Interesting Namath Analysis - Football Ref

[JoeWillie]

Below is the link to a very interesting analysis of Joe Namath's career on Football Reference.com and why the author thinks he had a Hall of Fame career, despite not having the best career statistics.

I thought the guys (and gals) on this board, especially the younger ones who focus on statistics when assessing a player's "place in history", would be interested.

If you're old enough to have had seen Namath play, much of the article will reinforce what you already know.

If you're one who never got to see Namath play, and you question how good he was because his statistics don't measure up to the more recent players, this article may give you some more information to process. It may not change your mind, but I thought it was interesting enough to post.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=6003

[CTM]

I hate completion %.. always have..

thanks for the link

[Mentos]

I hate completion %.. always have..

thanks for the link

Yeah, really.

I hate when people slam Namath for a perceived low completion percentage when they don't even take into account the era.

Namath had a 49.2 completion percentage in 1968. The league average was 47.5

[NJ]

I hate completion %.. always have..

thanks for the link

New millennium Jet fans have been forced to hate completion % because it told us we had the best QB to ever play the game when the reality always left us, at best, on a hind teat.

[GodWearsAGrayHoodie]

Yeah, really.

I hate when people slam Namath for a perceived low completion percentage when they don't even take into account the era.

Namath had a 49.2 completion percentage in 1968. The league average was 47.5

Which is less than 2 points above the average. And not the league leader. Not even the top 3 for that year. Typically the HOF is for folks knock your sock off better than avg. His completion was better than avg, but not knock your sock off better. He threw the second most int that year as well.

Namath is in the HOF, so debating if he should or should not be in is pretty moot.

The HOF is not select by some computer the way the BCS ranking are and if by pretty much any stats or mathematical analysis Namath was not HOF worthy.

But the BCS doesn't select the HOF. People do. And Namath was a likeable guy. And he was the face of the '68 Jets. Probably the historically most significant SB. The face of that team. Namath selection wasn't about Namath it was about inducting the entire '68 Jets team. Jets don't win SB3 and Namath is nobody even considers him for the HOF. Marino got in on skill and stats. Namath got in on being the face of a historic game.

And he was likeable. People do the voting so this matters. By way of example. Does anybody think that one-ring Dungy isn't gonna get in the HOF? Absolutely he going in. Now take Dungy's accomplishements and give him the likeablity factor of Belichick, Rex Ryan, or Bill Poulin - no way in hell he gets in.

Namath is in the HOF. And rightful so. Not because he was one of the greatest QBs of all time -- he wasn't. But because he was the face of one of the greatest SB of all time. And one of the icons of the NFL.

[CTM]

Which is less than 2 points above the average. And not the league leader. Not even the top 3 for that year. Typically the HOF is for folks knock your sock off better than avg. His completion was better than avg, but not knock your sock off better. He threw the second most int that year as well.

Namath is in the HOF, so debating if he should or should not be in is pretty moot.

The HOF is not select by some computer the way the BCS ranking are and if by pretty much any stats or mathematical analysis Namath was not HOF worthy.

But the BCS doesn't select the HOF. People do. And Namath was a likeable guy. And he was the face of the '68 Jets. Probably the historically most significant SB. The face of that team. Namath selection wasn't about Namath it was about inducting the entire '68 Jets team. Jets don't win SB3 and Namath is nobody even considers him for the HOF. Marino got in on skill and stats. Namath got in on being the face of a historic game.

And he was likeable. People do the voting so this matters. By way of example. Does anybody think that one-ring Dungy isn't gonna get in the HOF? Absolutely he going in. Now take Dungy's accomplishements and give him the likeablity factor of Belichick, Rex Ryan, or Bill Poulin - no way in hell he gets in.

Namath is in the HOF. And rightful so. Not because he was one of the greatest QBs of all time -- he wasn't. But because he was the face of one of the greatest SB of all time. And one of the icons of the NFL.

so you either didn't read the article or you did read the article, disagree with the POV and neglected to counter any of his claims..

The article tackles what I think is the biggest issues with QB rating in that compeltion % is counted twice. They argue that YPA is a better metric and that Namath was usually among the league leaders in that stat and in 1972 > 2 SD's above averae..

Further they cite his low sack % as being something that negatively impacts compeltion %, but positively affects overall performance..

[GodWearsAGrayHoodie]

so you either didn't read the article or you did read the article, disagree with the POV and neglected to counter any of his claims..

