Why is Joe Namath in the Hall of Fame?

[superskin]

So I come across one of the countless articles about the Brett Favre saga, and I notice a reference to Joe Namath leaving the Jets for the Rams in 1977, only to retire after four games. Curious to see how he performed in those four games on two dead knees, I looked up his statistics. Which leads me to this question: How in the world did he get inducted into the HOF? How was this man named one of the Top 100 Football Players of ALL TIME by The Sporting News in 1999? His career statistics:


5 AFL Season Totals 15,487 yards, 97 TDS, 104 INTS - RATING: 70.1
8 NFL Season Totals 12,176 yards, 76 TDS, 116 INTS - RATING: 59.9

Career WON-LOSS-TIE RECORD: 77-108-3

I know he was flamboyant. I know he was the first real modern era passer. I know he predicted the win over the Colts. But do results not count for anything? I am really shocked by this. Does this mean Gus Frerotte could be an eventual Hall of Famer???

Someone please put this in perspective for me.

[Fathead]

He's in the HOF because of being famous. He's the Paris Hilton of professional football.

[InsomniaKiller]

Very mediocre stats to our eyes, to be sure, but that was such a different era that you can't really look at the numbers the same way you do with more recent players. The rules back then just made it extremely tough on both receivers and quarterbacks. Triple digit passer ratings just didn't happen back then. A 70 was actually pretty dang good.

He was the first quarterback to throw for 4,000 yards in a season. He was often ranked in the top 3 in statistical categories like touchdowns, passing yards, and, yes, interceptions. I suppose he was much like Brett Favre in many respects, not that I ever got to see him play. That's just the impression I get from highlights and looking at his stats.

A media darling who passes the ball A LOT and comes up with some huge plays at the right time. He was borderline Hall of Fame based on talent alone. His persona and his Super Bowl guarantee sealed the deal.

[smoak]

He is in the HOF primarily the same reason it took Monk so long to get in... The committee puts too much emphasis on the Super Bowl moment in a player's career.

[WarEagle]

Here's the way I explain Joe Namath. Remember in the movie The Wizard of Oz when it went from black & white to vivid color? That's what Joe Namath did to the NFL. He's the single most important player the game has ever seen, for many reasons.

So really, the HoF voters looked at his stats (which aren't that bad for the time) and considered his overall contributions, and voted him in.

I'm lucky enough to remember when he actually played. You just made an Auburn fan defend a Crimson Tider. yikes...

[CarMike]

I thought he made the HOF after he harrassed Suzy Kolber??? lol

[smoak]

I thought he made the HOF after he harrassed Suzy Kolber??? lol

Oh geez... Could you imagine that acceptance speech!? And who would present him?

[Ibleedburgundy]

Oh geez... Could you imagine that acceptance speech!? And who would present him?

Richard Gere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-jR4laUkXA

[dj_stouty]

http://www.sportsmansdaily.com/images/JoeNamathinFur.JPG

Guys who wear furs on the bench don't belong in the HOF!

He really wasn't that great. His biggest accomplishment was predicting a super bowl win.

[akhhorus]

He doesn't have the stats, but he was as iconic a player as there was in the NFL.

[WarEagle]

http://www.sportsmansdaily.com/images/JoeNamathinFur.JPG

Guys who wear furs on the bench don't belong in the HOF!

He really wasn't that great. His biggest accomplishment was predicting a super bowl win.

I know younger folks tend to see him as an old flamboyant boozehound, but that guy sitting on the bench in fur led both his college and NFL teams to national championships. He's the only QB to do that. Do you know how hard that is?

And he failed his draft physical because of his knees.

[RedskinsDave]

Here's the way I explain Joe Namath. Remember in the movie The Wizard of Oz when it went from black & white to vivid color? That's what Joe Namath did to the NFL. He's the single most important player the game has ever seen, for many reasons.

So really, the HoF voters looked at his stats (which aren't that bad for the time) and considered his overall contributions, and voted him in.

I'm lucky enough to remember when he actually played. You just made an Auburn fan defend a Crimson Tider. yikes...

Most. Ridiculous. Statement. Ever. If we banned people for making crazy non-sensical statements, this would get you banned twice.

