Marty: "LT is the finest running back to ever wear an NFL Uniform"

I only have to give one. You should check out Super Bowl III. Namath was the MVP of the game. It's one of the most memorable Super Bowls, if not the most memorable, because a lot of people still thought the AFC had no place being on the same field as the NFC in a championship game. Namath turned himself into an enduring icon, not only by guiding an 18-point Super Bowl underdog to a win and winning the MVP award in the process, but by boldly guaranteeing the thing in advance.

 

Maybe the video footage people have been left with is of Namath sitting poolside yucking it up or of him with his finger in the air. But that's because of his personality. If his play on the field didn't back it up, he'd have been Len Dawson or Daryl Lamonica, except in a fur coat. Namath was the reason the Jets won the biggest David vs. Goliath game in NFL history. He was MVP of the game. That game singlehandedly did more for football's current popularity than any other event. Pube asked for a memorable in-game highlight. Well, jeez, Namath's opus is a WHOLE game. If that doesn't qualify as memorable, in a "his moments are what you remember, not his numbers" way--which was the point of my post that Pube quoted--then nothing does.

 

Whatever, man.

I don't have to read. I made the point that football--unlike baseball, for example--often doesn't come down to numbers as much as it comes down to having been a memorable player. I gave Namath as an example. You seemed to be asking what Namath did that is memorable. I responded.

Of course, MOST people watch football because of players like Namath. And of course, most of the people I've talked to who saw him in his prime say he was a special player. And of course, his impact did as much for football's current popularity as any other player's.

But yeah, he was a ridiculous Hall inductee. You've decreed it so and you were absolute in your decree. As usual, that ends the argument.

 

The NFL today owes that New York Hype Machine a ton for somehow brainwashing millions into becoming fans. The telling thing to me is that "Namath is overrated. He doesn't belong in the Hall!" arguments are never made by people who were actually watching football in the 60s and early 70s. Those people all seem to be saying he was great.

 

Look, I didn't mean for this to put me in the position of defending Namath's numbers. I have no special interest in Namath, either. Hell, I didn't even see him play in his prime. I just know that way too many people who were watching the game then consider him the premier quarterback from that era. And that means something. It was pretty much a 3 yards and a cloud of dust game, yet there was something special about him as a passer, to hear people tell it.

So yeah, that TD / Interception ration is underwhelming. But he still had all eyes on him somehow. Why do you think that was happening?

If it isn't Namath, who was the premier QB from the 60s, early 70s? Sonny Jorgenson? Make a huge case for why Sonny Jorgenson was great and Namath is overrated and I'll simply point you to people who actually watched them both play. Jorgenson's in the Hall, by the way.

Len Dawson is the only other Hall of Famer purely from that era. He never even threw for 3,000 yards in a season, let alone 4,000 yards (which Namath did well before anyone else). Is Dawson overrated/undeserving? Roger Staubach didn't put up a 3,000 yard season until the late 70s, and by then the game had changed. He finished with 22,000 career yards (Namath had 27,000). Is Staubach overrated?

I'm not saying Staubach doesn't belong in the Hall. But it's because of who he was and what he meant to those Cowboys teams, not because of a stat sheet. That's the thing about football. You had to have watched him play to understand he was a dominant QB for his era. And as I said, way too many people from those AFL-into-the-merger days, say Namath was great. I'm buying it.