HawkShack.com

That's about as pointless of an article as I've ever read. What's next? 10 worst pitchers to have won a Cy Young award?

Besides Wilson, his inclusion of Joe Namath proves his ignorance. Namath was the best pure passing quarterback of his generation. Quick release, gutsy, arm like a cannon. Had he the benefit of 21st century medical technology, he would have played another 10 years at the level he played in '68.

RiverDog wrote:That's about as pointless of an article as I've ever read. What's next? 10 worst pitchers to have won a Cy Young award?

Besides Wilson, his inclusion of Joe Namath proves his ignorance. Namath was the best pure passing quarterback of his generation. Quick release, gutsy, arm like a cannon. Had he the benefit of 21st century medical technology, he would have played another 10 years at the level he played in '68.

I was going to say, Namath was a prolific passer in his day. One of the best. Knees cut his career short. And if I am not mistaken, Simms was at or near the top of the league in passer rating several yrs. He was at the very least a top 10 QB in his day.

Futureite wrote:

RiverDog wrote:That's about as pointless of an article as I've ever read. What's next? 10 worst pitchers to have won a Cy Young award?

Besides Wilson, his inclusion of Joe Namath proves his ignorance. Namath was the best pure passing quarterback of his generation. Quick release, gutsy, arm like a cannon. Had he the benefit of 21st century medical technology, he would have played another 10 years at the level he played in '68.

I was going to say, Namath was a prolific passer in his day. One of the best. Knees cut his career short. And if I am not mistaken, Simms was at or near the top of the league in passer rating several yrs. He was at the very least a top 10 QB in his day.

The whole premise is an oxymoronic statement. You have to be pretty darn good to lead a team to a Super Bowl win. Even pedestrian quarterbacks like Hostetler and Dilfer don't deserve to be tarred and feathered like the article implies. They all did what they were asked to do.

You're right about Namath. He was the first quarterback to pass for over 4,000 yards in a season. He was as fundamentally sound as any quarterback before or since. People focus in on the white shoes, the long hair, the fur coats, et al, and it tends to make them think that he was all style and no substance. But in his prime, he was as good a quarterback that has ever played the game, and certainly the best in his era.

Its one of those subjective evaluations.
I think QBs that win Super Bowls have a little something others don't that lets them be consistent in big games.

The other side to this list would be the best QBs to play on losing teams.
Who's to say those on that list would be able to handle the pressure on the biggest stage?

You never know about people until they are put in the position to succeed or fail in front of the whole world and it's real easy to pooh pooh their accomplishments to satisfy their agenda.

The fact that who ever did it does not even put their name on the article says a lot. Add to that a HOF on the list makes the list BS, the fact he did not mention how without Rw we do not even make the playoffs shows he has never watched the Hawks except maybe the SB.

RiverDog wrote:

Futureite wrote:

RiverDog wrote:That's about as pointless of an article as I've ever read. What's next? 10 worst pitchers to have won a Cy Young award?

Besides Wilson, his inclusion of Joe Namath proves his ignorance. Namath was the best pure passing quarterback of his generation. Quick release, gutsy, arm like a cannon. Had he the benefit of 21st century medical technology, he would have played another 10 years at the level he played in '68.

I was going to say, Namath was a prolific passer in his day. One of the best. Knees cut his career short. And if I am not mistaken, Simms was at or near the top of the league in passer rating several yrs. He was at the very least a top 10 QB in his day.

The whole premise is an oxymoronic statement. You have to be pretty darn good to lead a team to a Super Bowl win. Even pedestrian quarterbacks like Hostetler and Dilfer don't deserve to be tarred and feathered like the article implies. They all did what they were asked to do.

You're right about Namath. He was the first quarterback to pass for over 4,000 yards in a season. He was as fundamentally sound as any quarterback before or since. People focus in on the white shoes, the long hair, the fur coats, et al, and it tends to make them think that he was all style and no substance. But in his prime, he was as good a quarterback that has ever played the game, and certainly the best in his era.

