blessed qb rating. I actually wrote a modest proposal for a Kansas City area sports blog entitled Matt Cassel needs to throw MORE interceptions, where I discuss some of these things. Holding the ball and taking sacks can be as costly or more costly than throwing some interceptions by throwing the ball before you are ready. In Namath's case, we are underselling how good he was when we don't also cite his sack data. His effective completion percentage (completions divided by total passes plus sacks) ranks him much better, and in my opinion, more accurately provides a full picture of a quarterback's contribution.
4. Completion percentage is vastly over-rated. Again, I will probably have a separate post sometime this off-season. I also looked at quarterbacks with similar passer ratings, but different sub-ratings in the four categories, and you will probably be interested in the results as they relate to how frequently, say, a qb with a 90 rating that is dropped down by a bad completion percentage wins and scores, compared to one that is propped up by a good one.
5. Most people agree that yards per attempt is a better indicator of passing value, and Namath exceeded 8.0 yards per attempt in 1967 and 1968, and was at 7.0 or higher every year between ages 23 and 32. Using our advanced passing table which adjusts to league average, he was above average in that category in every one of those seasons. He was insanely above average in 1972 (over two standard deviations above the league average).
6. When we look at adjusted net yards per attempt, which does include his sack rate and his interception rate (but does not include completion percentage), we see a well above average quarterback for most of his career. We don't have reliable sack data for individual quarterbacks before 1969, but extrapolating his career sack rate after 1969 (combined with his completion percentage and interception rate) we can make a pretty good guess that he was also good at avoiding sacks before 1969. From 1969 forward, which would be after he won the Super Bowl and most think he stopped being a good quarterback, he was over a standard deviation better than the league in 1969, 1971 and 1972. He was above average in 1973 and 1974 as well. The only year he was average was in 1970, when he played in only 5 games. So, using adjusted net yards per attempt, rather than quarterback rating, we see that he was a well above average quarterback from ages 24 to 31.
7. His numbers need to be put in context of his era, which we can do with things like our Advanced Passing Table, as interception rates and sack rates and completion percentage were all much lower than they are today.
Of course, all of the above is why he ranks in the top 30 all-time on Chase's list, but I just wanted to spell out why that was, and why I disagree with assessments that selectively cite things like qb rating and completion percentage. I don't know how talented he was relative to other quarterbacks. I do know that he ranks in the top 30 by what I think is a pretty good objective measure, which takes into account rate stats and total attempts to derive value.
And he is ranked in the top 30 despite missing a substantial portion of what would be the prime years for a lot of quarterbacks (missing 28 games between ages 27 and 30). The one year he played almost a full season during that stretch (1972), he led the league in passing yards, touchdowns, yards per attempt, adjusted yards per attempt, net yards per attempt, and adjusted net yards per attempt. Oh, and he completed 50% of his passes, so he sucked. The Jets went 7-6 when he started that year, but it was because they ranked 19th out of 26 teams in points allowed, and not because they finished 2nd in points scored.
And he is ranked in the top 30 despite hanging around too long and playing broken down and on bad knees, and putting up awful numbers at the end of his career. We don't know what he would have been if he had stayed healthy (though it's not going out on a limb to say he would rank higher), but let's be clear. His career numbers were not "pretty poor", unless you worship at the Church of the Blessed Quarterback Rating, and ignore everything else.
This entry was posted on Friday, February 12th, 2010 at 1:22 am and is filed under HOF, Player articles, Rant. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Also, numbers like "least sacked" to illustrate the talent of a quarterback are a bit misplaced. He had a pretty decent offensive line for most of his career. Dave Herman went to a few Pro Bowls, Randy Rassmussen was a starter for Namath's whole career and beyond, and Winston Hill was a starter for many years, was selected to several Pro Bowls and is possibly a legitimate Hall of Fame candidate in his own right. Besides that, Namath had bruising backs infront of him in Matt Snell and Emerson Boozer that were more than capable of holding pass rushers for a few extra seconds, or getting that last second hand off.
I've heard some people mention that the numbers of the era need to be accounted for, and that most passers didn't complete more than 50% of their passes and most threw a ton of interceptions. The question still needs to be asked: why? Now, if there were rules that made it harder to complete passes or easier for the defense to intercept it, then this is a legitimate point. But if the issue is simply that the QB was a less-evolved position and guys then weren't as good as guys now, and Namath was simply one of the better of a rather motley crew, I just don't think that counts for much. My guess would be that it's some combination of the two, though I wasn't alive back then to say for sure.
This is like the people who argue on behalf of Andre Dawson or Jim Rice for the baseball HoF, saying that their piss-poor OBP shouldn't matter because it wasn't a highly-valued stat back then. Well, even if that is true (which is questionable, at best), the fact is that having a low OBP was bad. Making more outs was always bad, regardless of what was the norm or what was looked for in a QB. Just like throwing more interceptions than TDs is bad, or more incompletions than completions is bad, or losing more games than winning is bad. Frankly, absent MAJOR rule changes back then that simply made completing more than 55% of passes or more TDs than INTs possible, the argument falls on deaf ears for me. Being the best of a bad era for a given position doesn't gain you extra points, if you were only best because everyone else was worse. Otherwise, we should start electing the best long-snappers to the HoF. Maybe they aren't particularly important relative to everyone else, but goddamnit, they are the best at what they do, and who cares if the standards are too low?