[WarEagle]

Most. Ridiculous. Statement. Ever. If we banned people for making crazy non-sensical statements, this would get you banned twice.

Stick with Yankees baseball, Dave.

[smoak]

He doesn't have the stats, but he was as iconic a player as there was in the NFL.

Literal question:

Should iconic players make the HOF? Just curious as to your view on the original question as I am not passionate either way (despite the fact I wouldn't have voted him in.)

[dj_stouty]

Literal question:

Should iconic players make the HOF? Just curious as to your view on the original question as I am not passionate either way (despite the fact I wouldn't have voted him in.)

I think that creeps into the minds of many of the voters...but it isn't one of their top criteria. I think peformance on the field (stats and wins) and how that player stacks up to his peers over that era are bigger criteria.

[RedskinsDave]

Stick with Yankees baseball, Dave.

Its the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Famous. He doesn't deserve to visit the hall muchless have a bust there. If he were the benchmark for making it in, they would need to add a whole wing of bad QB's. It's appropriate you have no response.

[Fathead]

He's the single most important player the game has ever seen, for many reasons.




Baugh, Unitas, Starr....these 3 are 100000000000000000000000000% more important than Namath. And that's just 3 guys off the top of my head.

[BraveHeartFan]

I've always been curious myself because while, yes, he might have been influential due to the game being very different back then his stats just don't read like that of a guy who was anything more than average. I've always felt, and probably always will, that he got in entirely on the fact that he said that they would beat the Colts and then they went out and did it.

[akhhorus]

Literal question:

Should iconic players make the HOF? Just curious as to your view on the original question as I am not passionate either way (despite the fact I wouldn't have voted him in.)

I don't know. Namath basically did miss most or half of 4-6 seasons during his career, so I think the voters took that and his super bowl win(and guarantee) into consideration.

[smoak]

Its the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Famous. He doesn't deserve to visit the hall muchless have a bust there. If he were the benchmark for making it in, they would need to add a whole wing of bad QB's. It's appropriate you have no response.

Agreed, but I don't think that is how they vote.

Most important player the game has ever seen is a laughing croc of bad shrimp with a side of salmonella sauce.

[shally]

I don't know. Namath basically did miss most or half of 4-6 seasons during his career, so I think the voters took that and his super bowl win(and guarantee) into consideration.


A. he played in new york... anyone think he ends up in the HOF if most of his career was spent in Denver ?

B. his signing by the AFL might have been one of the most singular events that put them on the road to equality with the NFL

C. his charisma and ability to manipulate the press cannot be over estimated

clearly on the basis of stats alone, he does not deserve a place in the HOF

[Santheb]

My dad grew up watching Joe Namath and whenever we get to talking about great quarterbacks, he will ALWAYS mention Joe Namath and especially the fact that he had his trading card. I don't know why, based on his stats, but I guess there had to be something about him that made him great.

[RedskinsDave]

He wasn't great. The argument that the ERA he played in effected his passer rating doesn't float either because he was on a team that DID throw the ball. He led the league in passes attempted at times but he also led the league in INTs as well. He never finished higher than 3rd in passer rating. There just isn't enough to justify him being in the Hall.

[shally]

He wasn't great. The argument that the ERA he played in effected his passer rating doesn't float either because he was on a team that DID throw the ball. He led the league in passes attempted at times but he also led the league in INTs as well. He never finished higher than 3rd in passer rating. There just isn't enough to justify him being in the Hall.


not only that, the only time the jets ever made significant post season
impact was the solitary year they won the SB.. other than that, they were pretty much a non factor

[hogskins]

I think that creeps into the minds of many of the voters...but it isn't one of their top criteria. I think performance on the field (stats and wins) and how that player stacks up to his peers over that era are bigger criteria.

That's my understanding of how it SHOULD be, too. The way that he broke into the league, the SB guarantee, and his flambouyance definitely put him in the HOF. In looking back over his stats in the late 60s/early 70s, when I was just starting to pay attention to pro football, it's hard to reconcile that he was more famous than Jurgy. But even Bob Griese, playing for much better teams, wasn't THAT much better than Namath.

