Working on a big Super Bowl post, but for now, here’s a thought about Joe Namath:
One thing I love doing with this blog — heck, there has to be SOME reason I do it — is going through the comments to see where my logic has failed. Maybe it’s just the way I was raised, but I like a good argument. I would have been that guy in the old Monty Python skit paying for a good argument and being entirely frustrated because the guy wasn’t really arguing. He was just saying the opposite thing:
Man: An argument isn’t just contradiction.?Arguer: It can be.?M: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.?A: No it isn’t.?M: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.?A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position. ?M: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’?A: Yes it is!?M: No it isn’t!
So, I was happy to see Brilliant Reader Tracy take up the case for Joe Namath. In the previous post, I wrote that Namath’s statistics — 50.1 percent completion percentage, almost 50 interceptions more than touchdowns — are shockingly bad. You tend to remember Namath as this seminal figure, and of course he was, and then you see those stats and just go: “Yuck.”
Tracy writes:
I’m surprised Joe referred to Joe Namath’s stats as “shockingly bad” without considering the context more closely. The game was much different. Until 1975, with the exception of 1970, Joe Willie’s QB rating was annually 20-25% better than the overall league rating. In 1968, for instance, while his rating of 72.1 looks ordinary, the entire AFL had a rating of 59.5; JWN was 21% above the league rating.
Referring to his stats as bad as shockingly bad without putting them in context is like saying hitters in the 1960s were bad because they were hitting .270 instead of .300.
Hmm. I thought, well, hey, that’s a pretty good point. Sort of like Passer Rating+. Of course, passer rating is not the world’s best statistic, but I think it serves its purpose here. That seems to show that Namath, with the exception I guess of 1970, was 20-25 percent better than that average quarterback, which ain’t bad at all (especially because Tracy then goes on to show that Peyton Manning’s rating this past year was 21% better than league average).
So, I thought, I’d go back and look at his stats once more. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe his stats aren’t shockingly bad when you consider the context.
And I came the conclusion that … no, I wasn’t wrong. His stats are shockingly bad. Because, even just using passer rating, the guy NEVER finished higher than third in the old AFL, which never had more than 10 teams and was for at least some of those years the clearly inferior league. Look:
1965: 68.7 rating, 4th in 8 team league (behind Len Dawson and John Hadl).
1966: 62.6 rating, 5th in 9 team league (40 points behind Dawson, also behind Tom Flores, Hadl, Babe Parilli).
1967: 73.8 rating, 4th in 9 team league (behind Dawson, Darryl Lamonica, Hadl).
1968: 72.1 rating, 4th in 10 team league (behind Dawson, Lamonica, Griese).
1969: 74.3 rating, 3rd in 10 team league (behind Greg Cook and Lamonica).
And that’s it. That’s the best it ever got for Namath. That was the last year of the old AFL — and the last year Joe Namath even finished in the Top 10 in quarterback rating. That’s surprisingly bad, no? I mean if we were talking about Paul McDonald or Jeff Blake or something, hey that’s OK. But we’re talking about JOE NAMATH here — Hall of Famer, legend, guy who wanted to kiss Suzy Kolber — and he never finished higher than third in passer rating in the wild old AFL???
Among those quarterbacks whose career somewhat overlapped with Namath, his quarterback quarterback rating is much much worse than Hall of Famers Roger Staubach, Len Dawson, Sonny Jurgensen, Bart Starr, Fran Tarkenton, John Unitas. But he also lags behind Frank Ryan, Bob Berry, Don Meredith, Roman Gabriel, Earl Morrall, Craig Morton, Greg Landry, Darryl Lamonica, John Brodie, the oft mentioned Milt Plum, Billy Kilmer, Bill Munson, Bill Nelsen, Charley Johnson, Tom Flores, John Hadl, James Harris, Archie Manning and Jim Hart. He ranks 163rd all time in quarterback rating — and there are only 211 quarterback who threw enough passes to even qualify.
I think Tracy brings up a really good point … in context Namath’s 65.5 rating is not as awful as it might look today (it is, for instance, better than Bobby Layne’s career rating, though Layne played in an even tougher passing environment). Namath is in remembered for a guarantee, white shoes, a quick release, a few of the most amazing looking passes ever and one partying lifestyle. He’s a legend. His numbers still seem shockingly bad to me.
Loading ...
25 Comments, Comment or Ping
will
I’m a lifelong Jets fan who was raised on the Gospel of Joe Willie; my father loved his play and my mother just loved him, but Joe was just an average QB no matter how you look at his numbers.