The article tackles what I think is the biggest issues with QB rating in that compeltion % is counted twice. They argue that YPA is a better metric and that Namath was usually among the league leaders in that stat and in 1972 > 2 SD's above averae..

Further they cite his low sack % as being something that negatively impacts compeltion %, but positively affects overall performance..

He sites Joe's low sack rate, but we don't even know how many times he was sacked in the first four years of his carreer. He complete ignores Joes high inteception rate.

This is not just selective use of stats.

First off, while QB skill is a factor in sacks, it is in many ways more a measure of the o-line than the QB. And while ints are not always a the fault of the QB (wr might run the wrong route, oline doesn't give enough time) it is much more of a QB measure than sacks.

Second, he makes the utterly insane claim that it is better for a QB to throw an int than take a sack. This is wrong on so many levels it is not even worth discussing. A sack might mean you punt the ball, and int means the other team has the ball probably with great field position and maybe a touchdown on that very play. High int rate in order to avoid sacks means the QB is either stupid (bad decision making) or a coward (would rather throw the football than take a hit)

Joe is in the HOF. I don't begrudge him that. He is in there as symbol of the entire '68 Jets team. He is not one of the great QBs of all time nor the among the best QBs of his era. He is, however, one the great icons of the NFL. And as one of the great icons he deserves a place in the hall.

[CTM]

Second, he makes the utterly insane claim that it is better for a QB to throw an int than take a sack. This is wrong on so many levels it is not even worth discussing. A sack might mean you punt the ball, and int means the other team has the ball probably with great field position and maybe a touchdown on that very play. High int rate in order to avoid sacks means the QB is either stupid (bad decision making) or a coward (would rather throw the football than take a hit)

No.. He makes the claim that it's better throw a few INT's in order to take a a lot less sacks. Idea being that those that more often then not they won't be picked off and may extend drives, whereas sacks off you no chance.

[Klecko73isGod]

Which is less than 2 points above the average. And not the league leader. Not even the top 3 for that year. Typically the HOF is for folks knock your sock off better than avg. His completion was better than avg, but not knock your sock off better. He threw the second most int that year as well.

Namath is in the HOF, so debating if he should or should not be in is pretty moot.

The HOF is not select by some computer the way the BCS ranking are and if by pretty much any stats or mathematical analysis Namath was not HOF worthy.

But the BCS doesn't select the HOF. People do. And Namath was a likeable guy. And he was the face of the '68 Jets. Probably the historically most significant SB. The face of that team. Namath selection wasn't about Namath it was about inducting the entire '68 Jets team. Jets don't win SB3 and Namath is nobody even considers him for the HOF. Marino got in on skill and stats. Namath got in on being the face of a historic game.

And he was likeable. People do the voting so this matters. By way of example. Does anybody think that one-ring Dungy isn't gonna get in the HOF? Absolutely he going in. Now take Dungy's accomplishements and give him the likeablity factor of Belichick, Rex Ryan, or Bill Poulin - no way in hell he gets in.

Namath is in the HOF. And rightful so. Not because he was one of the greatest QBs of all time -- he wasn't. But because he was the face of one of the greatest SB of all time. And one of the icons of the NFL.

So in your mind Dungy gets no credit for taking the Bucs from being the worst franchise in the NFL and turning them completely around?

[Klecko73isGod]

He sites Joe's low sack rate, but we don't even know how many times he was sacked in the first four years of his carreer. He complete ignores Joes high inteception rate.

This is not just selective use of stats.

First off, while QB skill is a factor in sacks, it is in many ways more a measure of the o-line than the QB. And while ints are not always a the fault of the QB (wr might run the wrong route, oline doesn't give enough time) it is much more of a QB measure than sacks.

Second, he makes the utterly insane claim that it is better for a QB to throw an int than take a sack. This is wrong on so many levels it is not even worth discussing. A sack might mean you punt the ball, and int means the other team has the ball probably with great field position and maybe a touchdown on that very play. High int rate in order to avoid sacks means the QB is either stupid (bad decision making) or a coward (would rather throw the football than take a hit)

Joe is in the HOF. I don't begrudge him that. He is in there as symbol of the entire '68 Jets team. He is not one of the great QBs of all time nor the among the best QBs of his era. He is, however, one the great icons of the NFL. And as one of the great icons he deserves a place in the hall.