I've heard some people mention that the numbers of the era need to be accounted for, and that most passers didn't complete more than 50% of their passes and most threw a ton of interceptions. The question still needs to be asked: why? Now, if there were rules that made it harder to complete passes or easier for the defense to intercept it, then this is a legitimate point.
Of course the passing rules were dramatically changed in 1978, and then incrementally more so ever since, to favor passing.
Not only to favor passing in general, but to favor short-pass "ball control" passing, West Coast Offense passing, in particular. (Which is why the WCO was innovated then.)
Thus the compounded reasons why John Unitas, who has a very credible claim to be "best QB ever" and is certainly among the handful of all-time greatest, is #61 on the NFL's all-time passer rating rankings, behind Tony Eason and just ahead a Jeff Blake. The rating system discriminates against both the pre-1980ers and long-throwers.
The great pre-1980ers, who as group were much more long-throwing than today (because of the different rules), take that bias hit both ways.
Frankly, absent MAJOR rule changes back then that simply made completing more than 55% of passes or more TDs than INTs possible, the argument falls on deaf ears for me.
NFL videos: "The Top 10 Things That Changed the Game: Passing Rule Changes of 1978".
Are your ears opening yet?
Average yards passing per team per game:
1975: 163
1976: 152
1977: 142 <-- last year of old rules
1978: 159 <-- new rules start
1979: 180
1980: 196
1981: 204 <-- Up 44% since rule changes.
...being the best of a bad era for a given position doesn't gain you extra points, if you were only best because everyone else was worse....
One interesting major difference between "baseball culture" and "football culture" is that baseball fans respect baseball history, know a lot about it, and respect the players of earlier eras for being good and great.
While most football fans are frankly ignoramuses about even recent football history, and think if they didn't see a player on ESPN he had to suck.
"Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, all merely the best players of plainly inferior eras compared to today. They were 'best' only because everybody else was even worse, so they get no points from me."
~~~~~~~
People remember Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana, Sonny Jurgenson, Bobby Layne, for being great quarterbacks. Ask someone about Joe Namath and they'll tell you about the guarantee and maybe some movies he was in. My mom talks about the fur coats...
I take it you didn't read what Lombardi, Walsh, Shula, Madden, said about Namath, as per the comment above.
No offense to your mother, but you could heed what some football people have said too.
Re: 52
I've heard some people mention that the numbers of the era need to be accounted for, and that most passers didn't complete more than 50% of their passes and most threw a ton of interceptions. The question still needs to be asked: why? Now, if there were rules that made it harder to complete passes or easier for the defense to intercept it, then this is a legitimate point.
Selected rule changes which affected the passing game-
1974- roll-blocking and cutting of wide receivers was eliminated; eligible receivers could only be chucked once by any defender after the receiver went three yards beyond the line of scrimmage
1976- offensive blocking was changed to allow for half extension of the arms to assist in pass blocking
1977- head slap was banned (this made things a little more difficult for pass rushers); defenders could only make contact with eligible receivers either in the three-yard zone beyond the line of scrimmage or one time beyond that zone, but not both; a 7th official was added to monitor contact downfield
1978- defenders could bump eligible receivers within the five-yard zone beyond the line of scrimmage, but beyond that point contact was restricted; pass blockers were allowed to extend their arms and open their hands
Beginning with the late-1970s, the league saw a major uprising in the number of small, speedy receivers. Beyond the five-yard chuck zone, these receivers could run unimpeded and their quarterbacks generally had more time to wait for them to come free.
Keeping this in mind, below we will look at two Washington Super Bowl teams separated by 10 years and numerous rules changes to open up the passing game. Sure, this is just one example. A few counter examples maybe could be found.
1972 Washington Redskins
lost Super Bowl 7 to Miami by a score of 14-7
Washington WRs who played in the game-
*Charley Taylor, 6-3, 210
*Roy Jefferson 6-2, 195
Clifton McNeil, 6-2, 187
1982 Washington Redskins
won Super Bowl 17 over Miami by a score of 27-17
Washington WRs who played in the game-
*Alvin Garrett, 5-7, 178
*Charlie Brown, 5-10, 182
Virgil Seay, 5-8, 175
*starter
(Note: 6-3, 209 Art Monk was injured and did not play in Super Bowl 17.)
It's highly likely that The Smurfs would have had major problems playing in the NFL had they been born only 10 years earlier.
How much more damage could Charley Taylor (enshrined in HOF in 1984; caught 649 passes for 9110 yards from 1964-75 and 1977) have done if he wasn't mugged and battered on a consistent basis by defenders who were permitted to mug and batter him all over the field?
From Tom Danyluk's "The Super '70s"-
Question posed to Cedrick Hardman (#4 in sacks in the 1970s)-
"There are less than two minutes remaining in the game, your team is up by five points and the opponent has the football with 80 yards to go. Which quarterback do you not want lined up across from you in that situation?"