Jan 31st, 2008
Josh
The guys who were worse than Namath had to have been truly awful to pull the entire passer rating down to the point that Namath was 20-25% better…
Jan 31st, 2008
Chris
I like how sportswriters (and not jsut bagging on you here, Joe, it’s the overwhelming majority of sportswriters) refer to passer rating/QB rating as if it were a complete stat and the true measure of how effective a QB is at playing their position. It’s as if we all agree that TDs and INTs are simply too raw a stat to assume that the QB was soley responsible for each and every one.
What surprises me is that sportswriters (and I am most definitely NOT placing you in this particular category, Joe) will use the catch-all stat of QB rating, it’s 0-158.3 scale, numerous formulas, and harder to unerstand than chinese math equations as pure fact, while at the same time shunning “new” baseball statistics such as VORP, OPS and ERA+ becuase of they are too complicated, and, according to them, don’t paint the whole picture of a player’s worth.
Jan 31st, 2008
PEFACommish
The Jets had a great running game during the Namath years, with Emerson Boozer and Matt Snell playing in SB III. This may have affected Namath’s passer ratings.
One thing that no one remembers about Namath: the Jets drafted the 1964 Heisman Trophy winner, John Huarte (Notre Dame) in the 2nd round. He ended up on the bench behind Joe Willie.
Jan 31st, 2008
Tracy
Gosh, I’m almost famous…
Joe’s right in that Namath wasn’t necessarily the best QB in the league, but:
He’s a Hall of Famer because he 1) gave the AFL the national credibility it needed, and 2) completely changed the salary scale.
Plus he looked cool, and had one of the greatest arms of all time.
Jan 31st, 2008
Oddibe Kerfeld
I never knew that Andre Dawsom was a HOF QB until I saw his jersey in Canton. That’s pretty amazing. Also, his brother Richard was a host on Family Feud. What a family!
Jan 31st, 2008
Paul White
Compare and contrast two contemporaries:
Joe Namath - 27,663 yards, 173 TDs, 220 Ints, 50.1% Comp %, 65.6 QB rate, 1 AFL title, 5 Pro Bowls, 5 All-Pro teams, Led league in yards 3 times, TDs once, Y/Att twice
John Hadl - 33,503 yards, 244 TDs, 268 Ints, 50.4 Comp %, 67.4 QB rate, 1 AFL title, 6 Pro Bowls, 4 All-Pro teams, Led league in yards 3 times, TDs twice, Y/Att once
Now, other than NY publicity and one guaranteed win, tell me why one of them deserves the HOF and the other doesn’t.
Jan 31st, 2008
John McCann
You’re right and wrong.
Saying he piled up those decent passer ratings in what was clearly the weaker conference (league) is right on.
Comparing his ratings directly to the ratings in the NFL (NFC) is problematic. It’s likely the fields, average weather, and rule enforcement led to a different environment. Plus the AFL and NFL had no interleague games until 1970 I think.
People think the 1930’s were a huge hitting environment, and they were in the AL and a couple of NL parks, but not everywhere.
Jan 31st, 2008
Grant
I’ve personally always thought Namath was overrated. I always assumed it was BS nostalgia, which is the same reason Jim Rice is going to be in the Hall of Fame next year.
Just big-time market BS. And I’m not usually one to take this whole bias thing too far. But Namath wasn’t all that good a QB and he’s a jerk. Oh well.
Feb 1st, 2008
LastBestAngryMan
Namath is, quite possibly, the most overrated famous athlete going. He was a good QB for about 3 years, and he got into the HoF because of the celebrity/NY fetish. He doesn’t deserve it. Only Jets apologists are going to say otherwise.
Feb 1st, 2008
Josh
Who would be a modern equal to Joe Namath i.e. vastly overrated player from major market…. ??? I am having trouble thinking of anyone… you could mention Jeter (over-rated to an extent especially fielding… but still a great player)…. I cannot think of anyone in one of the 3 major sports that fits the bill…anyone have any suggestions??
Feb 1st, 2008
Justyo
Eli Manning?
Feb 1st, 2008
Josh
I think Eli gets slammed more than praised in the press… up until the last few weeks…. I did think of him though…
Feb 1st, 2008
Josh
Who knows though… if they pull off the upset that could be the perfect comparison…
Feb 1st, 2008
Shay
Would Phil Simms qualify?
I looked at career passer rating at pro football reference, http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_career.htm
Looking through the list, it shocked me to see so many current players ranked high in career passer rating (Philip Rivers #14 for crying-out-loud).
Jim Hart is #157. I remember getting a mini-poster of Hart (photo by Sports Illustrated) from a candy machine in K-Mart. My bedroom wall was plastered with taped photos of my favorite sports stars clipped from SI. Hart stayed on my wall long after he lost his starting job in St. Louis.
Feb 1st, 2008
Clayton
A big fad in the early ’70s was quarterback ratings in magazines: QBs would be rated from 1 to 5 on various attributes. Joe almost invariably won these (more objective than stats, but less regimented to the fascism of numbers) comparisons and I don’t recall him ever getting less than 5 for “leadership abilities,” or “arm strength,” or “quick release.” He also was always huge on “reading defenses.”