Actually, it's a measure of both. Oftentimes, QBs get sacked because they hold the ball too long. Take Ben Rothliesberger for example. I'd say 70% of the sacks Big Ben takes could be avoided if he got the ball out of his hands quicker and are not the o-line's fault.

[dbatesman]

First off, while QB skill is a factor in sacks, it is in many ways more a measure of the o-line than the QB.

Wrong.

[GodWearsAGrayHoodie]

So in your mind Dungy gets no credit for taking the Bucs from being the worst franchise in the NFL and turning them completely around?

He gets credit for the turn around.

But it is the hall of fame, not the hall of very good. Dungy is close enough on both sides that if folks didn't want him in he isn't going in. If folks want him in goes in. Peyton Manning goes in even if folks hate him.

Actually, it's a measure of both. Oftentimes, QBs get sacked because they hold the ball too long. Take Ben Rothliesberger for example. I'd say 70% of the sacks Big Ben takes could be avoided if he got the ball out of his hands quicker and are not the o-line's fault.

I agree it is a measure of both.

But if you compare sacks to int as measures. Sacks have more to do with the oline than int. And ints have more to do with the QB than sacks.

[Klecko73isGod]

He gets credit for the turn around.

But it is the hall of fame, not the hall of very good. Dungy is close enough on both sides that if folks didn't want him in he isn't going in. If folks want him in goes in. Peyton Manning goes in even if folks hate him.

I agree it is a measure of both.

But if you compare sacks to int as measures. Sacks have more to do with the oline than int. And ints have more to do with the QB than sacks.

I disagree. INTs could have a lot to do with the o-line.

If a line gives a guy no protection so he's constantly running for his life he is eventually going to start throwing the ball away to protect himself which will lead to INTs.

[GodWearsAGrayHoodie]

I disagree. INTs could have a lot to do with the o-line.

If a line gives a guy no protection so he's constantly running for his life he is eventually going to start throwing the ball away to protect himself which will lead to INTs.

Not if the QB is smart. He will throw it out of bounds or take the sack, instead of making a stupid pass.

To some extent this debate is over what you value in a QB...the gunslinger mentality of Brett Favre or the accuracy and smarts of Tom Brady.

[Klecko73isGod]

Not if the QB is smart. He will throw it out of bounds or take the sack, instead of making a stupid pass.

To some extent this debate is over what you value in a QB...the gunslinger mentality of Brett Favre or the accuracy and smarts of Tom Brady.

Smart and accurate like Tom Brady when he threw this pass?

[CTM]

Not if the QB is smart. He will throw it out of bounds or take the sack, instead of making a stupid pass.

To some extent this debate is over what you value in a QB...the gunslinger mentality of Brett Favre or the accuracy and smarts of Tom Brady.

Either that or it challanges your narrow view of what's makes a good QB and you don't like it..

I'd be really interested to see that breakdown of QB rating, I'd be willing to bet those that have a high rating propped up by completion % aren't as valuable as the others..

[Mentos]

Which is less than 2 points above the average. And not the league leader. Not even the top 3 for that year. Typically the HOF is for folks knock your sock off better than avg. His completion was better than avg, but not knock your sock off better. He threw the second most int that year as well.

I didn't write Namath was great in the completion percentage stat that year. Rather, all I did was simply note the league average and Namath's number.

My post was designed to be self-explanatory. It was to show that Namath's completion percentage was not as bad as those people lacking in football history knowledge would have you believe.

[Mentos]

He sites Joe's low sack rate, but we don't even know how many times he was sacked in the first four years of his carreer. He complete ignores Joes high inteception rate.

PFR doesn't have sack totals for Namath's first four years, but I have them for his third and fourth seasons. He was sacked 26 times for 261 yards in 1967. He was sacked 15 times for 112 yards in 1968.

High interception rate? Again, you need to take into account the era.

Sammy Baugh, Sid Luckman, and Otto Graham usually appear on lists of the top 10 QBs of all-time. All three threw interceptions at a higher rate than Namath.

Want to know just a few quarterbacks who threw interceptions less frequently than Namath?

