Herman Edwards, ladies and genlemen

[BP]

Don't sweat it. If ecurb couldn't unseat BwanaZulia for Homer of the year, you have miles of whipping ahead of you before you unseat Sperm Edwards as resident Herm destroyer.

I second that..Sperm is ''the Herm lover executioner''

[nyjunc]

So he was great, but not "truly" great. Hmm.

But Parcells hired one that could tell time.

He was a great talent, he just didn't have a great overall career and yes BP did hire a clock specialist- ray Handley.

[nyjunc]

The TD/INT is the only thing you point to. Because Namath through for more yards per game than the great QB's of his era. Had more touchdown per game that the QB's of his era. Namath won a Super Bowl. Dawson won a Super Bowl. Tarkenton didn't even win one. Kelly didn't win one.

In 21 less attempts Dawson through for over 1,000 more yards and he led his team to 2 SBs and 3 AFL title games(won all 3).

Namath and Griese had the same yards per attempt(Namath ended up w/ more yards b/c he threw more and Griese was +20 TDs to INts while Namath -47 and Griese won 2 Sbs and led his team to 3.

Tarkenton threw for alot more yards than Namath but again both had the same yds per attempt, Tarkenton was +76 TDs to INT and led his team to 3 SBs.

Unitas not only threw for more yards but had 1/2 a yard higher per attempt. he had a +37 TD to INT ratio. Unitas also won a SB, 2 NL titles and had 4 NL title game appearances.

Bradshaw had .1 less yds per attempt but was +2 TDs o INT(not that impressive but looks incredible compared to -47) and won 4 SBs.

Staubach had less yards b/c of less attempts, he had a 7.7 YPA compared to 7.3 for Joe and he was +44 TDs to INts. He also missed the playoffs ONCE in his career and won a SB and appeared in 3 others.

Fouts threw for more ards and had a higher YPA, had a +12 TD to INT ratio.

The ONLY QB Namath had a higher TDper game ratio wa Dawson and dawson was 1.1 while Joe was 1.2. Griese was 1.2, Tarkenton 1.4, unitas 1.4, Bradshaw 1.3, Fouts 1.4.

So he DIDN'T throw for more yards than most of the QBs(and YPA he wasn't ahead of anyone) and he didn't throw for more TDs per game(only ahead of ONE of the QBs you mentioned).

[Lil Bit Special]

Don't sweat it. If ecurb couldn't unseat BwanaZulia for Homer of the year, you have miles of whipping ahead of you before you unseat Sperm Edwards as resident Herm destroyer.

And I would never want to unseat a JN great like Sperm Edwards....

back over to the corner for me...

[KSJets]

Again, they could have any poinion they want but do we need new Herm threads every day? and do we need Jet fans to worry more about Herm losing than the Jets winning?

Yes, if that's what people want.

If you don't like it, feel free to start a message board at HermLovers.com and you can ban anyone that badmouths him.

The fact remains that you don't control what people can post here. Deal with it.

[KSJets]

He was a great talet, he just didn't have a great overall career and yes BP did hire a **** specialist- ray Handley.

Might want to check your spelling

[nyjunc]

Might want to check your spelling

oops.

[KSJets]

oops.

The funniest part is that the misspelling actually is a more accurate description of Handley

[crackbackblock]

He was a great talent, he just didn't have a great overall career and yes BP did hire a clock specialist- ray Handley.

I guess i should say read my posts....Where did I say Parcells DIDN'T hire a clock specialist. I said he hired one that could tell time.

[crackbackblock]

In 21 less attempts Dawson through for over 1,000 more yards and he led his team to 2 SBs and 3 AFL title games(won all 3).

Namath and Griese had the same yards per attempt(Namath ended up w/ more yards b/c he threw more and Griese was +20 TDs to INts while Namath -47 and Griese won 2 Sbs and led his team to 3.

Tarkenton threw for alot more yards than Namath but again both had the same yds per attempt, Tarkenton was +76 TDs to INT and led his team to 3 SBs.

Unitas not only threw for more yards but had 1/2 a yard higher per attempt. he had a +37 TD to INT ratio. Unitas also won a SB, 2 NL titles and had 4 NL title game appearances.

Bradshaw had .1 less yds per attempt but was +2 TDs o INT(not that impressive but looks incredible compared to -47) and won 4 SBs.

