Let me a contrarian for just a moment here - that's how we arrive at correct conclusions sometimes.
(And before anyone comes after me, I'm NOT knocking Namath. For Pete's sake, I've got him rated in the top five myself but the better question - and I have to ask myself this, too - is "why").
Can anyone actually make a case for Joe Namath, even including the fact he played in an era less focused on the pass?
Not "he was a good athlete"
Not "he was a great QB"
Not "this is what I think his reputation was"
Not "but he won the Super Bowl after guaranteeing it"
Not "I saw him play and he was as good as so and so"
Can anyone actually make the case FOR Namath? Because I don't think the numbers bear it out.
How many of you actually looked at his college stats? I confess I didn't, I'm going off Bryant's evaluation of Joe overall.
But pretend you don't know the name of the person and then tell me what you think:
203 completions
374 attempts
54.3% completion passer
24 TDs
20 INTs
(In only his sophomore year did Namath have MORE passing TDs than INTs (13-8, 7-7, 4-5).
So...he must have been a fantastic runner, right????
190 attempts for 563 yards and 15 TDs (the last number is pretty good but would require micro-analysis to evaluate - 15 QB sneak plunges from the 1/2 yard line is not very imipressive).
An average of 3.0 yards per rush in a rushing era.
OK, so how does he rank compared to his peers at the same time - we have to have context.
It's easier to tell you the few times he rated nationally: he didn't. He was 14th nationally in passing yards in 1962.
He led the SEC in two categories: yards in 1962 and passing TDs in 1963, the same year he completed less than 1/2 of his passes.
In 1964, Namath quarterbacked the national champions. He was fifth in total yards.....not nationally but in the SEC despite playing every game.
Now don't get huffy with me and argue that I don't know what I'm talking about since I'm just asking what I think is a fair question.
I've long thought Namath's induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame was in large part due to his SB III win and charisma. And no, I DON'T hate the guy (hey, I wanted to kiss Suzy Kolber, too, back in the day), but I'm just asking a fair question.
OK, he was undoubtedly a leader. I'll assent to that. The man had some pretty lousy luck with his knees, too.
He had a ton of charisma (still does even in that coat).
But what's the REAL argument in favor of Namath? Serious question.