Neil O'Donnell

Steve Bono

Ken O'Brien

Brad Johnson

Jeff George

Gus Frerotte

Michael Vick

Tony Banks

Aaron Brooks

David Carr

Doug Flutie

Elvis Grbac

Scott Mitchell

Rick Mirer

Billy Joe Tolliver

Tim Couch

interception percentages of some Pro Football Hall of Fame quarterbacks-

John Elway- 3.12

Roger Staubach- 3.68

Fran Tarkenton- 4.11

Dan Fouts- 4.32

Bart Starr- 4.38

Johnny Unitas- 4.88

Len Dawson- 4.89

Bob Griese- 5.02

Terry Bradshaw- 5.38

Y.A. Tittle- 5.79

Joe Namath- 5.85

Otto Graham- 6.01

Norm Van Brocklin- 6.15

Bobby Layne- 6.57

Sammy Baugh- 6.78

George Blanda- 6.91

Sid Luckman- 7.57

Bob Waterfield- 7.92

[Gainzo]

Smart and accurate like Tom Brady when he threw this pass?

Bad pass by Brady. That was the Pats 2nd loss and they still finished 14-2. The Pats won the Super Bowl that year. What is your point again?

[JoeWillie]

PFR doesn't have sack totals for Namath's first four years, but I have them for his third and fourth seasons. He was sacked 26 times for 261 yards in 1967. He was sacked 15 times for 112 yards in 1968.

High interception rate? Again, you need to take into account the era.

Sammy Baugh, Sid Luckman, and Otto Graham usually appear on lists of the top 10 QBs of all-time. All three threw interceptions at a higher rate than Namath.

Want to know just a few quarterbacks who threw interceptions less frequently than Namath?

Neil O'Donnell

Steve Bono

Ken O'Brien

Brad Johnson

Jeff George

Gus Frerotte

Michael Vick

Tony Banks

Aaron Brooks

David Carr

Doug Flutie

Elvis Grbac

Scott Mitchell

Rick Mirer

Billy Joe Tolliver

Tim Couch

inteception percentages of some Pro Football Hall of Fame quarterbacks-

John Elway- 3.12

Roger Staubach- 3.68

Fran Tarkenton- 4.11

Dan Fouts- 4.32

Bart Starr- 4.38

Johnny Unitas- 4.88

Len Dawson- 4.89

Bob Griese- 5.02

Terry Bradshaw- 5.38

Y.A. Tittle- 5.79

Joe Namath- 5.85

Otto Graham- 6.01

Norm Van Brocklin- 6.15

Bobby Layne- 6.57

Sammy Baugh- 6.78

George Blanda- 6.91

Sid Luckman- 7.57

Bob Waterfield- 7.92

Good stuff, Mentos.

[Klecko73isGod]

Bad pass by Brady. That was the Pats 2nd loss and they still finished 14-2. The Pats won the Super Bowl that year. What is your point again?

That was what, like six years ago? Who gives a crap?

[neckdemon]

Which is less than 2 points above the average. And not the league leader. Not even the top 3 for that year. Typically the HOF is for folks knock your sock off better than avg. His completion was better than avg, but not knock your sock off better. He threw the second most int that year as well.

Namath is in the HOF, so debating if he should or should not be in is pretty moot.

The HOF is not select by some computer the way the BCS ranking are and if by pretty much any stats or mathematical analysis Namath was not HOF worthy.

But the BCS doesn't select the HOF. People do. And Namath was a likeable guy. And he was the face of the '68 Jets. Probably the historically most significant SB. The face of that team. Namath selection wasn't about Namath it was about inducting the entire '68 Jets team. Jets don't win SB3 and Namath is nobody even considers him for the HOF. Marino got in on skill and stats. Namath got in on being the face of a historic game.

And he was likeable. People do the voting so this matters. By way of example. Does anybody think that one-ring Dungy isn't gonna get in the HOF? Absolutely he going in. Now take Dungy's accomplishements and give him the likeablity factor of Belichick, Rex Ryan, or Bill Poulin - no way in hell he gets in.

Namath is in the HOF. And rightful so. Not because he was one of the greatest QBs of all time -- he wasn't. But because he was the face of one of the greatest SB of all time. And one of the icons of the NFL.

i pretty much agree with this. namath is in the hof because of superbowl III.

[Mentos]

i pretty much agree with this. namath is in the hof because of superbowl III.

Good for you, but it is not true. He is in for a multitude of reasons most of which were outlined in that PFR article !nd reader comments.

[JoeWillie]

i pretty much agree with this. namath is in the hof because of superbowl III.

Respectfully disagree.

Certainly Super Bowl III was a big contributing factor.

