Why is Joe Namath in the HOF?

[Royale with Cheese]

2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Seriously, every time I see him doing a commercial I just look at him and ask why?  
 

In his entire career, he only had 2 seasons where he had more TDs than INTs (and barely had more in those 2 seasons).  I mean he literally made the HOF over one game prediction and wearing fur coats.  It’s a travesty he’s in the HOF while so many other players with substantially better careers are not.  
 

I mean he finished his career with 173 TDs to 220 INTs and a dismal 65 QB Rating.  

 

I've been saying this for years!  He also has a 50% career completion percentage.

[KD in CA]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

The perfect explanation.  

 

I don't know how old Alpha is, but if you weren't a football fan during that period, you almost can't understand. 

 

My son asked me once whether there would even be another Beatles, and the answer is clearly "no."  The Beatles were the Beatles not because they were the greatest band ever; they weren't.  Not because they had the longest run of excellence; they didn't.  They were the Beatles because they became superstars at a time when it was still possible to get the attention of the entire country.  EVERYBODY knew about the Beatles, and practically EVERYBODY watched the Ed Sullivan Show when they were on. 

 

Namath caught the end of that era, and era when it was possible to be a true nation-wide phenomenon.  He was in the news all the time - everyone knew what Namath was wearing, whom he was dating, everything.   At that moment in time the Packers seemed to have proved what most people thought - that the AFL teams were inferior to the NFL team.  Along comes the guy who is probably the most famous - not the best, but most famous - team sport athlete in the country, and he proves the Packers wrong.  It was huge news, a defining moment in the emergence of professional football as the number one professional sport in the country.   Joe Namath was on the Ed Sullivan Show after he won the Super Bowl.

 

Mahomes is a good comparison.  Mahomes captured the imagination of the football public like Namath did, but in the modern world of 24-7 sports coverage, his impact never could be as great as Namath's was.  Mahomes wins the Super Bowl, and he's on late-night shows.  The whole country watched Namath; some nightowls watched Mahomes.  

 

Namath just happened to be the right guy in the right place at the right time.  

 

This is the complete answer to the OP's question.

 

Not only can't you tell the story of the NFL without Namath, he's one of the first five players you have to mention on the list.   

Do people think they'll still be talking about Mahomes in in the year 2070?  I doubt it.

[Royale with Cheese]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Agree. And this is absolutely my criteria. It is the hall of FAME not the hall of TALENT. Now often times those two intersect.... but you have the odd exception. Joe Namath is one. Eli Manning will be another. On the pure numbers Eli Manning is not a Hall of Famer. But the story? The two drives to win Superbowls? You can't tell the tale of the NFL without them. So Eli will make it. 

 

I don't know if I can agree with this.  I don't think you can be one of the worst players at your position and then make the HOF.  Namath was that bad.

[billsfan89]

His cultural relevance to the sport. In the late 60's and early 70's he was footballs biggest star and probably in part legitimized the AFL NFL merger. On the field he has a few great seasons by the standards of the time but then petered out due to injury. But his relevance to the sport is greater than his on field accolades 

[Royale with Cheese]

2 hours ago, Logic said:

When it comes to Hall of Fame inclusion, I’ve always subscribed to the criteria “can you tell the story of the NFL without including this player?”
 

In the case of Joe Namath, you cannot.

 

Then Doug Williams should be in the Hall of Fame.

[Chandler#81]

2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Seriously, every time I see him doing a commercial I just look at him and ask why?  
 

In his entire career, he only had 2 seasons where he had more TDs than INTs (and barely had more in those 2 seasons).  I mean he literally made the HOF over one game prediction and wearing fur coats.  It’s a travesty he’s in the HOF while so many other players with substantially better careers are not.  
 

I mean he finished his career with 173 TDs to 220 INTs and a dismal 65 QB Rating.  