Hardman: I'd say Joe Namath first, Fouts second, then Roger Staubach. Staubach got us a couple times in big games, and I can't go through this list without mentioning him. But I was more afraid of Namath than anybody.
______
Curt Gowdy: Namath was a great athlete but unfortunately he had bad knees. . .
I did the Orange Bowl game one year when Oklahoma played Alabama, 1965. Namath was a sophomore. I think he made 97 or 98 yards rushing in that game. He'd take the ball, sprint out from center and cock his arm. If the defense didn't come up to take him he'd run. If they'd pick him up, he'd throw.
Bear Bryant and I became real good friends later on and he used to tell me that Namath was one of the best athletes he'd ever coached.
This is like the people who argue on behalf of Andre Dawson or Jim Rice for the baseball HoF, saying that their piss-poor OBP shouldn't matter because it wasn't a highly-valued stat back then.
It's more like arguing that Ty Cobb shouldn't be in the Hall because he only hit 117 HR in 24 years.
In addition to the rule changes cited above, there are many other differences. Most quarterbacks called their own plays with the same ten other players on the field every down. When the season was over, players went home and didn't come back until camp opened; most had and needed offseason jobs. Even orthopedic surgery has changed a lot since Namath's day, and it certainly mattered in his case.
HTML fail.
I was quoting this from post 49:
"As for his interceptions, any coach worth his salt will take the guy that throws the ball up for grabs downfield rather than the guy who takes the sack. A downfield interception isn't really any different than a punt, while the downfield reception on those plays was as often as not a touchdown."
source: advancednflstats.com
Fumbles occur on 18% of sacks.
47% of sack fumbles are lost.
therefore
8.4% of sacks result in a turnover.
100% of interceptions result in a turnover.
I understand that there are a lot of variables that must be taken into account, and it is not as simple as saying interceptions are 12 times more costly than interceptions, but there on the whole(8.4x12=100), I think throwing an interception is one of the most costly results of any given play.
Help me out here guys.
To #53. I was with you and agreed with you up until you brought up my argument, which you misunderstood. My argument was that Namath reached legend status (among the common fans, on name recognition) more for who he was, than what he actually accomplished. Same can be said for Dennis Rodman (who actually is one of the best defensive rebounders of all-time). People picture irratic behavior, tattoos and funny hairdos. No offense to you, but most 'football people' have a different perspective on the game and also tend to be the most bias, excluding the die hard homer fans. I have not read what Vince Lombardi said about Joe Namath, but Vince died halfway through Namath's sixth season, before injuries took him down. 5 1/2 year careers do not constitute legend status in my book. I think if Lombardi would have atleast lived to about 1975, his opinion would have changed slightly. Not to mention that Most of the people that are genuinely considered some of the best quarterbacks of all time were still in high school, pop warner, or not even born yet when the statement was made. So quotes from 1970 or before don't mean much to a modern debate. I'm sure someone with a lot of credibility in the sport of baseball at some point called Frank "Homerun" Baker the best longball hitter of all time too. John Madden coached against Namath, that also tends to skew things. Good sportsmen honor their rivals, because there is more emotion involved. They give everything they have to try and beat these people and when it doesnt work, they just shake their heads and say.."they were just better". Same with Shula, who was on the losing end of "The Guarantee." Another example is the Cedric Hardman quote from a few posts up. I said in my statement that the way he played revolutionized the game, regardless of numbers. Same can be said for Sammy Baugh....look up his touchdown to interceptions ratio. I also don't buy the argument that everyone was throwing more interception then. I agree the numbers were higher on average, but Namath was still throwing more than the average. The passing game was evolving, but I would say it evolved more with Unitas in his prime, when the interceptions started to decline more. Interceptions were at a high with guys like Sammy Baugh, Bobby Layne, and Sid Luckman..the first of the great passers. I would also hesitate to say Unitas and Namath were in the same era. Unitas was a nine or ten year vet when Namath was a rookie. The AFL in it's early days is given a lot of credit for revolutionizing the passing game also. Besides Namath, George Blanda with the Oilers in the early to mid 1960s was putting up mind-blowing numbers. In 1962 he had a league record 36 touchdown passes, a record that I believe stood for 20 some years, and was broken by Dan Marino. Of course that year he was nammed an all-star. The next year he had a still league record 42 interceptions...and made the all-star game again. That's what the AFL did. Big plays were exciting. People remembered big plays, people still remember big plays, because theyd like to forget the bad plays. Also I think that more than anything that was how most teams were trying to win games. If a long bomb turned into an interception, the defense went out and tried to pick off the other teams inevitable long bombs. Everyone was throwing long bombs in the AFL in the 1960s, Namath was just the most notable (and led the league in interceptions 4 times)...for about a five year span.
@Roby, when you say that 100% of interceptions result in a turnover, you are comparing the result in one case to the chance of the occurrence in the other (sacks/fumbles). I could say that 100% of lost fumbles result in a turnover. What we want to compare is the lost fumble rate per sack with the interception rate on passes that are pressured. I don't have the specific data.