Staubach had less yards b/c of less attempts, he had a 7.7 YPA compared to 7.3 for Joe and he was +44 TDs to INts. He also missed the playoffs ONCE in his career and won a SB and appeared in 3 others.

Fouts threw for more ards and had a higher YPA, had a +12 TD to INT ratio.

The ONLY QB Namath had a higher TDper game ratio wa Dawson and dawson was 1.1 while Joe was 1.2. Griese was 1.2, Tarkenton 1.4, unitas 1.4, Bradshaw 1.3, Fouts 1.4.

So he DIDN'T throw for more yards than most of the QBs(and YPA he wasn't ahead of anyone) and he didn't throw for more TDs per game(only ahead of ONE of the QBs you mentioned).

So in yards per game he dogged alot of his contemporaries but in yard per attempt he was .1, .2, .3 less. Also since you have trouble spelling how can I trust your math.

[crackbackblock]

In 21 less attempts Dawson through for over 1,000 more yards and he led his team to 2 SBs and 3 AFL title games(won all 3).

Namath and Griese had the same yards per attempt(Namath ended up w/ more yards b/c he threw more and Griese was +20 TDs to INts while Namath -47 and Griese won 2 Sbs and led his team to 3.

Tarkenton threw for alot more yards than Namath but again both had the same yds per attempt, Tarkenton was +76 TDs to INT and led his team to 3 SBs.

Unitas not only threw for more yards but had 1/2 a yard higher per attempt. he had a +37 TD to INT ratio. Unitas also won a SB, 2 NL titles and had 4 NL title game appearances.

Bradshaw had .1 less yds per attempt but was +2 TDs o INT(not that impressive but looks incredible compared to -47) and won 4 SBs.

Staubach had less yards b/c of less attempts, he had a 7.7 YPA compared to 7.3 for Joe and he was +44 TDs to INts. He also missed the playoffs ONCE in his career and won a SB and appeared in 3 others.

Fouts threw for more ards and had a higher YPA, had a +12 TD to INT ratio.

The ONLY QB Namath had a higher TDper game ratio wa Dawson and dawson was 1.1 while Joe was 1.2. Griese was 1.2, Tarkenton 1.4, unitas 1.4, Bradshaw 1.3, Fouts 1.4.

So he DIDN'T throw for more yards than most of the QBs(and YPA he wasn't ahead of anyone) and he didn't throw for more TDs per game(only ahead of ONE of the QBs you mentioned).

I apologize. Meant to post that he has similar stats in TD per game. My bad.

[serphnx]

Yes, if that's what people want.

If you don't like it, feel free to start a message board at HermLovers.com and you can ban anyone that badmouths him.

The fact remains that you don't control what people can post here. Deal with it.

KSJets for mod lol.

We've had our wars too over Penny, but those were all heat of the moment. I don't understand this Herm stance though in the offseason, there's like nothing going on right now to get passionate about.

[nyjunc]

So in yards per game he dogged alot of his contemporaries but in yard per attempt he was .1, .2, .3 less. Also since you have trouble spelling how can I trust your math.

I don't have trouble spelling, it's called typos.

Yards per game is great but wouldn't TDs and not throwing INTs be more important? YPG is the only stats he is near th top w/ these QBs but it's the least important category.

[crackbackblock]

I don't have trouble spelling, it's called typos.

Yards per game is great but wouldn't TDs and not throwing INTs be more important? YPG is the only stats he is near th top w/ these QBs but it's the least important category.

Last post on this from me. His YPG is better than the other QB's of his era. His TD's per game (when you don't round up and down like you did is) is better than a majority of his peers. His INT's were high. Dawson, who you constantly compare to Joe, played on some great teams. Dominate teams. Namath played on some really bad teams. Namath still had more YPG and TD's than Dawson. Yes, TD's are important and Namath averaged more per game than Dawson. Since you said YPG is the least important I could also postulate that since Namath had more YPG he put his team in position to score more often than Dawson did but we don't know that for certain. Just like we don't know how his high INT hurt them. The fact is Namath was a gunslinger. Think of him and the Jets offense as the Air Coryell or Dolphins offense under Marino of its era. It was wide open high risk (INT) high reward (TDs). Dawson played in Stramm's offense. It was very controlled. Lots of screens and shorter passes. But no matter which way you want to split hairs Namath was better in YPG and TD than Dawson. Since team achievements do figure in the equation and seem to be of major importance to you, the Jets with Joe won a SB and what a win it was.