[InsomniaKiller]

He wasn't great. The argument that the ERA he played in effected his passer rating doesn't float either because he was on a team that DID throw the ball. He led the league in passes attempted at times but he also led the league in INTs as well. He never finished higher than 3rd in passer rating. There just isn't enough to justify him being in the Hall.


The era is huge. Yeah, he threw the ball a lot, but defenders could do things to receivers back then that could damn near get them ejected in today's game!

His passer rating hovered in the 60's and 70's or so, but back then 80 would be enough to be #1 in the league! You didn't get 90's and you sure never even sniffed triple-digits. He racked up yards, td's and int's. He racked them up by passing a lot, and the team passed a lot because they were one of the fewwho had a quarterback good enough to let 'em do it.

Brett Favre is considered a shoo-in after consistently leading the league in interceptions.

[smoak]

The era is huge. Yeah, he threw the ball a lot, but defenders could do things to receivers back then that could damn near get them ejected in today's game!

His passer rating hovered in the 60's and 70's or so, but back then 80 would be enough to be #1 in the league! You didn't get 90's and you sure never even sniffed triple-digits. He racked up yards, td's and int's. He racked them up by passing a lot, and the team passed a lot because they were one of the fewwho had a quarterback good enough to let 'em do it.

Brett Favre is considered a shoo-in after consistently leading the league in interceptions.

I get the point, but to compare Namath to Favre is assinine IMO. Most people remember Favre on the back nine of his career, which was still better than Namath's best day (again MO without having seen Namath play). JN led the league in INTs FOUR times... Brett led twice. Favre led the NFL in TDs 4 times (including three straight with a bunch of 2nd place finishes). Namath? Once.

Or at least that is according to:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FavrBr00.htm

[Patrick]

Sup ....... All the "OLD" Colts fans have asked the same question for years .... LOL.

[WarEagle]

My dad grew up watching Joe Namath and whenever we get to talking about great quarterbacks, he will ALWAYS mention Joe Namath and especially the fact that he had his trading card. I don't know why, based on his stats, but I guess there had to be something about him that made him great.

The reason he mentions him is that in 1969, Namath competed with only Neil Armstrong for headlines. Shally, for christssakes, help me out here.

[RedskinsDave]

Wow, now it was just him and the first guy to walk on the moon. Good thing he totally sucked by time Watergate came around so those guys didn't steal his thunder too. Was there a war or are my history books all misprints?

[WarEagle]

Wow, now it was just him and the first guy to walk on the moon. Good thing he totally sucked by time Watergate came around so those guys didn't steal his thunder too. Was there a war or are my history books all misprints?

People had enough of the friggin' war and the protests by then. Neil in June and Joe in Autumn took our mind off that crap!

[shally]

The reason he mentions him is that in 1969, Namath competed with only Neil Armstrong for headlines. Shally, for christssakes, help me out here.

he was everywhere.. talk about a guy dominating the headlines. nobody else came close

the press loved him in NY

[InsomniaKiller]

I get the point, but to compare Namath to Favre is assinine IMO. Most people remember Favre on the back nine of his career, which was still better than Namath's best day (again MO without having seen Namath play). JN led the league in INTs FOUR times... Brett led twice. Favre led the NFL in TDs 4 times (including three straight with a bunch of 2nd place finishes). Namath? Once.

Or at least that is according to:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FavrBr00.htm

When I compare him to Brett Favre, please keep in mind that I consider *both* quarterbacks to be overrated. I'm not saying Namath was phenomenal. But he played at a level that typically kept him as a frontrunner in the important qb stats through his career. His talent level was borderline HOF but when you throw in all the media attention and the fat that he won a Super Bowl that was so important to the league, it's a given.

I suppose that's another manner in which I would compare him to Favre. A few great years surrounded by a lot of mediocrity. But the media worships him so everyone just accepts that he'll be a first-ballot HOF'er.

But my understanding is that Namath was never as pedestrian in the playoffs as Favre has been in the last, what, 9 or 10 years?

[sinskin]

Its the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Famous. He doesn't deserve to visit the hall muchless have a bust there. If he were the benchmark for making it in, they would need to add a whole wing of bad QB's. It's appropriate you have no response.

ok...This is the second most. ridiculous. statement. ever.

I would argue Irving's undeserved place in the Hall before Nameth's!!!