I addressed this in the Matt Cassel article linked above, but I'll quote myself rather than say something new:
For Post # 60, regarding "Blanda putting up mind blowing #'a in the early to mid 60's"--several not so great former NFL QB's put up impressive figures in the early years of the AFL and this can be easily checked on the PFR data pages. Not sure what the significance of that info is for this discussion. Blanda did throw 36 TD's in 1962, however, Y.A. Tittle threw 36 TD's for the NYG in 1963, against better competition. So I guess the record was tied if not broken, until Dan Marino much later. But hopefully you see my point. There are other impressive figures as well for both leagues during that 1960-19605 period.
Not sure how this post and all of the others add up for Namath being deserving or not. Whether his career was HOF level or not (I believe that it was), he is a legend in NFL annals based on the SB upset, being the first 4000 yard passer, the level of notoriety and fame he achieved while a player, the regard for his talent, and when doing well, his performances on the field. There are other hard data (see PFR analysis) and soft data (coach and player testimonials, what little video to view) that support his case quite well. But an argument can be made otherwise (as shown above with contrary posts).
Tim, that was exactly my point...several other not so great quarterbacks in AFL and the NFL put up mind blowing numbers, like Namath. The difference with players such as Len Dawson and Sonny Jurgensen, two of the NFL passers to top 30 touchdown passes, was longevity and consistancy. They both retired with nearly every passing record. Which, to me would point to them as exceptions to the norm, which is the true measure of a Hall of Famer. Tittle retired with nearly every major passing record, but his resurgence at the end of his career with the Giants where he topped 30 touchdown passes twice was shocking and impressive because it was such an anomaly, or an exception to the norm. In the AFL, other than Blanda, Daryl Lamonica and Babe Parilli were the others to top 30 touchdowns. They both had similar numbers to Namath, but no one has talked about them for the Hall of Fame. Blanda is not in the Hall of Fame as a quarterback either, although he put up comparable numbers to Namath for about the same number of years. Namath just got the notoriety. You stated that Tittle accomplished his numbers against stiffer competition...which would further deflate the numbers of the top AFL quarterbacks, but it doesn't disprove the fact that the AFL...league wide, focused more on the aerial attack, high risk/high reward style of play. More evidence of this is the annual rushing numbers in both leagues. Four times, 1960, 1961, 1964 and 1969, the AFL rushing leader was held under 1,000 yards, and twice under 900 yards. In the NFL in those four years the average total for the rushing leader was 1,28 yards, with a high of 1,863 by Jim Brown. In the receiving category, the AFL had the leader in receiving yards eight out of the ten seasons, with both exceptions being NFL Hall of Famer Bobby Mitchell in 1962 and '63. The single-season receiving yards mark was broken/set by George Blanda's main target, Charley Hennigan in 1961 with 1,746, nearly three hundred yards more than the previous record. That record stood for twenty-one years, until Jerry Rice broke it, in his eleventh season. In fact, Hennigan's yardage total is the only total in the top ten that didnt occur after 1994. Hennigan's quarterback, again, George Blanda, is not in the Hall of Fame as a quarterback. The only other 1960's (or '70s for that matter) WR appearances in the top 25 receiving totals are Charley Hennigan, again, and Lance Alworth. John Brodie, who I covered previously, Alworth's quarterback, had similar numbers to Namath, but isnt in the Hall of Fame. One more stat. The annual NFL/AFL leading interceptor came from an AFL team seven out of ten times, each of the three times the NFL came out on top, it was a future hall of famer that did it. Mel Renfro, Lem Barney, and Paul Krause. Some of the AFL leaders; Emmitt Thomas, Johnny Robinson, W.K. Hicks, Bobby Hunt, had similar career to some of their NFL counterparts, but have never been given serious consideration for the Hall of Fame, with the exception of Emmitt Thomas, who finally made it a few years back. The general consensus being that the numbers were a bit inflated, due to the dependency of the passing attack in the AFL. Inflated numbers, overblown status created by "the guarantee", people wowed by big numbers for five seasons, equals an underqualified Hall of Famer.
I believe a similar, yet slightly different situation is forming with Kurt Warner. Ive heard for the last two years that he is a sure thing for the Hall of Fame. This is more ridiculous than the argument for Namath. There are similar ingredients in each case. Nice, "beat the odds stories"; Namath's guarantee, and Kurt Warner's grocery store and Arena football beginnings. It just sounds good to say he went from bag boy to NFL legend. Three years as a starter in St Louis were amazing, he was arguably the best quarterback in the league for those three years. Then benchings and injuries led to his departure. He was a partial starter with the Giants for one season before moving again to the Cardinals. In his first two seasons it was the same thing, partial starter, benchings, injuries. Then he managed to regain some of his old magic, and brought the upstart Cardinals to the Super Bowl, and the playoffs the next season. But both years he had a mediocre record as a starter and his teams were seen as the weakest teams to make the playoffs. But his story is nice, and he's a likeable guy...so he will probably end up making the Hall of Fame. Maybe this is too unrelated to go in this discussion, but I couldnt help but think of Namath every time I heard Kurt Warner and the Hall of Fame this season.