Oh and Herm still sucks and can't tell time. Have a nice life.

[Bugg]

Put it this way-if you put Namath behind the Steelers' OL with Harris and Bleier around 1974, the Steelers win 5 Super Bowls, even with the crappy knees, the partying. Same with Dallas, though Tom Laundry wouldn't have tolerated him calling his own plays for a second.

[nyjunc]

Last post on this from me. His YPG is better than the other QB's of his era. His TD's per game (when you don't round up and down like you did is) is better than a majority of his peers. His INT's were high. Dawson, who you constantly compare to Joe, played on some great teams. Dominate teams. Namath played on some really bad teams. Namath still had more YPG and TD's than Dawson. Yes, TD's are important and Namath averaged more per game than Dawson. Since you said YPG is the least important I could also postulate that since Namath had more YPG he put his team in position to score more often than Dawson did but we don't know that for certain. Just like we don't know how his high INT hurt them. The fact is Namath was a gunslinger. Think of him and the Jets offense as the Air Coryell or Dolphins offense under Marino of its era. It was wide open high risk (INT) high reward (TDs). Dawson played in Stramm's offense. It was very controlled. Lots of screens and shorter passes. But no matter which way you want to split hairs Namath was better in YPG and TD than Dawson. Since team achievements do figure in the equation and seem to be of major importance to you, the Jets with Joe won a SB and what a win it was.

Oh and Herm still sucks and can't tell time. Have a nice life.

Namath didn't have more TDs than dawson, he had 66 LESS despite attempting MRE passes. fouts in the Air Coryell years threw 12 MORE TDs than INTs, marino had ONE year w/ more INts than TDs and that was his last year.

So far I see alot of passion from Namath fans which is great, again I do apprecitae what he did for us BUT I don't see any compelling arguments for him being a great QB for more than a couple of years.

[nyjunc]

Put it this way-if you put Namath behind the Steelers' OL with Harris and Bleier around 1974, the Steelers win 5 Super Bowls, even with the crappy knees, the partying. Same with Dallas, though Tom Laundry wouldn't have tolerated him calling his own plays for a second.

I disagree, putting an interception machine at QB would have hurt the greatness of the Steeler D, they still would have won alot but to sa they would have won more I think is inaccurate.

[Sperm Edwards]

Herm Edwards is the worst thing that has ever happened to God's green earth. The worst of the rest (raping rain forests, pumping all sorts of garbage into our air & drinking water), would be a distant second. I hope he gets pussing ass warts on his tongue and eyeballs.

[KSJets]

Herm Edwards is the worst thing that has ever happened to God's green earth. The worst of the rest (raping rain forests, pumping all sorts of garbage into our air & drinking water), would be a distant second. I hope he gets pussing ass warts on his tongue and eyeballs.

So are you saying you don't like him?

[Jetsfan80]

So are you saying you don't like him?

Of course he likes him. His alias and 60 % of his posts are devoted to him.

[MSGold12]

Put it this way-if you put Namath behind the Steelers' OL with Harris and Bleier around 1974, the Steelers win 5 Super Bowls, even with the crappy knees, the partying. Same with Dallas, though Tom Laundry wouldn't have tolerated him calling his own plays for a second.

Could not agree more. You put Namath on a team like Pitt with a decent OL, a balanced attack, and a solid D and he would have cleaned up wiht SB rings. Instead he played on a team that for much of his 70s career relied on him alone to be their O and had a D that gave up 30+ a game so he was constantlyu playing from behind. And Bradshaw? Go chekc his td/int ratio pre 1978...93 tds/118 ints (a fact conveniently ignored by our resident anti namath stat nerd).

Namath threw a lot of picks but only an ignorant stat geek doesnt look beyond the numbers to understand WHY the int numbers were so high.

Bottom line, namath on either Dallas, Pittsburgh, or Miami during the 70s has multiple rings. Bradshaw on the 70s jets never sniffs the playoffs.

