Will Mark Sanchez have a better 3rd year than Joe Namath?

[Barcs]

With all the Namath talk lately, I figured now would be a good time to introduce a little game I like to play. Since Namath is the last Jet to win a superbowl, Sanchez will need to perform close to his level to do it. Namath's career stats could be a good way to see where our QB is in his development and his ability to bring us the big game. I compare them on a year by year basis. For example, Namath's rookie year vs Sanchez rookie year.

Now before you say "Baaahhh, you can't compare then to now". Actually yes I can, and I'm doing it now. I'm not saying it's dead on 100% accurate. It's really just for fun to kind of track Mark's progress.

Before the 2010 season started I predicted Sanchez would have a better year than Namath did and I was correct.

Their rookie years were similar, Sanchez had better completion percentage, yards per game were similar, but Namath had more TDs in less games and less picks, plus slightly higher rating I'd say Namath gets the edge for the rookie year.

2nd year it's not really close. Sanchez beat him in completion percentage, and had a way better TD to interception ratio, plus a much higher rating overall. Sanchez wins year 2, although Namath had slightly more yards per game.

Now is year 3. I didn't post those stats up there to mislead, the year is far from over. Namath exploded in his 3rd year for 26 TDs and 28 picks. Almost 1 to 1, and just under 2 TDs per game, plus had 286 yards per game. His completion percentage and passer rating was better but still lower than Sanchez' first 2 years. This is a tough one to judge. I don't know if Sanchez can maintain that 295 YPG for the rest of the season, I feel like he'll even out somewhere around 250. If he gets anywhere near that amount of touchdowns I will be a very happy man. 2 per game isn't that unrealistic. It's still a long way to go, but my guess is Sanchez will beat him in completion % and rating, but not the amount of TDs and yards per game, athough I feel he can and hope he does. 3rd year was Namath's breakout year, and I'd love to see a similar type of year for Sanchez.

Namath won the superbowl in his 4th year.

What do ya'll thinK? Statistically speaking, will Sanchez take that next step and stay on par with Joe Namath? Will he surpass him? Won't be close? Humor me.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Barcs

[Larz]

the rules are just so different. the NFL is all about points now. you can't touch a WR these days, they don't have to fear the tatum hit anymore

sanchez needs to be about 20% better to really have a case

[DLJ]

where is the maybe option...

[kelticwizard]

Once more, with feeling: They threw the damn ball downfield back then.

Get the picture? No pitty-pat "passes" of 3 yards to your backs fattening up your completion percentage but not really moving the ball. Today's QB's get high "QB ratings" and completion percentages throwing short lobs behind the line of scrimmage or just past it. Back then they handed the ball off more, but when they went back to pass they were almost always looking downfield.

[JetsFanInDenver]

WHere is the 'Does not matter' option ?

[JoeWillie]

Unless he throws for more yards in a season than any other QB in the history of the game (which is what Namath did in his 3rd year), I'm not so sure.

Seriously, if the Jets win the Super Bowl this year, I would be the first to say that Mark Sanchez has had a more productive first 3 years than Namath did.

I won't say that translates to being a better player, per say, but "more productive"? Yes.

[Barcs]

where is the maybe option...

WHere is the 'Does not matter' option ?

I don't put cop out choices in my polls, sorry. Vote yes or no, or don't vote.

And of course it's all people talking about comparing then to now. I wasn't saying to compare the damn years exactly, I'm just using it as a measuring stick for Sanchez. You can tell by the stats alone that they threw down field much more often. Obviously take it with a grain of salt, BUT IT'S JUST FOR FUN.

Unless he throws for more yards in a season than any other QB in the history of the game (which is what Namath did in his 3rd year), I'm not so sure.

That's not really fair, because there have been a bunch of QBs after Namath that have thrown more, thus setting the bar higher and outperforming Namath. Sanchez doesn't need to be the best ever to win a superbowl.

The way I see it, Sanchez doesn't need to have better stats than Namath to win the big one, since our defense is so good. It will be an interesting year, however, and like Namath I see Sanchez breaking out this year.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Barcs

[kelticwizard]

In that case, I guess you have a point.

Sorry for the hysterical tone.

[JoeWillie]

That's not really fair, because there have been a bunch of QBs after Namath that have thrown more, thus setting the bar higher and outperforming Namath. Sanchez doesn't need to be the best ever to win a superbowl.

The way I see it, Sanchez doesn't need to have better stats than Namath to win the big one, since our defense is so good. It will be an interesting year, however, and like Namath I see Sanchez breaking out this year.

No one has ever thrown for more yards in a 14 game season than Namath. His record stood for 12 years until Dan Fouts broke it in 1979 when the NFL went to a 16 games schedule and drastically changed the pass defense rules, effectively making it much easier to throw the ball, and as a result, opening the door for much higher passing statistics for any QB since.

That said, I do agree with you that Sanchez does not have to be "the player" Namath was to win. I said the same thing in my previous post.