Adam I see your point better now and apologize for the misunderstanding. I don't have time to check Blanda's best years against Namaths. I would say that during Namath's career that the AFL defenses had improved significantly (we're talking post 1965), as compared to the first few seasons. I appreciate the depth of your argument, and as generally agreed, Namath's statistical record (discounting the analysis oby PFR) is not so impressive. For me on this issue, "nuff said."
I didn't see it as a misunderstanding, just point/counterpoint. I love debates such as these...its the unrealized sports writer in me!
for #64, I disagree with the Warner/Namath comparison. For one, Warner's resume is far superior to Namath's. Both have 1 ring, but Warner got to 2 other super bowls as well (and suffered last second losses). Warner also won 2 regular season mvps. plus, warner did it with the rams (mediocre franchise at best) and the cardinals (worst in NFL). honestly, warner's resume stacks up very well against most hall of fame qb's. if warner had stuck around for 3-4 more years and compiled more numbers, would that really have made him a better qb? warner accomplished plenty in his career. he should be a hof.
John,
I'm not sure why Warner's resume is superior at all, much less far superior. He played in an era that was much friendlier to passers, he played in domes, and he played against bad defenses. He also did not play when he was young, which helps make his career averages look great. I'm not saying Warner's not a deserving HOFer, but few QBs have stats as inflated as Warner's (and that's ignoring the talent he had at WR).
Namath also won 2 regular season MVP awards. And it's not like the Jets were anything special when Namath arrived; they were practically on the edge of folding just a year or two before 1965.
Granted, appearing in three Super Bowls is great. But that is just one piece of the puzzle.
Warner has two first-team All-Pro seasons; Namath has one first-team All-Pro season in the NFL, and then three more first-team All-AFL seasons.
Back to Adam, I appreciate the spirit of debate and your willingness to go into great detail. Certainly the #'s issue sems to calrify the merits of Namath, but then again it seem to cloud it to. But I have mostly enjoyed this forum. PFR is a godsend for Pro Football history fans like me.
John,
I'm not sure how you can call the Rams of the late '90s, early '00s mediocre, when the numbers clearly state they were pretty damn good. "Greatest show on turf"? That was not just Warner. Bruce and Holt, best receiving tandem over those few years (maybe Carter and Moss). Az-Zahir Hakim was a decent third receiver. One of the best running backs in the game, probably the best receiving running back of all-time in Marshall Faulk, and one of the best tackles of his time in Orlando Pace. On defense they had Kevin Carter, who was one of the best defensive ends for those few years, Leonard Little was the other end, split time with Grant Wistrom....London Fletcher, who's always been vastly underrated was probably at his best. Todd Lyght, a Ram for years, stepped up his game...I don't know how you can say they were mediocre, on a site that clearly shows they weren't. They put that all together to have the ebst offense and one of the best defenses for a short time. They were terrible before and after that, but for a few years they got it to work pretty good.
Tim,
I love this site. I have love sports history since I was little. I grew up listening to my dad talk about football when he was little up until before I was born...it just grew from there. Now he listens to me talk about football when he was little and before he was born. haha
I meant that the Rams were mediocre in the sense that before Warner started in 1999, the rams had not had a winning season since 1989. Warner came in and all of a sudden, they were the greatest show on turf. Now, certainly the credit should be shared among lots of people both on offense and defense. Warner though deserves a great deal of credit. In 2000, the Rams had the #31 defense in terms of pts allowed, yet Warner still went 8-3 that year while Green went 2-3. Anyways, I must say that I share Adam's love for this site. Great debate all around!
I'm not a fan of this type of argument:
"It is a "Hall of Fame", not a hall of most impressive career statistics."
If being famous were the only criteria, we'd see Joe Garagiola and Bob Uecker in the BBHoF as well as Joe Theismann and Phil Simms and Don Meredith in the PFHoF. From what I can see, stats of some sort usually do determine whether a player gets in their respective HoF or not. Football stats are ones that need careful interpretation and wise use, but they certainly aren't irrelevant either -- baseball ones are more directly useful in this regard.
In fact, I've seen the argument that "the HoF confers fame to those who are inducted, instead of an organization that recognizes fame that has already been conferred by others" (or variants of this) stated on more than one occasion.
And from what I've observed, the Pro Football Hall of Fame is really the NFL Hall of Fame with some outstanding AAFC and AFL players also included. Canadian Football League stats don't appear to enter into the mix, and this league has its own HoF.
Re: 72
"And from what I've observed, the Pro Football Hall of Fame is really the NFL Hall of Fame with some outstanding AAFC and AFL players also included. Canadian Football League stats don't appear to enter into the mix, and this league has its own HoF."
Yeah, I mentioned that above, particularly in post #47.
I just cannot see how the NFL Hall could possibly consider CFL stuff. The Canadian game is so different that fair comparisons can't even be made.
The USFL used similar rules as the NFL and I never see anyone clamoring for the NFL to recognize USFL accomplishments. Reggie White would have even more sacks on his official record, Jim Kelly would be higher up on the all-time passing charts, Herschel Walker would be in the mix for Hall induction, etc.