[Bugg]

I disagree, putting an interception machine at QB would have hurt the greatness of the Steeler D, they still would have won alot but to sa they would have won more I think is inaccurate.

StatBoy, suddenly you disregard that Bradshaw's TD/Int ratio was really awful, as MSG notes. So much so that he lost his job, twice in fact, to Terry Hanratty and Joe Gilliam. It's not even a comparison how much better Namath was than Bradshaw. If you want to buy that ex post facto nonsense that Bradshaw was great, fine, but Chuck Noll didn't. Bradshaw was mostly the product of some natural ability in a great team-2 HoF WRs, a HoF RB and a very good FB, a great OL with HoF C, and a defense that was chock full of HOFers. Namath never had any of that. Again, even hurt and hungover, any coach with a brain would've gone for Namath over Bradshaw at that time.

[Bugg]

Bottom line, namath on either Dallas, Pittsburgh, or Miami during the 70s has multiple rings. Bradshaw on the 70s jets never sniffs the playoffs.

This, my friend, is Gospel.

[crackbackblock]

Could not agree more. You put Namath on a team like Pitt with a decent OL, a balanced attack, and a solid D and he would have cleaned up wiht SB rings. Instead he played on a team that for much of his 70s career relied on him alone to be their O and had a D that gave up 30+ a game so he was constantlyu playing from behind. And Bradshaw? Go chekc his td/int ratio pre 1978...93 tds/118 ints (a fact conveniently ignored by our resident anti namath stat nerd).

Namath threw a lot of picks but only an ignorant stat geek doesnt look beyond the numbers to understand WHY the int numbers were so high.

Bottom line, namath on either Dallas, Pittsburgh, or Miami during the 70s has multiple rings. Bradshaw on the 70s jets never sniffs the playoffs.

So true.

[nyjunc]

Could not agree more. You put Namath on a team like Pitt with a decent OL, a balanced attack, and a solid D and he would have cleaned up wiht SB rings. Instead he played on a team that for much of his 70s career relied on him alone to be their O and had a D that gave up 30+ a game so he was constantlyu playing from behind. And Bradshaw? Go chekc his td/int ratio pre 1978...93 tds/118 ints (a fact conveniently ignored by our resident anti namath stat nerd).

Namath threw a lot of picks but only an ignorant stat geek doesnt look beyond the numbers to understand WHY the int numbers were so high.

Bottom line, namath on either Dallas, Pittsburgh, or Miami during the 70s has multiple rings. Bradshaw on the 70s jets never sniffs the playoffs.

Guess what? Namatah WASN'T on Pitt.

Why do you try to take away years to fit your weak arguments? You CAN'T take away Bardshaw's 78-'83. Why not take away his 1st 4 1/2 years when he struggled? if you do that he had a +35 TD to INT ratio. The biggest difference btw Terry and Joe is that Terry after his first 5 years never had another season w/ more INts than TDs while Joe had ONE season of more TDs than INTs in his 13 year career.

keep calling me a stat geek,. that really helps your argument. When you post any solid afcts to back your claims I'll tip my cap but until then you just look silly. w/ all the excuses- so far we have open the season on the road, injuries, his 2nd year, had bad #s last 3 years, what if he was on Pitt, take away Bardshaw's last 6 seasons (by the way if we did take away Bradshaw's last 6 seasons his ratio is only -25 which is bad but nothing compared to -47).

Keep trying, you are making me laugh w/ every post you write.

[nyjunc]

StatBoy, suddenly you disregard that Bradshaw's TD/Int ratio was really awful, as MSG notes. So much so that he lost his job, twice in fact, to Terry Hanratty and Joe Gilliam. It's not even a comparison how much better Namath was than Bradshaw. If you want to buy that ex post facto nonsense that Bradshaw was great, fine, but Chuck Noll didn't. Bradshaw was mostly the product of some natural ability in a great team-2 HoF WRs, a HoF RB and a very good FB, a great OL with HoF C, and a defense that was chock full of HOFers. Namath never had any of that. Again, even hurt and hungover, any coach with a brain would've gone for Namath over Bradshaw at that time.

Does calling me stat geek or stat boy help your arguments? I have PROVEN that it's more than just stats but anyway.