Edited September 29, 2011 by JoeWillie

[Joewillie2k12]

Dont even think of comparing Mark Sanchez to Joe Namath--its a totally different game today---Namath was a mega talent---go back to the mags and rating books of his time and read about Joe Namath ---Go to you tube and watch his college highlights before he hurt his knee permanent---read what pro football players of his time said about Namath---they play touch football today---what are you talking about?

[Barcs]

^Try reading the thread, this is just for fun. Loosen up a bit. You're acting like I just boned your wife. My main point this whole thread is that Namath broke out year 3 and Sanchez could very well do the same, showing similar progress. Namath's career was nothing special. He had that one great year then declined. Most analysts wouldn't put him in the top 50 QBs of all time.

No one has ever thrown for more yards in a 14 game season than Namath.

It's kind of hard to do when they only had that format not even 10 years. It's about yards per game, and plenty have outdone Namath in that regard. I know the rules have changed and it's not an exact comparison, but to me that indicates the RECEIVERS had to fight much harder to get open and make catches. It wasn't really a big difference in QB skill. It was more about the receiver and his ability to get open downfield. Do you think Namath would have broken that record without Maynard or Sauer? They averaged 100 yards and 80 yards a game respectively! These days its rare for a WR to break 100 yards a game average even with easier rules, let alone 2 from the same team coming that close. Only a handful have done it this decade.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Barcs

[shawn306]

If Sanchez throws 28 picks Jets fans will look to run him out of town.

[Kleckineau]

Joe had a much stronger game. No pedo for him.

[JoeWillie]

^Try reading the thread, this is just for fun. Loosen up a bit. You're acting like I just boned your wife. My main point this whole thread is that Namath broke out year 3 and Sanchez could very well do the same, showing similar progress. Namath's career was nothing special. He had that one great year then declined. Most analysts wouldn't put him in the top 50 QBs of all time.

It's kind of hard to do when they only had that format not even 10 years. It's about yards per game, and plenty have outdone Namath in that regard. I know the rules have changed and it's not an exact comparison, but to me that indicates the RECEIVERS had to fight much harder to get open and make catches. It wasn't really a big difference in QB skill. It was more about the receiver and his ability to get open downfield. Do you think Namath would have broken that record without Maynard or Sauer? They averaged 100 yards and 80 yards a game respectively! These days its rare for a WR to break 100 yards a game average even with easier rules, let alone 2 from the same team coming that close. Only a handful have done it this decade.

One question .... Did you ever personally watch Joe Namath play an entire football game, other than what you've seen on film or highlight shows?

If not, they I completely understand where you're coming from. In the end, people who never saw him play will do what they can to assess performance and that is, they will go to statistics. If you're one of those guys that is going to gauge how good a QB is purely by statistics alone, than neither I nor anyone else will be able to convince you of how good he was.

But I will tell you that anyone who saw him play for his entire career (as I did), will tell you that Joe Namath was one of those rare players in sports whose greatness is not evident by looking at statistics because of the circumstances he played under.

Was he the greatest QB to ever play? No.

Could he have been had injuries not ravaged his body at such a young age? Quite possibly.

But he was at the very least, in his prime, without question, one of the top 20 players in the history of the game to play the position and anyone who saw him play week in and week out, including some of the most knowledgable football minds are on record agreeing with that premise.

"The smartest QB I ever saw"... Don Shula.

"The greatest athlete I ever coached" ... Bear Bryant.

"A player that tips the field" ... Al Davis.

"One of the top 5 quarterbacks I ever saw"... John Madden.

"Remarkable, never saw a QB like him in his prime" ... Sid Luckman.

"Almost the perfect passer"... Vince Lombardi.

I said this in another thread but in modern terms, I compare him somewhat to Don Mattingly. For about a 5 year period, Mattingly was not only the best first basemen in baseball, he was arguably the best PLAYER in baseball. Had he not been injured and played on bad teams for most of his career, he would have been a "sure Hall of Famer". I'm not a Yankee fan, but I think he should be there anyway.

Namath was similar, but an even greater talent and an even bigger star. He was a "comet", a player who, at his peak for about a 5 year period, was the Sandy Koufax of football, as productive and exciting a player that's ever played, and who not only revolutionized the position he played, but had an incredible effect on how pro football is viewed in this country. Super Bowl III was only part of the story, not THE story. At his peak, from about 1967 to 1972, and despite some really bad injuries, he was unquestionably the best player on the field, a player that opposing teams schemed to stop.

Look, if you're a younger guy who looks at things with an open mind, and realizes that perhaps you can learn from guys who have been watching the game much longer than you, and can acknowledge the fact that the game was DRASTICALLY different before 1980, than you'll consider the fact that maybe statistics don't tell the entire story.

If you're not willing to listen and learn, and think that you know everything that happened before you were born by looking at record books, and continue to ignore some of the greatest football minds in the history of the game, than that's unfortunate for you because you'll never have an appreciation of how great some of these older players who played before the era of "offense sells" were.

It sounds like you may fall into the latter category, and if so, then you're one of the young guys who will never appreciate Namath's greatness, not just as a star, but as the best QB this franchise has ever had and one of the top players to ever play in the league.

Edited October 1, 2011 by JoeWillie