I agree with everything you posted. And in the case of Wilson, you'd have to say at the very least that he was responsible in part for getting the team to 13-3 and HFA.

I guess my biggest issue isn't that Wilson was thrown onto that list ( there is always some idiot that will simply put a guy on there to draws hits) but that placing a player who has just finished his second season, and broken damn near every record on the books for 1st and 2nd year QB's in the history of the league, before he actually plays more than two seasons is assinign. Maybe he MISSED what Brady did his first couple years ( at least when he was winning SB's) or what he does when he HAS to make plays to win games ( must have completely skipped what he did in ATL for instannice)FAR, FAR,FAR to early to make that assertation or judgement. It also seems apparent the guy who wrote that has some pretty severe bias's placing all three giants qB's on the list, both African American SB winning QB'S, and EVERY QB with dominant defences seems to display a serious bias towards undervaluing QB'S of those teams.

HumanCockroach wrote:I guess my biggest issue isn't that Wilson was thrown onto that list ( there is always some idiot that will simply put a guy on there to draws hits) but that placing a player who has just finished his second season, and broken damn near every record on the books for 1st and 2nd year QB's in the history of the league, before he actually plays more than two seasons is assinign. Maybe he MISSED what Brady did his first couple years ( at least when he was winning SB's) or what he does when he HAS to make plays to win games ( must have completely skipped what he did in ATL for instannice)FAR, FAR,FAR to early to make that assertation or judgement. It also seems apparent the guy who wrote that has some pretty severe bias's placing all three giants qB's on the list, both African American SB winning QB'S, and EVERY QB with dominant defences seems to display a serious bias towards undervaluing QB'S of those teams.

I won't go so far as to accuse him of racism, just stupidity.

I'm cool with that, just seeing patterns. The only reason I can feasibly see Wilson's name on that list is because he just won the SB, beyond that, it's a stretch.

the fact he did not mention how without Rw we do not even make the playoffs shows he has never watched the Hawks except maybe the S

This.

Also, what HC said.

If you don't watch the Hawks, you see that RW won a few playoff games (this year) without being forced to throw for 400 yards.

If you *do* watch the Hawks, you see that RW *can* throw for whatever is needed to win the dmn game, and does so day in day out.

People hold the fact that we have a great D against Wilson, then ignore when the D falters and RW does what's needed anyway. And yeah, there are only 32 games to judge against, but I think his bona fides are established to everyone except those that won't see.

RiverDog wrote:That's about as pointless of an article as I've ever read. What's next? 10 worst pitchers to have won a Cy Young award?

Besides Wilson, his inclusion of Joe Namath proves his ignorance. Namath was the best pure passing quarterback of his generation. Quick release, gutsy, arm like a cannon. Had he the benefit of 21st century medical technology, he would have played another 10 years at the level he played in '68.

Here I am thinking that his Namath inclusion was the only thing that gave it any sort of validity.
Namath is easily the most overrated QB of his generation, one of the all time most overrated and over-hyped NFL football players period. He's only in the Hall because of his literal, fame, and because of one Super Bowl victory (one which he himself had little to do with).
If it weren't for Jets fans (and therefore the East Coast media) constantly including him in lists of all time greats, which he simply DOES NOT belong in, he would be remember only as the player he really was, instead of the invented legend he's become.

Namath's numbers are NOT HOF worthy. Yeah, he had a great arm, he was also a terrible decision maker, because he was always trying to do too much. No one who threw as many stupid passes and bad picks as Namath, and who played as few seasons with as weak statistics ought to be in the HOF in my opinion.

monkey wrote:

RiverDog wrote:Here I am thinking that his Namath inclusion was the only thing that gave it any sort of validity.
Namath is easily the most overrated QB of his generation, one of the all time most overrated and over-hyped NFL football players period. He's only in the Hall because of his literal, fame, and because of one Super Bowl victory (one which he himself had little to do with).
If it weren't for Jets fans (and therefore the East Coast media) constantly including him in lists of all time greats, which he simply DOES NOT belong in, he would be remember only as the player he really was, instead of the invented legend he's become.