Bradsahw struggled early in his career but once he got it going he never looked back. 4 of his first 5 years he had negative TD-INT ratios but joe had only ONE season in his career w/ a positive TD-INT ratio. What does that tell you?

Athletically Namath was light years ahead of Bradshaw and IF Namatah never gets hurt I think he would have been better BUT he did and he didn't perform at great level long enough and certainly not as long as Bradshaw and other QBs of those days.

[nyjunc]

This, my friend, is Gospel.

He WASN'T on Pitt, Dallas or Miami. he was on the Jets, a very talented Jets team for a 4-5 year stretch where we made the playoffs just twice. You can play the what if game but where does that get us? it just shows how weak your arguments are that the biggest point you have is "waht if he played on Pitt, Dallas or Miami".

[Bugg]

Does calling me stat geek or stat boy help your arguments? I have PROVEN that it's more than just stats but anyway.

Bradsahw struggled early in his career but once he got it going he never looked back. 4 of his first 5 years he had negative TD-INT ratios but joe had only ONE season in his career w/ a positive TD-INT ratio. What does that tell you?

Athletically Namath was light years ahead of Bradshaw and IF Namatah never gets hurt I think he would have been better BUT he did and he didn't perform at great level long enough and certainly not as long as Bradshaw and other QBs of those days.

Here's what you keep missing-Namath after '70 or so didn't have much of a supporting cast to work with. Yo can be the greatest field QB in the world, but if the team around you is lousy, it doesn't much matter. Bradshaw had a roster around him that was and still is close to unprecedented in talent relative to the other teams of the era. And yet he was still yanked twice, berated constantly and to this day disliked by Chuck Noll and many of those teammates.

Namath, by contrast, ws trusted by Eubanks completely.Even if some teammates disliked him, they weren't about to call for Babe Parilli or Al Woodall to take over-which happened, twice, in Pittsburgh. Again, you're looking back at Bradshaw's last few years when he had EVERYTHING you could want, and still made a mess on occasion. And Bradshaw had health, which is simply a matter of luck.

Point being, Namath was a better QB than Bradshaw, period. But to see it requires the ability to look beyond mere stats.They're important, but in as team-oriented a sport as the NFL, they aren't dispositive. You have to look at the player's situation as part of the whole, and understand tyhat his stats flow from that situation. They asked Namath to win every game he could with his arm. Bradshaw never had to do much more than play within himself and minimize his mistakes, and yet he often did try to do to much. In the immortal words of Texas lottery winner Hollywood Henderson, Bradshaw couldn't spell CAT if you spot him the C and the A. ANd it may be a joke, but it's not far from the truth.

[nyjunc]

Here's what you keep missing-Namath after '70 or so didn't have much of a supporting cast to work with. Yo can be the greatest field QB in the world, but if the team around you is lousy, it doesn't much matter. Bradshaw had a roster around him that was and still is close to unprecedented in talent relative to the other teams of the era. And yet he was still yanked twice, berated constantly and to this day disliked by Chuck Noll and many of those teammates.

Namath, by contrast, ws trusted by Eubanks completely.Even if some teammates disliked him, they weren't about to call for Babe Parilli or Al Woodall to take over-which happened, twice, in Pittsburgh. Again, you're looking back at Bradshaw's last few years when he had EVERYTHING you could want, and still made a mess on occasion. And Bradshaw had health, which is simply a matter of luck.

Point being, Namath was a better QB than Bradshaw, period. But to see it requires the ability to look beyond mere stats.They're important, but in as team-oriented a sport as the NFL, they aren't dispositive. You have to look at the player's situation as part of the whole, and understand tyhat his stats flow from that situation. They asked Namath to win every game he could with his arm. Bradshaw never had to do much more than play within himself and minimize his mistakes, and yet he often did try to do to much. In the immortal words of Texas lottery winner Hollywood Henderson, Bradshaw couldn't spell CAT if you spot him the C and the A. ANd it may be a joke, but it's not far from the truth.

and here comes another excuse, a great QB is supposed to elevate his team. Brady hasn't had much offensive talent to work w/ in his career yet all he does is win. marino never had a good D until it was too late and never had gret offensive talent yet he was in the playoffs almost every year. Badshaw was yanked twice early in his career, once he established himself those days were over. He got better as his career went on while Joe peaked around year 3 or 4.