However, Namath is in the Hall because, for about a 5 year period from 1967 to 1972, he was widely acknowledged by many people in the game as not only the best quarterback in football at THAT time, but also the sport's most exciting player, even with the injuries that prevented him from playing a couple of full seasons in that time span.

It's kind of funny ... if you never saw either Fran Tarkenton or Joe Namath play, you could look back on their career stats, and surmize that Fran Tarkenton was immeasurably better than Namath. In fact, many people who never saw either play, do.

However, if you ask anybody who was alive and saw each of those players play during that period, and asked them during THAT period who was better, 9 out of 10 people would have take Namath over Tarkenton hands down.

Even friends of mine who were huge Giants fans at the time acknowledged Namath was much better.

It's funny how analyzing statistics years later can cause people to have a totally different perspective than what was the ACTUAL perception at the time.

You're starting to see it now with Marino and how his career is being perceived retrospectively.

I don't expect the younger folks on this board to understand what I'm talking about, but anybody who was alive and followed football in the late 60's and early '70's knows what I'm talking about.

And 20 years from now when they change the rules again, and the "hotshot QB" of 2030 throws for 7,000 yards in a season, the same folks who are arguing AGAINST how good Namath was will be the guys arguing FOR Manning, Brady, or Montana.

It's a natural cycle.

[GodWearsAGrayHoodie]

I didn't write Namath was great in the completion percentage stat that year. Rather, all I did was simply note the league average and Namath's number.

My post was designed to be self-explanatory. It was to show that Namath's completion percentage was not as bad as those people lacking in football history knowledge would have you believe.

I don't think anyone would try to convince you Namath was a bad QB. Or even an average QB.

The claim of some is that he doesn't belong in the Hall because he was a better than average QB, but it isn't the "Hall of the Good" or even the "Hall of the Very Good" and that only players that are truly great belong in the hall of fame. There is some merit to that claim and pointing out that he has slightly better than avg completion rate does nothing to challenge it. Pointing out he wasn't bad, is not the same as making a claim he was great.

While I don't view him as one of the all time great QBs. Or the best QB of his era, I do feel he belongs in the HOF, because he was the icon that represented what might be considered the single most important football game in the history of the NFL.

[Mentos]

The claim of some is that he doesn't belong in the Hall because he was a better than average QB, but it isn't the "Hall of the Good" or even the "Hall of the Very Good" and that only players that are truly great belong in the hall of fame. There is some merit to that claim and pointing out that he has slightly better than avg completion rate does nothing to challenge it. Pointing out he wasn't bad, is not the same as making a claim he was great.

"The Hall of Very Good" is such a corny label and it doesn't really mean anything anyway because the PFHOF is not "The Hall of Great."

Let me also inform you that I pointed out his completion percentage compared to the league average only for 1968. I did not post numbers for his entire career. Furthermore, I did not post those numbers to show that Namath was great or something. I only posted those numbers as if to tell people, "Take into account the era before you see 49.2 and come to the ridiculous conclusion that Namath sucked" because we do see that sort of thinking on the internet.

Why you are making such a big deal over my first post in this thread is beyond me.

[jetophile]

It should also be taken into account that Namath was a scrambler in college before he got injured. It's only testament to his goods that he still managed to compensate. And managed to compensate very well. One can only imagine how much more he would have accomplished for the time if he wasn't a cripple.

He also was none too shabby on reading defense, INTs notwithstanding. Mentos, era you bet. Can't be emphasized enough, plus, example: If that prima donna Manning took 1/100th of the beatings Namath took, threw in the wind tunnel that was Shea instead of a domed stadium, didn't have his Daddy make the league change the rules just for him - yah, him specifically - who are we kidding here.

[bobbyjet69]

Go read Bill Walsh's book, How To Build A Champion.

In his eyes Joe Nameth was the best QB of all time!

[victorjets]

Go read Bill Walsh's book, How To Build A Champion.

In his eyes Joe Nameth was the best QB of all time!

MrUgB55lLM4

[JoeWillie]

MrUgB55lLM4

Perfect.

[Biggs]

Respectfully disagree.

Certainly Super Bowl III was a big contributing factor.

However, Namath is in the Hall because, for about a 5 year period from 1967 to 1972, he was widely acknowledged by many people in the game as not only the best quarterback in football at THAT time, but also the sport's most exciting player, even with the injuries that prevented him from playing a couple of full seasons in that time span.