Namath's numbers are NOT HOF worthy. Yeah, he had a great arm, he was also a terrible decision maker, because he was always trying to do too much. No one who threw as many stupid passes and bad picks as Namath, and who played as few seasons with as weak statistics ought to be in the HOF in my opinion.

Honest question for you, monkey: How old are you? Did you watch Namath play in the late 60's? I'm not trying to be facetious, but you have to have watched him play live to get a good feel for his ability as a quarterback. I agree, his numbers were not at all HOF worthy nor was his longevity. But that's not why he was inducted. Similar to Jackie Robinson's induction into baseball's HOF, Namath's induction was based on more than just his rather pedestrian stats. He literally made the AFL when he was signed out of college to a then outrageous contract of $400,000 at a time when a former league MVP, George Blanda, was having to drive a beer truck in the offseason to pay the bills. Namath's owner, Sonny Werblin, wanted him to become Broadway Joe, wanted a star that grabbed headlines and made you sit up in your chair. Namath made the AFL recognizable. He was controversial and rather anti establishment, and attracted an extremely wide audience (including half the female population under 35 years of age) of both those that loved him and those that wanted to see him fail, and as such, he and a handful of others in the AFL brought the NFL to its knees and made it what it is today.

Namath had the best combination of arm strength and quick release that I've ever seen. Yea, he made some bad decisions, as that was the style of the league back then. But I wonder, how would Peyton Manning's decision making been if he would have had to deal with bump and run coverage and without the protections quarterbacks enjoy nowadays? Namath would get picked off, he'd come off the field cussing at himself, then go back in the next series and jamb it back in the exact same spot for a TD. He took some hellatious hits, most of which are illegal nowadays, but stood in there and kept firing. If he had the benefit of today's reconstructive knee surgeries, he could have continued at his 1968 pace for another 10 years, but his effectiveness waned rapidly after SB III as he simply couldn't stand in the pocket even under moderate pressure.

RiverDog wrote:

monkey wrote:

RiverDog wrote:Here I am thinking that his Namath inclusion was the only thing that gave it any sort of validity.
Namath is easily the most overrated QB of his generation, one of the all time most overrated and over-hyped NFL football players period. He's only in the Hall because of his literal, fame, and because of one Super Bowl victory (one which he himself had little to do with).
If it weren't for Jets fans (and therefore the East Coast media) constantly including him in lists of all time greats, which he simply DOES NOT belong in, he would be remember only as the player he really was, instead of the invented legend he's become.

Namath's numbers are NOT HOF worthy. Yeah, he had a great arm, he was also a terrible decision maker, because he was always trying to do too much. No one who threw as many stupid passes and bad picks as Namath, and who played as few seasons with as weak statistics ought to be in the HOF in my opinion.

Honest question for you, monkey: How old are you? Did you watch Namath play in the late 60's? I'm not trying to be facetious, but you have to have watched him play live to get a good feel for his ability as a quarterback. I agree, his numbers were not at all HOF worthy nor was his longevity. But that's not why he was inducted. Similar to Jackie Robinson's induction into baseball's HOF, Namath's induction was based on more than just his rather pedestrian stats. He literally made the AFL when he was signed out of college to a then outrageous contract of $400,000 at a time when a former league MVP, George Blanda, was having to drive a beer truck in the offseason to pay the bills. Namath's owner, Sonny Werblin, wanted him to become Broadway Joe, wanted a star that grabbed headlines and made you sit up in your chair. Namath made the AFL recognizable. He was controversial and rather anti establishment, and attracted an extremely wide audience (including half the female population under 35 years of age) of both those that loved him and those that wanted to see him fail, and as such, he and a handful of others in the AFL brought the NFL to its knees and made it what it is today.