Was Namatah a better talent than Bradshaw? absolutely no question aout it but he was not a better QB on the field b/c Joe wasn't on the field enough. Durability counts and Joe was not durable. I have no doubt that if Joe was healthy and played on Pitt he would have done better than Bradshaw or if Joe washealthy on the Jets he would have done better than Bradshaw but the facts are he didn't b/c he wasn't n the field enough.

[Bugg]

"and here comes another excuse, a great QB is supposed to elevate his team."

Bradshaw had some much talent around him he didn't have to elevate at all: they were already there. You could've put any number of contemporary 1970s QBs there-(Stabler, Griese, Joe Ferguson, Snead, Namath, Morton, Staubach, Jones, Manning,Tarkenton) and the results would've been as good, and in several cases(I'd say Stabler, Griese, Joe Ferguson, Namath, Staubach, Jones, Manning,Tarkenton), even better. But you didn't see any of those guys play, so you go by numbers alone and that Bradshaw's in the HoF. But you're ignoring that this is the ultimate team game. And by doing that you're giving too much credit to Bradshaw and too little to Namath.

[jetophile]

...But you're ignoring that this is the ultimate team game. And by doing that you're giving too much credit to Bradshaw and too little to Namath.

Amen, brotha; but you also have to realize you're going to die from apoplexy before the day is over. Hehe.

[nyjunc]

"and here comes another excuse, a great QB is supposed to elevate his team."

Bradshaw had some much talent around him he didn't have to elevate at all: they were already there. You could've put any number of contemporary 1970s QBs there-(Stabler, Griese, Joe Ferguson, Snead, Namath, Morton, Staubach, Jones, Manning,Tarkenton) and the results would've been as good, and in several cases(I'd say Stabler, Griese, Joe Ferguson, Namath, Staubach, Jones, Manning,Tarkenton), even better. But you didn't see any of those guys play, so you go by numbers alone and that Bradshaw's in the HoF. But you're ignoring that this is the ultimate team game. And by doing that you're giving too much credit to Bradshaw and too little to Namath.

I agree Bradshaw had amazing talent but Joe had great talent for a 4- year stretch as wel and couldn't get us to more than 2 postseasons.

QBs are the most important players on the field, a great QB is the difference btw a good and bad team or a good and great team. Joe didn't elevate his team long enough. I 100% agree put a healthy Joe against all those players and if he's not the best he's close but one again durability counts and it robbed him of great years. that is typcial Jets luck as we had an all-time great talent but of course he coudn't play up to that level long enough b/c of injuries.

[MSGold12]

I agree Bradshaw had amazing talent but Joe had great talent for a 4- year stretch as wel and couldn't get us to more than 2 postseasons.

QBs are the most important players on the field, a great QB is the difference btw a good and bad team or a good and great team. Joe didn't elevate his team long enough. I 100% agree put a healthy Joe against all those players and if he's not the best he's close but one again durability counts and it robbed him of great years. that is typcial Jets luck as we had an all-time great talent but of course he coudn't play up to that level long enough b/c of injuries.

Please name the 4 years that Namath had "great talent" around him.

[nyjunc]

Please name the 4 years that Namath had "great talent" around him.

'65: Snell, Mathis at RB. Maynard, Sauer, Turner at WR. Herman, Hill, Plunkett on the OL.

'66: Boozer and Snell at RB, Maynard & sauer at WR, Lammons at TE. Plunkett, Herman, Hill on the OL

'67: Boozer and Snell at RB, Maynard & Sauer at WR, Lammons at TE, Plunkett, Herman, Hill on the OL.

'68: Boozer and Snell at RB, Maynard & Sauer at WR, Lammons at TE, Herman, Hill, Rasmussen,Talamini on the OL

'69: Boozr and Snell at RB, Maynard & sauer at WR, Lammons at TE, Herman, Hill, Talamini, rasmussen OL

That doesn't include the great defensive players we had where we always had a top 6 D in those 5 years. I can give him a pass for '65 as he was a rookie and maybe '66 but by '67 we should have been a playoff team. he was hurt alot after 1969 but once again durability counts.

[Jet Moses]

Please name the 4 years that Namath had "great talent" around him.

The Jets have like, 3 players in the HOF.

I think the Bradshaw era Steelers have their own wing.