Another thing on the CFL-
Is Damon Allen the career passing leader in CFL history? I heard that he is, but the people who told me maybe had incorrect info. Either way, the guy couldn't make an NFL roster. But, look, if some people want CFL players in the PFHOF, then it stands to reason that Allen belongs in Canton right next to Joe Montana and Johnny Unitas!
From Pro Quarterback magazine's Special Super Bowl Issue 1972: Ratings On The Top NFL Quarterbacks
Quarterbacks were rated in 5 categories; Leadership, Reaction under pressure, Set-up speed, Throwing ability, and Reading defenses. Each category held a rating of 1-5, with 5 being the highest. Joe Namath received a 5 in 3 categories, falling short of perfection only in Leadership (4) and Reading defenses (4.5). So, out of a possible 25 points, he tallied a 23.5. The next closest competitor was Washington's Sonny Jurgensen with a score of 20.5. (Amazingly, coach George Allen preferred Billy Kilmer, who graded out at 14.5.) Others who were rated were Roman Gabriel (of the Rams) who scored a 16. Fran Tarkenton (who was about to be traded to the Vikings)rated a 17. John Brodie, of the 49ers, was judged a 16.5. Oakland's Daryle ("The Mad Bomber") Lamonica received a score of 15.5. Pittsburg's Terry Bradshaw graded a 16.5. KC's Len Dawson was a very respectable 18, as was Miami's Bob Griese. Roger Staubach also rated an 18. Detroit's Greg Landry scored a 17.
Re: Namath
Being an AFL fan and being from New York, I saw most of the games Namath played in. I was never a Namath fan as my rooting interest was the Raiders. All I can tell you is ---Namath was the QB I feared the most during his glory years. He could win a game on the flick of a wrist. The QB he reminds me of is Terry Bradshaw, a guy who didn't have great stats, but rose to the occasion. Some QBs are just like that---they live for the moment and the spotlight.
The most worthless stat in all of football is the QB rating stat. For anyone here who is younger than the age of say 48...a QB who had a rating of whatever in the '70s, you would need to add 12 points to his rating to get a rough idea of how good he was compared to a QB of today. There's a number of reasons for this. Some of the main reasons are as follows, and you can forget about Walsh's three step drop system working back then. Cornerbacks were allowed to chuck and bump the receiver until the ball was released by the QB, even if they were 15 yards down the field. Offensive linemen could not use their hands to pass block. Defenses could easily have 7 men in a zone and effectively rush the passer with 4 down linemen, and this was against 5 offensive linemen and typically one back in the backfield helping the O Line out. Not to mention the fact that linebackers in the short zones also took shots at the receivers before the ball was released. As a result offensive linemen needed to have better agility and footwork to pass block, 330 pound guys would have been cut and would never have a chance to make the NFL. The run blocking was generally better in the '70s than it is now, if teams needed 3 or 4 yards on a third down they were as likely to run as pass. Teams in general ran the ball back more frequently back in that era.
The QB rating system rewards guys like Brady, who throw dump passes in the backfield to scat backs and quick five yard passes to receivers. I have been watching NFL football since 1967 and can tell you that if you analyze completion percentage of passes greater than 15 yards, Namath's numbers would be better than Peyton Manning, Philip Rivers, and Tom Brady. I read that someone here mentioned Bradshaw. Bradshaw was a gambler like Namath, they both had tremendous talent and would often throw balls into coverage because they could get away with it frequently enough. It was a calculated risk, but it did lead to interceptions.
If you want to compare talent, Namath most closely played like Dan Marino. Quick release, not mobile at all, great coverage read. Marino was a little more patient and threw less picks, but he also had the benefit of better pass protection and playing in a more passing friendly era. Bradshaw is more similar to a John Elway. Tom Brady's play reminds me of Montana. Anyway if you are talking about the best pure passers ever, Namath, Marino, Peyton Manning, Jurgensen top the list. However if had to list the top 3 QBs of all time I would be inclined to take Staubach, Montana and Unitas.
Comparing number stats is also misleading, you are comparing 16 game seasons to 14 game seasons. Nothing can replace having been there and seeing them play live, with your own eyes and having a working knowledge of the game. The second best thing is having film archives which I have but many people do not.
If you weren't alive to see them play, your opinion is not of high value when comparing players of yesteryear to today's players. The infamous QB rating system would have us believing that Daunte Culpepper and Chad Pennington are better than Jim Kelly, Roger Staubach and Brett Favre, this of course is ridiculous. Football knowledge is what it takes to rate and compare players. Not statistics in a book.
