Quote:To answer the original question, the Jags just need to keep feeding the ball to Cecil Shorts. That guy is money!
The guy that isn't playing.. oh man.. I honestly feel bad for the people that think we have a chance of winning our opening game.
Eagles forgetting they have a game tomorrow.
Quote:I was just asking since you got so worked up, sorry if I struck a nerve. Namath is a HOF player, period, paragraph, voted in by his peers and we've agreed that wins and losses aren't the only factor in determining if a player is overrated or not. That's my argument. Since you agree, remind me again what we're arguing about?
We are debating whether Namath was overrated.
Namath was not inducted into Canton by his peers (meaning fellow players). The media selects HoF enshrinees.
The offense needs to intercept Hennes passes to their defense.
If the Jags can win the turnover margin by 3 or 4, they can win.
Quote:So under similar logic, you can argue Jim McMahon should be in the hall of fame.
He didn't have gaudy passing numbers. He revived a long moribund franchise with swagger and spunkiness and QBed arguably the mast dominant team over a single season to a Super Bowl. He was as known as much for his off field persona as his on field accomplishments.
No, I disagree.
Go a bit deeper into what I wrote. McMahon didn't transform the landscape of the NFL... That's the key point. Again, the AFL was not considered a legitimate football league. It can be argued, and football historians have stipulated Namath as a huge catalyst in moving the AFL into relevance and eventually a merger into the NFL occurred.
That's huge thing and much more important that what McMahon did, though I do have alot of respect for McMahon. With that said, using the McMahon analogy to try and dissuade my argument doesn't hold water. With all due respect to you, of course. :-)
Gerhart going off would help our chances. Couple a 100+ yard performance from our ground game with a solid showing from our defense and this game is winnable.
Quote:Gerhart going off would help our chances. Couple a 100+ yard performance from our ground game with a solid showing from our defense and this game is winnable.
Maybe he's been saving the burst for the regular season. I think he will get about 14-18 carries, splitting time with Denard... hope he breaks a few big ones though. It sure would help the offense if we weren't in 3rd and long all game.
Quote:Gerhart going off would help our chances. Couple a 100+ yard performance from our ground game with a solid showing from our defense and this game is winnable.
Our run blocking is and has been terrible since the beginning of last season. I wouldn't expect that..
Quote: No, I disagree.
Go a bit deeper into what I wrote. McMahon didn't transform the landscape of the NFL... That's the key point. Again, the AFL was not considered a legitimate football league. It can be argued, and football historians have stipulated Namath as a huge catalyst in moving the AFL into relevance and eventually a merger into the NFL occurred.
That's huge thing and much more important that what McMahon did, though I do have alot of respect for McMahon. With that said, using the McMahon analogy to try and dissuade my argument doesn't hold water. With all due respect to you, of course. :-)
So let's change the hypothetical.
Let's assume exactly the same careers in every respect but one. Let's suppose Len Dawson and the Chiefs won Super Bowl III against the Colts, while Namath and the Jets won Super Bowl IV against Minnesota.
Does Namath get into the Hall of Fame?
Quote:So let's change the hypothetical.
Let's assume exactly the same careers in every respect but one. Let's suppose Len Dawson and the Chiefs won Super Bowl III against the Colts, while Namath and the Jets won Super Bowl IV against Minnesota.
Does Namath get into the Hall of Fame?
That's a good question. It would hard for me to assume anything regarding an Era of the NFL of which I was not even born in, much less really watched.
With that said, I think the main question your asking is whether stats trump actual play in the game. Some players are HOFers because of the ridiculous amounts of stats they put up during their play. There has to be something said for a QB that took thier team to the SB and won it. But is 1 SB worthy of HOF status? Maybe in Namath's case it is.
Again, I didn't watch Namath play on Sundays. But I will take the word of NFL Films specicially the Sabols in terms of thier reverence for Namath during his prime. He may not have had the best stats, but there is something to be said for other considerations. Especially in that Era where QBs were important, but running the ball was a priority much greater than it is now or has been since the 80s.
I really think the league began to change in 83 when the Marino/Elway class (right it was 83?) came into effect. That was the beginning of when QB stats and performance really began to infiltrate the traditional run heavy league.
1. not starting Hennes
2. kidnapping Fisch