The argument that Matt Snell and Emerson Boozer were good runners may be overstated. Defenses were keying on the pass against the Jets, which was somewhat unusual in those days (though I recall it also being the case against Daryl Lamonica’s Raiders). John Riggins was even better when he came along towards the end of Joe’s prime (that one year when they won the first game, he got injured in the second, came back to lead a 1-6 team to an 8-6 finish and almost make the playoffs…’73? maybe)
The Jets definitely had a nice set of receivers when Don Maynard and George Sauer were there, and Pete Lammons was a good receiver for a tight end in those days. Richard Caster was better when he came along in the Riggins days. But it’s also true to say that the Jets never had all that much of a line, and with each succeeding knee injury Joe became increasingly sedentary in the pocket. Quick release was a survival strategy, though I understand Joe moved very well when he played for ‘Bama.
The argument seems to be that Joe is over-rated because of the historic Super Bowl win, and associated cultural effect (among other things, he inspired Homer Simpson’s mother to become an Animal Liberation Front style militant). I think that’s partially true-how could it not be, but it’s even more true that stats (which exaggerate his terrible games, of which he had several a year leading to gambling rumours and his removal as restaurant owner) didn’t reflect brought Joe brought to the field.
Joe was inconsistent, even during his best years, no doubt about it. His supreme confidence led him to believe that he could throw the perfect pass damn near every time, and even though I believe he did read defenses well (his audibles were legendary) he wasn’t above throwing into double-coverage thinking he could beat it every time (instead of merely often).
On his best days-and the most famous one probably represented a better day rather than a best one-I don’t know how you could argue that he wasn’t the best quarterback of the time, perhaps of all time. Of course his time overlapped those of more consistent, and also brilliant, quarterbacks like Johnny Unitas and Len Dawson, and so they’d probably be the guys you’d look for if you were picking for a career.
I don’t follow football much these days, but in contemporary pitching terms Unitas was Roger Clemens, Dawson was Maddux, and Namath was Pedro Martinez (except that he gave up a lot of home runs when he didn’t have his good stuff, and was frequently limited to 10-15 starts for the season).
But, c’mon, this statistical nonsense has done got out of hand. Bill Nelson, Bob Berry? Dan Pastorini was better than those guys…
Namath’s greatest moment probably wasn’t even guaranteeing that they’d beat the Colts…ok, it was, but damn near as good and less well known was his response to what he thought about reigning MVP and Colts qb (Unitas had been injured that year, though he rallied the Colts to their only score in the superbowl) Earl Morrall.
Joe said that there were five better quarterbacks in the AFL, and then diplomatically proceeded to name them: himself, Dawson, Lamonica, John Hadl, and his back up Babe Parilli.
Now that’s class.
Feb 1st, 2008
Michael
Clayton: “The argument seems to be that Joe is over-rated because of the historic Super Bowl win, and associated cultural effect (among other things, he inspired Homer Simpson’s mother to become an Animal Liberation Front style militant).”
“Look at that Joe Namath with those long sideburns like a girl! Johnny Unitas! Now there’s a haircut you can set your watch to!”–Abe Simpson
Thanks for giving me an excuse to post that. I couldn’t think of a way to get it started. Turns out, it was just vapor lock.
Feb 1st, 2008
AJ (aspiring Pozcar voter)
Joe. Make sure you take a look at Bradshaw’s numbers other than rings as well. I am not saying Namath belongs in the elite category, but Bradshaw has some generally underwhelming numbers.
Feb 1st, 2008
Thomas
Bah! Someone beat me to the Simpsons punch! Shouldn’t that be a measure of someone’s pop culture status? The fact that the first time I learned about Joe Namath was via the Simpsons? (I’m 27)
Also, I’d never heard the phrase “fascism of numbers.” It made me cringe. Twice. But points for it being expressive at least.
Feb 1st, 2008
Tracy
And one more thing about the time Namath played - the AFL introduced the bump-and-run to football.
For you younger folks, that means the defense could hit the receivers anywhere on the field until the ball was thrown. Legal mayhem, in other words. The QB couldn’t throw eight-yard slants all day, because his receivers would get beheaded by the linebackers (remember the clothesline?).
I hate to sound like an old crank, but it was a totally different game the AFL played.
Feb 1st, 2008
Brian
Love the blog, Joe. I’m a lifelong Chiefs fan exiled to Indianapolis (not a bad gig, actually), and I use your columns to keep up with what’s-what sportswise back home in KC.
As a lifelong, diehard Chiefs fan, it’s always rankled a bit that Namath seems to have stolen most of Lenny Dawson’s thunder. Nobody seems to ever talk about Super Bowl IV (the true last game in the old AFL-NFL rivalry), in lieu of endless romantic gushing about Namath, Super Bowl III and the “guarantee.”