I’m surprised -and frankly disappointed in this thread. Your only saving grace may be your age (not old enough to know better).The number 1 reason a player gets voted into the HOF is if he changed the game during his career. Joe Willie Whiteshoes altered the pro game as few others have. The most gifted passer to ever come out of college, he was given a jaw-dropping rookie contract to sign with the AFL during the player wars of the early/mid ‘60s. Truly staggering for the time, it gave absolute legitimacy to the upstart League. This was an era where the best pro players had to have offseason jobs just to sustain.  Watching him throw a football was a wonder to behold. More awe-inspiring than the rookie Marino would do 20 years later. His signing and the national hoopla surrounding him literally forced the merger of the 2 Leagues -something no other upstart League has done since. In just his 5th year, he led his team to the undisputed greatest upset in sports history. A million+ nfl players since owe and have paid a great debt of gratitude to him for their personal opportunity. Using today’s passing stats have nothing to do with the awesome fear he struck in every opponent he faced. He was one if the very few in the Leagues’ first half century who was a threat on every play.

 

So, if you’re an uniformed Whippersnapper, you get a mulligan on this unwitting snafu. If not, turn in your man card.

[Alphadawg7]

32 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

This is the complete answer to the OP's question.

 

Not only can't you tell the story of the NFL without Namath, he's one of the first five players you have to mention on the list.   

Do people think they'll still be talking about Mahomes in in the year 2070?  I doubt it.

 

I guarantee they will talk about Mahomes a lot more than anyone talks about Namath.  Once the people are gone who watched Namath play, no one will talk about him.  Mahomes is on a path to be the greatest of all time, and if he reaches that pinnacle he will be talked about forever.  I mean, Namath isn't even remotely talked about even today compared to people who talk about guys like Montana for instance.  People talk about greatness, its true in every sport.  If Mahomes continues on the path he is on, he will be talked about like Jordan is talked about.  Namath doesn't get talked about at all really unless he's saying something creepy to a female reporter or appearing drunk while on camera.  

[CardinalScotts]

Griese is the one for me all kinds of awards pro bowls, all pro, hall of fame ?

He did call his own plays so I do give him a ton of credit for that-- for not letting himself throw it much

pro bowl on seasons of 109--149--150 yds a game    The super bowl run 1973 throwing in the last two games for 26 and 66 yards? Was there a blizard in Miami

[Malazan]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I guarantee they will talk about Mahomes a lot more than anyone talks about Namath.  Once the people are gone who watched Namath play, no one will talk about him.  Mahomes is on a path to be the greatest of all time, and if he reaches that pinnacle he will be talked about forever.  I mean, Namath isn't even remotely talked about even today compared to people who talk about guys like Montana for instance.  People talk about greatness, its true in every sport.  If Mahomes continues on the path he is on, he will be talked about like Jordan is talked about.  Namath doesn't get talked about at all really unless he's saying something creepy to a female reporter or appearing drunk while on camera.  

 

This seems to be veering off from, "Joe Namath doesn't have the stats to be in the hall" to some sort of personal vendetta against Namath for...saying something creepy to you when you were interviewing him?

[Royale with Cheese]

5 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

I’m surprised -and frankly disappointed in this thread. Your only saving grace may be your age (not old enough to know better).The number 1 reason a player gets voted into the HOF is if he changed the game during his career. Joe Willie Whiteshoes altered the pro game as few others have. The most gifted passer to ever come out of college, he was given a jaw-dropping rookie contract to sign with the AFL during the player wars of the early/mid ‘60s. Truly staggering for the time, it gave absolute legitimacy to the upstart League. This was an era where the best pro players had to have offseason jobs just to sustain.  Watching him throw a football was a wonder to behold. More awe-inspiring than the rookie Marino would do 20 years later. His signing and the national hoopla surrounding him literally forced the merger of the 2 Leagues -something no other upstart League has done since. In just his 5th year, he led his team to the undisputed greatest upset in sports history. A million+ nfl players since owe and have paid a great debt of gratitude to him for their personal opportunity. Using today’s passing stats have nothing to do with the awesome fear he struck in every opponent he faced. He was one if the very few in the Leagues’ first half century who was a threat on every play.

