Who do you consider to be the most overrated player(s) at their position in NFL history?

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Lieutenant Aldo Raine said:

 

They probably wouldn't hence why I think he could be considered overrated.  Someone who is very talented in the system they run, but also limited in their ability based on the system they run.  It's no secret, if you can contain Lamar in the pocket, limit his ability to shred you on the run, and get ahead on the scoreboard you have good odds to beat Jackson and the Ravens.  

 

But does anyone actually argue for him being an elite Quarterback? I don't think they do. I think maybe he was overrated coming immediately out of his MVP season. But I think most opinions on Jackson now are pretty fair. He is a unique player and in many ways a special player. But he has limitations. 

[Royale with Cheese]

1 hour ago, Whkfc said:

 

But he never played a full season because baseball came first. He would always show up week 7 or 8 when the Royals season ended unlike Deon who put football first.

 

Bo averaged like 8-9 games a season with a 5.4 ypc average.  If he played a 16 game season...he would have destroyed records.

[Max Fischer]

2 hours ago, BIGFOOTspaceman said:

NFL History - Bo Jackson....This guy did next to nothing in his short four year career.

 

 

If by "next to nothing" you mean Bo Jackson was practically unstoppable when carrying the ball.  

[Royale with Cheese]

8 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

I kind of agree.  Certainly, his overall statistical performance says he's overrated.  These aren't the stats of a HOFer and yet his bust is in Canton.

 

Yet, I remember one of his coaches saying he was the best pure passer he ever saw.  Bear Bryant called him 'the best athlete I ever coached.'

 

Remember, Namath threw for 4,000 yards way back in 1967 - when seasons were only 14 games long - way before anyone else.  The next QB to throw for more than 4000 was Dan Fouts in a 16-game Air Coryell season, 12 years later.  

 

But Namath started racking up knee and other injuries pretty early in his career.  Physical ailments probably prevented him from ever achieving his true potential.  And at the end of his career, he was downright pathetic.  Not just immobile, he didn't have the base with which to throw the ball with any velocity.  

 

Namath's stats:

- 50% completion percentage

- TD/INT ratio 173/220.  That is just awful

- 65.5 career QB rating

[chris heff]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Have not seen the series, but I suppose that is plausible. Victory over the Colts was certainly proof that the junior league was competitive. Namath was slowed by injuries. He was a dynamic player when young. You can't really compare stats from that era. Anyway, I see why some folks might nominate him; just wanted to push back. 

The merger was announced on June 8 1966, Super Bowl III was played two and a half years later. Namath being drafted by and subsequently signing with the Jets had more to do with the merger than that game did.

[BarleyNY]

7 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Namath's stats:

- 50% completion percentage

- TD/INT ratio 173/220.  That is just awful

- 65.5 career QB rating

The counter argument I’ve heard from people who watched him play (including non-Jets fans) was that he pretty much carried his Jets teams by himself.  He was before my time so I can’t speak to how valid that is. 

[Royale with Cheese]

8 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

The counter argument I’ve heard from people who watched him play (including non-Jets fans) was that he pretty much carried his Jets teams by himself.  He was before my time so I can’t speak to how valid that is. 

 

Yeah I don't buy that argument.  When you turn the ball over more than you score, you're the one hurting your team.

[Big Turk]

19 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Namath's stats:

- 50% completion percentage

- TD/INT ratio 173/220.  That is just awful

- 65.5 career QB rating

 

It's hard to compare stats in those eras when teams mostly only threw when they had to and had the mindset of "When you throw he ball only 3 things can happen and 2 of them aren't good". I'd bet the majority of passing attempts came on 3rd and long for a lot of QBs back then which is not a favorable down and distance for the offense to succeed.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Big Turk

[Royale with Cheese]

2 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

It's hard to compare stats in those eras when teams mostly only threw when they had to and had the mindset of "When you throw he ball only 3 things can happen and 2 of them aren't good"

 

This was well before my time...but was it really common for the best QB's in that area to have significantly more turnovers than TD's?  65 rating was actually good?

I'm not comparing stats, I'm just looking strictly in that era.

[Big Turk]

11 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

This was well before my time...but was it really common for the best QB's in that area to have significantly more turnovers than TD's?  65 rating was actually good?

I'm not comparing stats, I'm just looking strictly in that era.

 

I'm not sure how common it was, but I'd say in any given season it wasn't uncommon.  Bart Starr threw 152 TDs and 138 INTs for his career.  Some years he had more INTs than TDs. In fact, it wasn't until his 7th year in the NFL that he had his first season with more TDs than INTs.  The first 5 he had more INTs than TDs and the 6th he had 16 and 16.  After that, he generally had more TDs than INTs, but did have 3 more years with seasons of more INTs. Completion percentage was 57.4% for his career.  

 

Same with Bradshaw...his first 5 years he threw more INTs than TDs every year. Completion percentage 51.9% for his career. 212 TDs to 210 INTs for his career.

 

Daryle Lamonica completed only 49.5% of his passes for his career.  Had some big TD years where he led the league, but also led the NFL in INTs once and ended up with 164 TD and 138 INTs.

 

So,  would have to say this was kinda the norm even if Namath might have been on the low end of norm.  

 

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Big Turk

[2003Contenders]

1 hour ago, Buftex said:

I'm gonna go bold, and say Dan Marino!

You will probably get mocked for this, but I won't laugh at you. Even amongst the pantheons of greatness -- we can acknowledge that a player was great and at the same time say that he was somewhat overrated.