Namath had the best combination of arm strength and quick release that I've ever seen. Yea, he made some bad decisions, as that was the style of the league back then. But I wonder, how would Peyton Manning's decision making been if he would have had to deal with bump and run coverage and without the protections quarterbacks enjoy nowadays? Namath would get picked off, he'd come off the field cussing at himself, then go back in the next series and jamb it back in the exact same spot for a TD. He took some hellatious hits, most of which are illegal nowadays, but stood in there and kept firing. If he had the benefit of today's reconstructive knee surgeries, he could have continued at his 1968 pace for another 10 years, but his effectiveness waned rapidly after SB III as he simply couldn't stand in the pocket even under moderate pressure.

I reviewed some numbers on NFL.Com for Nanath's prime yrs. What struck me most was the descrepancy between the NFL and AFL QB's pass ratings. Starr, Meredith et all had good TD/Int ratio, while Namath threw for over 4,000 yds in one 12 game season, but posted some low QB ratings. That 4,000 yd yr prorates to 5,333 yds over a 16 game season. Lol I'll say for that era the guy could flat out deal. The AFL and NFL were completely different leagues with a different style of play - AFL geared towards passing and the NFL geared towards ball control and running. The latter lends to less mistakes, better QB rating. The former will almost always produce more turnovers and put more on the QB's plate. Those differences continued on for quite a while after the merger.

Anthony wrote:The fact that who ever did it does not even put their name on the article says a lot. Add to that a HOF on the list makes the list BS, the fact he did not mention how without Rw we do not even make the playoffs shows he has never watched the Hawks except maybe the SB.

NO NAME ARTICLE. Must be a Rams fan.

Futureite wrote:I reviewed some numbers on NFL.Com for Nanath's prime yrs. What struck me most was the descrepancy between the NFL and AFL QB's pass ratings. Starr, Meredith et all had good TD/Int ratio, while Namath threw for over 4,000 yds in one 12 game season, but posted some low QB ratings. That 4,000 yd yr prorates to 5,333 yds over a 16 game season. Lol I'll say for that era the guy could flat out deal. The AFL and NFL were completely different leagues with a different style of play - AFL geared towards passing and the NFL geared towards ball control and running. The latter lends to less mistakes, better QB rating. The former will almost always produce more turnovers and put more on the QB's plate. Those differences continued on for quite a while after the merger.

Yep. Good analysis.

The AFL had the dynamic, innovative coaches, guys like Hank Stram and Sid Gilman, while the NFL had the conservative, old guard establishment coaches, like Vince Lombardi, Bud Grant, and George Halas. When the AFL was started in 1960, those AFL coaches realized that good defensive backs would be the last component teams would add, so they took advantage of it and developed sophisticated passing offenses. In the late 60's, Paul Brown, perhaps the most innovative NFL coach of his era, jumped leagues and took over the expansion Cincinnati Bengals and his offensive coordinator, a guy by the name of Bill Walsh, and created what is now known as the West Coast Offense.

If you ever have the time, go back and watch the reruns of SB IV, the last game between the two leagues before they merged. Stram's Chiefs had so many different formations and pre snap shifts that the Vikings defense, one of the best in the game ("The Purple People Eaters") didn't know whether to chit or have puppies. On the other side of the ball, the Vikings had no pre snap shifts and didn't so much as send a single man in motion during the entire game.

Today's NFL has deep roots buried in yesterday's AFL, and it's hard to imagine what it would look like today if it never existed. Joe Namath, with his MVP performance in the greatest upset in sports history, was their standard bearer.

Another big influence in the passing game from the AFL days is Don Coryell.
He helped the down field pass game evolve in a big way and his Offenses were radical (for a lack of a better term) for the time.
Today's pass game is very much influenced by the AFL and their Offenses.