 

So, if you’re an uniformed Whippersnapper, you get a mulligan on this unwitting snafu. If not, turn in your man card.

 

The defense led the greatest upset in sports history.  Namath and the offense didn't really do anything in that game.

Now go drink your Metamucil old man!

[Chandler#81]

20 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

The defense led the greatest upset in sports history.  Namath and the offense didn't really do anything in that game.

Now go drink your Metamucil old man!

NY’s Defense was special in that era, make no mistake. I remember them well. Cleveland was the only team to beat Baltimore in ‘68 and the Colts took it very personal by trouncing them in the title game 34-0. Jets had no such problem with the vaunted Colt Defense. Joe consistently led long time consuming drives, most of which turned into points. Jets great Defense was actually pretty pathetic on the super Sunday, as the Colts screamed up & down the field with huge gains all day. They just couldn’t finish drives as Morrall had 3 picks & Johnny U had 1. 

Maynard reinjured his hamstring on the 1st play and wasn’t thrown to again all day. Sauer had his way with the Colt CB all day and Snell rushed for over 100 yrds. 

 

Challenging my knowledge of the AFL is done at your own peril. I’ll embarrass you.😉

[KD in CA]

3 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I guarantee they will talk about Mahomes a lot more than anyone talks about Namath.  Once the people are gone who watched Namath play, no one will talk about him.  Mahomes is on a path to be the greatest of all time, and if he reaches that pinnacle he will be talked about forever.  I mean, Namath isn't even remotely talked about even today compared to people who talk about guys like Montana for instance.  People talk about greatness, its true in every sport.  If Mahomes continues on the path he is on, he will be talked about like Jordan is talked about.  Namath doesn't get talked about at all really unless he's saying something creepy to a female reporter or appearing drunk while on camera.  

 

In 50 years??  Not a chance.  None.  All events/people pass into history so that's a poor argument.

 

You're just missing how big a cultural icon he was but more broadly how icons were viewed in his era vs today.   For example, no boxer will ever be bigger than Ali, regardless of record.  You're also missing Namath's impact on the league, which might be greater than any other player ever.  Certainly in the top handful.

 

Personally, I prefer it remain a 'Hall of Fame' and not a 'Hall of Football Statistics'.

 

[Rk_Bills86]

I'll be the first to say I don't like Joe Namath - and by extension I don't like the majority of Jets fans that hang on their Superbowl victory as though it makes them some sort of dynasty. However, considering the time in which he played, the respect he had from players, and his stats during his era, he is basically about right for a HoF entry from that time period. 

 

Couple of quick notes:

 

Still the Jets all time leading passer - career and single season (14 game seasons)

Only Jet QB to ever throw for 4000 yds (67' think about how long ago that was)

He did win a ring

 

[Royale with Cheese]

6 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

NY’s Defense was special in that era, make no mistake. I remember them well. Cleveland was the only team to beat Baltimore in ‘68 and the Colts took it very personal by trouncing them in the title game 34-0. Jets had no such problem with the vaunted Colt Defense. Joe consistently led long time consuming drives, most of which turned into points. Jets great Defense was actually pretty pathetic on the super Sunday, as the Colts screamed up & down the field with huge gains all day. They just couldn’t finish drives as Morrall had 3 picks & Johnny U had 1. 

Challenging my knowledge of the AFL is done at your own peril. I’ll embarrass you.😉

 

[Alphadawg7]

32 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said:

 

This seems to be veering off from, "Joe Namath doesn't have the stats to be in the hall" to some sort of personal vendetta against Namath for...saying something creepy to you when you were interviewing him?

 

Im just saying, when was the last time Namath was really talked about?  When he seemed drunk and told the female reporter on camera he just wants to kiss her.  

 

Sorry, thats not a vendetta, thats just what happened.  Meanwhile, people in the GOAT conversations will always be talked about.  And my response was to someone who said Mahomes wont be talked about in 50 years...and I was saying that if Mahomes continues his path to looking like being one of the GOATS, if not the GOAT, when he is done, they will still be talking about him 50 years from now.  Just like they talk about other greats in all sports.  