 

Regarding Marino, I am reminded of what Jimmy Johnson said nearly 30 years ago when he had very recently stepped down from being the Cowboys' head coach and was working as an analyst. The debate was who was the best RB in the NFL -- Barry Sanders or Emmitt Smith. Jimmy said that he thought that Barry was the greatest RUNNER in the NFL, as he could do things rushing that he had never seen anyone else EVER do. However, he thought that Emmitt was the better RUNNING BACK because he was better is many other key areas, including pass protection and receiving. Smith was also more reliable about getting those 1-2 yards to convert on a first down or score a TD than Barry was.

 

I liken this same principle to Marino, who may have been the greatest PURE PASSER that the league has EVER seen. He could make every pass with precision and had that all-time quick release. However... he was lacking in many other areas, in particular his ball-handling. He could NEVER sell the play action and defenders could always tell whether the play was going to be a pass or a hand off because Dan telegraphed it. Marino's supporters always pointed out that he did all he did despite the fact that the Dolphins were never able to get a running game to support him. I would argue that it was Marino's own fault that the team never got the running game going.

 

Anyway, I guess where I am going with this is that while Marino may have truly been one of the top 3 PASSERS in NFL history, he would not make my list of the top 10 QUARTERBACKS.

[chris heff]

18 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

The counter argument I’ve heard from people who watched him play (including non-Jets fans) was that he pretty much carried his Jets teams by himself.  He was before my time so I can’t speak to how valid that is. 

I saw Namath play a lot, that team that won the Super Bowl was a very good team. Later in his career Jets were not good. Namath’s biggest problem was injuries. He was in the league for 12 years, I think he only played 6 or 7 full seasons. His career and stats in today’s NFL would be very different.

[corta765]

1 hour ago, aristocrat said:

tom Brady willed his defense to hold the chiefs to 9 points. Which has to be the lowest amount of points mahomes has ever scored. 
 

 

Jesus christ you people are annoying. He has 3 TDs, 201 yds, 125 ratign 76 QBR 72% completion that SB. People act like he literally laid on the field and didn't move.

 

Just say you hate his guts and move on.

[Big Turk]

1 minute ago, chris heff said:

I saw Namath play a lot, that team that won the Super Bowl was a very good team. Later in his career Jets were not good. Namath’s biggest problem was injuries. He was in the league for 12 years, I think he only played 6 or 7 full seasons. His career and stats in today’s NFL would be very different.

 

If you looked at the post above where I compare Bradshaw, Starr and Lamonica's stats, his numbers are kinda right in line with them for the most part, even if they might be on the low end of normal. It was a different era back then. 

[corta765]

1 hour ago, NewEra said:

Brady joins a loaded team for two years.

 

Belichick has Cam and a rookie QB for those two years.  And made the playoffs once.  
 

I’ll give Brady > Belichick, but comparing their two years apart isn’t fair.  Brady got to pick his spot, while Belichick was stuck in a rebuild the first season.  Spent some money (poorly) and still made the playoffs with a rookie year 2.  

 

BB is the Gm and built those rosters for better or worse. He actually in a sense had more control then Brady and it was on him for not adding some weapons to help.

[Big Turk]

Just now, corta765 said:

 

BB is the Gm and built those rosters for better or worse. He actually in a sense had more control then Brady and it was on him for not adding some weapons to help.

 

That was one reason Brady left...he got sick of having to carry the offense on his back due to lack of skill position players around him.

[DrDawkinstein]

8 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

This was well before my time...but was it really common for the best QB's in that area to have significantly more turnovers than TD's?  65 rating was actually good?

I'm not comparing stats, I'm just looking strictly in that era.

 

Kinda, yeah.

 

Couple of things. You are looking at Namath's career totals. Dude played for a long time. So a couple of years on bad teams could go a long way to skew those numbers.

 

Secondly, yeah, it wasnt much of a passing league, and QB passing numbers "sucked" all around compared to what we are used to. Go back and look at the passing stats for the QBs on the top NFL/AFL teams in 1969.

 

Joe Kapp who lead the NFL leading 12-2 Vikings had 19 TDs, 13 INTS

Daryle Lamonica of the Raiders had 34 TDs, and 25 INTs

Morton/Staubach of the Cowboys had 22 TDs and 17 INTs.

 

Not quite MORE ints than TDs, but the numbers are pretty close. Close enough that a couple of bad years could give you more INTs than TDs. And those were the league's top passers from the very best teams.

[aristocrat]

6 minutes ago, corta765 said:

 

Jesus christ you people are annoying. He has 3 TDs, 201 yds, 125 ratign 76 QBR 72% completion that SB. People act like he literally laid on the field and didn't move.

 

Just say you hate his guts and move on.

 

If he didn't throw any tds they still would have won 10-9.  

[Big Turk]

Just now, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Kinda, yeah.

 

Couple of things. You are looking at Namath's career totals. Dude played for a long time. So a couple of years on bad teams could go a long way to skew those numbers.

 

Secondly, yeah, it wasnt much of a passing league, and QB passing numbers "sucked" all around compared to what we are used to. Go back and look at the passing stats for the QBs on the top NFL/AFL teams in 1969.

 

Joe Kapp who lead the NFL leading 12-2 Vikings had 19 TDs, 13 INTS

Daryle Lamonica of the Raiders had 34 TDs, and 25 INTs

Morton/Staubach of the Cowboys had 22 TDs and 17 INTs.

 

Not quite MORE ints than TDs, but the numbers are pretty close. Close enough that a couple of bad years could give you more INTs than TDs. And those were the league's top passers from the very best teams.

 

Starr needed 7 seasons before he threw more TDs than INTs and Bradshaw needed 6.  It was kinda commonplace...even after that they had a few years where they threw more INTs than TDs

[Gugny]

5 minutes ago, corta765 said:

 

Jesus christ you people are annoying. He has 3 TDs, 201 yds, 125 ratign 76 QBR 72% completion that SB. People act like he literally laid on the field and didn't move.

 

Just say you hate his guts and move on.

 

You mad, bro?