How have George Kelly and Travis Jackson not been mentioned yet? Maybe they aren't the worst, but they're in the same room.

Completion % can be important, but is there a modern stat that covers drops related to completion %?

It's going back a ways, but I recall the moment I stopped caring about completion %. A game where Bledsoe was being ripped a bit by the announcers for having a "bad game" because he was something like 6/12....Of course they didn't mention the two passes that hit open receivers on the number and still ended up on the ground. Or the one that hit the receiver on the hands that simply didn't get caught. So he should have been 9/12, maybe better.
And do they eliminate when the QB throws the ball away?
drops and intentional throw aways are entirely different from bad passes.

And how bad was Namaths completion %? I checked a couple years. 1966, he had a 49.3% rate. The league average was 46.3 and the best team was at 52.8%
So not actually too bad.
Oh, but you'll say the entire AFL was awful.
So lets try 72?
Namath 50%
League average 51.7
Best team 59.9

Ok, so below average by 1.7% or about 4 completions.
BUT.... NO passer was "acceptable" by your standards.
That's nonsense.

Comparing eras isn't easy.

Stats in FB aren't as clear as stats in Baseball. There a player either hits or doesn't pretty much on his own. (Lineup matters, but he still has to hit) In FB many of the stats rely not only on the player doing what he should, but on other players doing their thing right too.

Steve B

moving the goal posts logical fallacy.


Namath was below avg for completion % in his era you say? NOT A HOF player then.


approximate value is a good modern football stat btw and it lists him as an avg QB not good, and surely not a HOF'er, only Namath fanboys and old farts think differently and neither have an opinion worth listening too

Nfl
 

If there`s any one player more responsible for the NFL being what it is today, the most popular and profitable pro enterprise going, I`d like to know. Broadway Joe was exactly what the AFL needed and was" at the right place at the right time". Bama to New York for him, he and they basically lit the fuse and took an "air it out attitude", attitude being the key, and gave the public a different look. Stats are one thing, and they mean a lot when talking H O F, but influence and history have to be taken into account. Do I take Namath as my "go to" to win me one game, probably not. But there are very few moments in American sports lore that were more influential than the Jets/Colts S Bowl. Namath`s on and off the field approach at a time when media was very limited made him and the moment a HOF`er for me. Just my 2 cents.................

NO, I only did 1966 when he was above, and 1972 when he was below. Overall from what I saw of completion percentages during those years there wasn't much swing above or below average for anyone.

You picked 60% as "adequate" and in 72 only the league leader was over 60%. From 1960- 70, out of 22 league leaders only 9 were over 60%
For the entire 1960's the league average never got over 54% and that was only one year, most others were just under 52%
Unitas - never broke 60% for a season.
Bart Starr - was only over 60% 4 times in 16 years.
Tarkenton - didn't go over 60% from 1961 to 1972

So I guess they sucked too?


Get away from the calculator and watch a few games. Then YOU might be worth listening to.

The best was watching those "old fart" NFL supporters who put down Namath, the Jets and the entire AFL eat, swallow and choke on their words after the game.

Mike

Not even a debate, Bud Selig, he covered up more crap than we will ever know.

You can compare stats all day, but if that is all you went by Barry Bonds and Pete Rose would have been in along time ago.