[Royale with Cheese]

6 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

In 50 years??  Not a chance.  None.  All events/people pass into history so that's a poor argument.

 

You're just missing how big a cultural icon he was but more broadly how icons were viewed in his era vs today.   For example, no boxer will ever be bigger than Ali, regardless of record.  You're also missing Namath's impact on the league, which might be greater than any other player ever.  Certainly in the top handful.

 

Personally, I prefer it remain a 'Hall of Fame' and not a 'Hall of Football Statistics'.

 

 

If Mahomes continues his pace, he will absolutely be talked about 50 years from now.  People still talk about greats today from more than 50 years ago that didn't have the popularity as Namath.  I'm 38 and I talk and hear about players well before my time.  

 

From what I understand, Joe Louis was on top of the world in his prime.  He had the nation watching him before his fights with Max Schemilling because of the Anti-Nazi setiment.  No one thought the sport would have someone bigger.  Well...30 years later....Ali came along.

 

If someone comes along and dominates their sport and wins championships/belts like no one before him/her....then they will be bigger than the previous King of the Mountain.

[KD in CA]

9 minutes ago, Rk_Bills86 said:

I'll be the first to say I don't like Joe Namath - and by extension I don't like the majority of Jets fans that hang on their Superbowl victory as though it makes them some sort of dynasty. However, considering the time in which he played, the respect he had from players, and his stats during his era, he is basically about right for a HoF entry from that time period. 

 

Couple of quick notes:

 

Still the Jets all time leading passer - career and single season (14 game seasons)

Only Jet QB to ever throw for 4000 yds (67' think about how long ago that was)

He did win a ring

 

 

First guy to do that by a mile.....10 years later Fergy led the league in pass with 2800 yards.  Fouts didn't break Namath's record until 1980.   

 

 

[Taro T]

38 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

I’m surprised -and frankly disappointed in this thread. Your only saving grace may be your age (not old enough to know better).The number 1 reason a player gets voted into the HOF is if he changed the game during his career. Joe Willie Whiteshoes altered the pro game as few others have. The most gifted passer to ever come out of college, he was given a jaw-dropping rookie contract to sign with the AFL during the player wars of the early/mid ‘60s. Truly staggering for the time, it gave absolute legitimacy to the upstart League. This was an era where the best pro players had to have offseason jobs just to sustain.  Watching him throw a football was a wonder to behold. More awe-inspiring than the rookie Marino would do 20 years later. His signing and the national hoopla surrounding him literally forced the merger of the 2 Leagues -something no other upstart League has done since. In just his 5th year, he led his team to the undisputed greatest upset in sports history. A million+ nfl players since owe and have paid a great debt of gratitude to him for their personal opportunity. Using today’s passing stats have nothing to do with the awesome fear he struck in every opponent he faced. He was one if the very few in the Leagues’ first half century who was a threat on every play.

 

So, if you’re an uniformed Whippersnapper, you get a mulligan on this unwitting snafu. If not, turn in your man card.

 

Umm, 20 late '70's college kids and a coach from the frozen lakes of Minnesota say 'hi.'

[Chandler#81]

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

 

Umm, 20 late '70's college kids and a coach from the frozen lakes of Minnesota say 'hi.'

amatures.

[Alphadawg7]

18 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

In 50 years??  Not a chance.  None.  All events/people pass into history so that's a poor argument.

 

You're just missing how big a cultural icon he was but more broadly how icons were viewed in his era vs today.   For example, no boxer will ever be bigger than Ali, regardless of record.  You're also missing Namath's impact on the league, which might be greater than any other player ever.  Certainly in the top handful.

 

Personally, I prefer it remain a 'Hall of Fame' and not a 'Hall of Football Statistics'.

 

 

Huh?  Not sure how that makes sense, I mean all time great players, especially ones with resumes that give them cases for GOAT conversations at their position or overall in their sport, are discussed still to this day from all eras in all sports.  Even Ali, who you just mentioned, is still regularly talked about.