It's kind of funny ... if you never saw either Fran Tarkenton or Joe Namath play, you could look back on their career stats, and surmize that Fran Tarkenton was immeasurably better than Namath. In fact, many people who never saw either play, do.

However, if you ask anybody who was alive and saw each of those players play during that period, and asked them during THAT period who was better, 9 out of 10 people would have take Namath over Tarkenton hands down.

Even friends of mine who were huge Giants fans at the time acknowledged Namath was much better.

It's funny how analyzing statistics years later can cause people to have a totally different perspective than what was the ACTUAL perception at the time.

You're starting to see it now with Marino and how his career is being perceived retrospectively.

I don't expect the younger folks on this board to understand what I'm talking about, but anybody who was alive and followed football in the late 60's and early '70's knows what I'm talking about.

And 20 years from now when they change the rules again, and the "hotshot QB" of 2030 throws for 7,000 yards in a season, the same folks who are arguing AGAINST how good Namath was will be the guys arguing FOR Manning, Brady, or Montana.

It's a natural cycle.

This post is right on the money. Jim Brown and Lawrence Taylor are the two greatest football players I ever saw. Bo Jackson, Gale Sayers and Joe Namath were absolute freaks. You couldn't take your eyes off of them when they were on the field. Freakish talent makes you stop and watch. Namath was one of the few that actually had that.

He was a show in Technicolor in a game that everyone else was playing in black and white. When he had a team around him that had the goods he produced a championship. Everyone at the time knew it.

As crappy as this franchise has been for most of it's life, it's legacy will always be Joe Namath until the last baby boomer Jets fans, writers, coaches and players are taken off life support. The pencil pushers who weren't lucky enough to see him play can tear him down all they want. I look at them as simply unlucky Jets fans who were born to late to enjoy the greatest NY Jets player ever.

[NIGHT STALKER]

This post is right on the money. Jim Brown and Lawrence Taylor are the two greatest football players I ever saw. Bo Jackson, Gale Sayers and Joe Namath were absolute freaks. You couldn't take your eyes off of them when they were on the field. Freakish talent makes you stop and watch. Namath was one of the few that actually had that.

He was a show in Technicolor in a game that everyone else was playing in black and white. When he had a team around him that had the goods he produced a championship. Everyone at the time knew it.

As crappy as this franchise has been for most of it's life, it's legacy will always be Joe Namath until the last baby boomer Jets fans, writers, coaches and players are taken off life support. The pencil pushers who weren't lucky enough to see him play can tear him down all they want. I look at them as simply unlucky Jets fans who were born to late to enjoy the greatest NY Jets player ever.

Excellent post. It's very difficult to convince the younger fans just how great JWN was. Today, it's all about stats and altough stats are a very good barometer, it doesn't tell the whole story.

On a personal note, JWN was the reason I became a Jets fan. I've only had two favorite players my entire life... Joe Namath and Mickey Mantle. I haven't seen comparable players since.

[#27TheDominator]

Excellent post. It's very difficult to convince the younger fans just how great JWN was. Today, it's all about stats and altough stats are a very good barometer, it doesn't tell the whole story.

On a personal note, JWN was the reason I became a Jets fan. I've only had two favorite players my entire life... Joe Namath and Mickey Mantle. I haven't seen comparable players since.

Dad? You moved to Florida?

[NIGHT STALKER]

Dad? You moved to Florida?

LOL...your dad and me know how to pick 'em and we're not alone.

[JoeWillie]

This post is right on the money. Jim Brown and Lawrence Taylor are the two greatest football players I ever saw. Bo Jackson, Gale Sayers and Joe Namath were absolute freaks. You couldn't take your eyes off of them when they were on the field. Freakish talent makes you stop and watch. Namath was one of the few that actually had that.

He was a show in Technicolor in a game that everyone else was playing in black and white. When he had a team around him that had the goods he produced a championship. Everyone at the time knew it.

As crappy as this franchise has been for most of it's life, it's legacy will always be Joe Namath until the last baby boomer Jets fans, writers, coaches and players are taken off life support. The pencil pushers who weren't lucky enough to see him play can tear him down all they want. I look at them as simply unlucky Jets fans who were born to late to enjoy the greatest NY Jets player ever.

Love that quote.

Think I'll use that going forward ... giving you full props of course, Biggs.