If Joe Namath is in the hall of fame then Kenny Stabler definitely should be.He was arguably the best qb in the nfl from 1973 to 1977.He had a 96-49-1 record as starting qb for the raiders and he didn't have the steel curtain or the no name or doomsday defenses.You may think from my comments I am a raiders fan,i am not,i am a steelers fan from way back.You do have to look at the era that qbs played.Griese,Stabler,Bradshaw,and Namath called their own plays,and most modern qbs don't.Then again those qbs didn't have to play against all the crazy d's that todays qb's do.I believe the reason namath is in the hof is because of the historical importance and drama of the big games he played in(heidi,1968 afl championship,and sb 3).He also kept the ny franchise in the public eye,which was very important for afl at the time he was drafted.If it wasn't for Namath the jets probably would have a differnt franchise.He had the same quality that favre,elway,cutler,bradshaw,and lamonica had,a strong belief that his arm could put the ball through the eye of a sewing needle if need be.Getting back to Stabler he played in some of the most dramatic and memorable games in NFL history(immaculate reception,sea of hands,Ghost to the post,Holy roller,sugar bear hamilton game and a 1974 monday night game against buffalo).I believe the reasons he isn't in the hall is because his prime was too short and he rubbed too many writers wrong(see the Bob Padecky incident fron 1979).Which shouldn't matter because the nfl nba nhl and mlb halls are filled with people who in the eyes of society weren't exactly upstanding citizens(oj,dennis potvin,LT,ty cobb).Put Snake in the hall as George atkinson said do the right thing.Other players deserving but not in are Jerry Kramer,L C Greenwood,Roger Craig,Jim Marshall,Jon Kolb,Tom Jackson,Shannon Sharpe,Manny Fernandez,Bill Stanfill,and Jim Plunkett(only qb other than Tom Brady to win 2 sb not in the hall).
Regarding Kurt Warner,he did play in an era geared toward passing numbers with 3 4 5 wideouts the spread(which is like basketball on grass)and stiffer defense penalties that weren't there 20 to 40 years earlier.His stats maybe slightly inflated given the era he played in and the talent he played with,but he does have the 3 top sb passing performances of all time against some pretty stiff defenses(sb 43 he shredded the #1 d in the nfl)I think he played his best in big games like bradshaw,stabler,unitas,montana,aikman,and brady.
Re: Posting # 18 by Jim Glass
Normally, I don't like to criticize individual bloggers, especially someone like Jim who saw Namath in his prime---just as I did. However, in Posting # 18, Jim makes some comments about the NFL's Passer Rating System which are hardly accurate. First, saying that "some guy in Rozelle's office" came up with the system is mis-leading. That "guy" was Don Smith, an executive at the HOF, who had a knack with math. He worked closely with the Elias Sports Bureau and the statisticians employed by the NFL for three years before finalizing a system in 1973. The system combined the four major passing stats that were in use at that time and gave equal importance to each.
Secondly, referring to Pete Palmer's comment that the system was composed of "yards per attempt with bizarre weights" belies the fact that Palmer's system was also composed of "yards per attempt with bizarre weights". Only the weights differed. The results produced by both systems were almost exactly the same!
Thirdly, saying that "the historical bias is huge" is untrue. Touchdown percentage and yards per attempt heavily favor the old-time QBs. That's 50% of the formula. Only the passage of time has swung the formula toward interception percentage as its most important ingrediant. Thirdy-four % of a QB's passer rating is determined today by interception percentage. Less than 20% is determined by TD percentage. Completion percentage has a slight lead over yards per attempt in terms of importance.
The problem lies not with the NFL's passer rating formula; the problem is that the game has changed---mostly because of rule changes. Over the last 40 years, league-wide passer rating has increased by about 16 points. My own calculations tell me that approximately 9.8 of those points came about because of the rule changes in 1978, 1980 and 2004. Only about 6.2 of those points have come because of the West Coast Offense, the fact that QBs have added about 30 pounds of muscel, better nutrition, better conditioning, better medicine, playing in indoor stadiums, etc., etc.
To understand fully what has gone on over these last 40 years, I suggest reading the in-depth analysis of the NFL's Passer Rating System which has been done by Kiran R. in his article "A Brief History of the NFL Passer Rating System", Feb. 21, 2009, which can be found in Brian Burke's AdvancedNFLstats blog. A complete statistical history of the NFL's Passer Rating System is given and Kiran shows how adjustments can be made in a way that the influence of time can be eliminated.
Clark, do you have a link to the Kiran article? I can't find it.
Reply to Posting #80 "Richie"
I never have figured out how to post links, but if you go to this (PFR) web site's "News & Analysis" section---look under AdvancedNFLstats (Brian Burke's site)---than go to "Other Great Sites"---then go to "New QB Rating"---which brings you to Kiran Rasaretnam's blog site---and go to his archives section. Actually, he produced a lot of articles along these same lines in 2009-10 as he keeps refining his system whose aim is to be able to compare QBs across different eras. What I like about his site is that he produces beautiful charts and graphs and lists (just click to magnify) for us "ordinary fans" but he also goes into great statistical detail for the more sophisticated stat geeks amongst us.
Thanks, Clark. So the article isn't actually on advancednflstats.com That's why I couldn't find it there!