First, the Chiefs victory over a heavily favored Vikings team was every bit as impressive as the Jets victory over the Colts. Second, unlike Namath, Dawson wasn’t given to brash “guarantees,” or the like–Lenny the Cool just did his job–quietly, efficiently, and very, very well. Third, I don’t recall that Broadway Joe had to endure a gambling scandal in the days leading up to the Super Bowl like Dawson did (and of which Dawson was completely innocent). Fourth, Dawson was simply the better quarterback of a better team.
Feb 1st, 2008
Doctor Tom
Just another example of an NYC athlete being elavated to godlike status by the NYC media. Without Cosell and that one game, he is mediocre.
Feb 2nd, 2008
John fitness training Austin
I think you have to look at Joe in the context of his time. He had a flare for the dramatic; the Hiedi game - the Jets against Oakland - being one example. In one game against the Colts Unitus threw for 490 yards and Namath with no backfield to speak of, threw for more than 500 yards. It is reported that after the game that Johnny told Joe that it was the best game Johnny had every played.
Feb 15th, 2008
Sports Historian
Evaluating Joe Namath’s play or any quarterback from his era is not an easy thing for the novice to do. In fact anyone under the age of 50, shouldn’t be allowed to enter this topic of conversation unless they have seen half the NFL games that I have seen. An amount which is still far less than Dr. Z’s (Zimmerman from Sports Illustrated) accumulated game viewing time for games in the ’60s and ’70s.
The rules of the game were drastically different in that era. It was much more difficult for a wide receiver to get open, as it was legal to harass the receiver until the ball was released by the QB. In addition to this, pass blockers could not use their hands as they do today.
The younger reader should keep in mind that 95% of all successful pass plays you watch in an NFL game of today would have been called back for holding in Namath’s era. The 300 pound plus offensive lineman of today, would be cut in the ’60s and ’70s. They would not be agile enough to pass block or perform run blocking duties on sweeps.
Comparing QBs by the NFL passer rating system, should tip you off that the writer is completey ignorant about the game of football and is just a reader of stats. Don’t ever judge a QB of ’70s to a QB of ’00s by completion %. Back then if a team was looking to get 4-5 yards, they ran. The amount of dink and dunk passes in today’s game, totally gives the uneducated young fan the false impression that today’s QBs are more accurate passers.
The positive things that come in to my mind when thinking about the 60 plus games I’ve watched of Namath spanning from 1967-75 are as follows:
Like Dan Marino, Namath had an amazing quick release. Other than Dan Marino, there’s no other post 1960 QB with a release as impressive as Joe Namath’s. Namath was also a great tactician, many QBs from his era called the majority of the offensive plays, Namath was one of those QBs. Namath had an incredible combination of arm strength and accuracy. It’s one thing to be able to throw the ball a country mile, it’s another thing to do this with accuracy. Namath reminds me of Terry Bradshaw in this department. Namath’s touch and accuracy on shorter passes was equally impressive.
Now here are the knocks of Joe Namath:
He was so overconfident in his natural throwing ability, that he made poor decisions and threw interceptions that could have been easily avoided. He was not mobile, he could barely run at all and played much of his career on bad knees.
Namath does belong in the HOF. However, I would not rank him ahead of Unitas, Montana, Staubach, Bradshaw, Fouts, Tarkenton, Dawson, Young, Brady, Manning, Jurgensen, Elway, Starr or Aikman. Although Namath is perhaps at the bottom of the list when it comes to elite QBs, he still was one of the all-time great quarterbacks. He was certainly better than 85% of today’s starting NFL quarterbacks.
And no I am not a Jets fans.
Sep 22nd, 2008
Jeff Isenberg
I actually look at Namath as more of a Sandy Koufax type of figure. Because of his knees, he was not able to sustain a long career (Koufax had only about 163 career victories). But during his short burst of brilliance, Namath was an exceptional quarterback. I don’t disagree with many of you who cite his interceptions and some of the other stats. In fact, although Namath did have the quick release and a pretty damn good arm, in my opinion, what really set Namath apart from many of his contemporaries was his ability to read defenses. I’ve never seen anyone better than Namath in calling effective audibles and, in general, being an incredible field leader. His teammates had unequivocal confidence in his ability to lead and they responded in kind.
To me, making a judgement on Namath based simply on his stats is way off the mark. If you judged Bill Russell on his stats it wouldn’t be so great, either. Namath was a QB who transformed the game and in many respects, revitalized it as well. I think we seriously risk overlooking his contribution to the history of the NFL if we focus solely on his stats.
Jeff I.
Nov 2nd, 2008
Reply to “Reconsidering Namath …”