Here's the link, in case anybody else is interested: http://newqbrating.blogspot.com/2009/02/brief-history-of-nfl-passer-rating.html
Reply to Posting #82 "Richie"
Dear Richie,
Thanks for the link. In the April 26, 2010, article by Kiran, he uses his rating methods to list the all-time best QBs by their best 4, 7, and 10 year seasons. Since this posting is about Joe Namath, this is where Namath shows up: 1. Best 4 year totals---Namath is in 66th place overall and is No. 21 among 26 HOF QBs. 2. Best 7 years---Namath is in 67th place overall and is No. 23 of 26 HOF QBs. 3. Best 10 years totals---Namath is in 42nd place among 50 QBs listed and is No. 19 of 20 HOF QBs.
Kind of interesting stuff, isn't it?
Best, Clark
Yeah, I've seen lots of analysis of Namath to show that he might not be HOF worthy. But maybe his Super Bowl III shenanigans are truly deserving of a HOF berth.
Dear Richie,
Namath will always be a lightning-rod for debate. To put a little more perspective into Kiran's rankings: For his 4 best years, Namath is compared with 169 other QBs---66 out of 169. For his best 7 years, Namath is compared with 95 other QBs---67 out of 95. For his ten qualifying years as a starter, Namath is compared to 50 other QBs who survived ten years---42 out of 50. On the surface, it appears that the longer Namath played, the worst he got---which is apparent from looking at his stats and which we can probably attribute to his bad knees. The only HOF QB who he consistantly beats out is Terry Bradshaw---the QB which I've mentioned he most resembles. Both had a flair for the dramatic, both enjoyed the spotlight, and both threw some of the worst looking passes I've ever seen---no rhyme or reason for them.
Namath had only three things going for him---1. He was very hard to sack with a release like Marino's. 2. He had a very high yards per completion ratio---meaning he was most effective throwing the long bombs. 3. During his glory years, he was the most feared QB on the planet.
Does he belong in the HOF? Well, if the deciding factor is that Super Bowl, Namath played a flawless game, but the Jets rushing attack was dominant and their defense won that game, not Namath.
I once looked it up, but forget the actual tally. But following Super Bowl III, Namath's winning percentage against teams that finished the season with winning records was terrible. I am usually the first to downplay the importance of W-L in evaluating QB's, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless.
Reply to Posting #86
Dear Richie,
According to a fabulous blog by Doug in the Aug. 6, 2008, archives, Namath's winning percentage against winning teams was 19.4%. Only Jeff George, Archie Manning and Norm Snead had worst percentages (minimum 50 starts).
I just this moment stumbled across the play by play of Super Bowl III in the 1-20-10 blog by Chase. I did not realize this, but Namath did not throw a single pass in the fourth quarter of this game! Every Jet offensive play was a running play---11 by Snell and 3 by Boozer. Unitas threw 22 passes in the 4th quarter, seven of which were within the Jets 25 yard line. Namath did, however, convert five times on 3rd downs in the first three quarters.
OK, I did a statistical analysis of the QBs of the time period. First, I looked at players who were as good or better than Namath who played significantly during his career, then added any hall of famers who also may have played a significant role during Namath's career. I then compared everyones stats to see who ranked highest for career numbers. I also took these same players and used their numbers from 1965 to 1977 and re-ranked them.
For career numbers I used several stats, they were; Games, games started, Winning percentage of games started, completions, attempts, yards, TD per attempt, Int per attempt, Rating, Pro Bowls, First team All pro, Super Bowl Appearances and Super Bowl Wins. Namath's career, injury prone as it was, suffered due to lack of duribilty and longevity compared to many other QBs who played at this time. The rankings ended in this order.
1. Frank Tarkenton
2. Johnny Unitas
3. Len Dawson
4. Dan Fouts
5. Sonny Jurgenson
6. Ken Anderson
7. Bob Griese
8. Bart Starr
9. Roger Staubach
10. Ken Stabler
11. Terry Bradshaw
12. John Hadl
13. Roman Gabriel
14. Jim Hart
15. John Brodie
16. George Blanda
17. Dayrle Lamonica
18. Joe Namath
19. Frank Ryan
Though not perfect, it should be a concern that Joe Namath comes in 18th for his career. Now I am giving his Era to be 1960-1980.
The other rankings are more favorable to Namath, due to the fact that very few people's careers actually encompassed all of his career, and 2 didn't even qualify (at least 1000 pass attempts). In this section I removed the Pro Bowls, All Pros and Super Bowls.
1. Frank Tarkenton
2. Len Dawson
3. Roman Gabriel
t4. Sonny Jurgenson
John Hadl
6. Bob Griese
7. John Brodie
t8. Roger Stauback
Ken Stabler
Jim Hart
Dayrle Lamonica
12. Ken Anderson
13. Joe Namath
14. Bart Starr
15. Johnny Unitas
16. Terry Bradshaw
17. Dan Fouts
This isn't definitive;y showing him as not being a hall of famer, but even during his career is was ranked just outside the top ten. I only do this to show that if he is a HoFer then so should a lot of other guys from the time period who haven't even garnered interest.
I just want to point out that you would have more credibility if you at least knew how to correctly spell the names of all the quarterbacks you mentioned; Fran (Not Frank, are you kidding me?) Tarkenton, Sonny Jurgensen, Daryle Lamonica and Roger Staubach. Your incorrect spelling of 'Staubach' leads me to believe that you probably mispronounce it, also.