View Single Post
  #27  
Old 11-28-2015, 10:22 AM
S_GERACE S_GERACE is offline
Scott Gerace
member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 112
Default

I agree with the fact that Namath was overrated if you just look at his statistics. But there was more to him than that. Jeff has already mentioned that his signing gave the AFL legitimacy but it was his win in SB III that really put the AFL on an even plane w/ the NFL. The AFL was viewed as a "joke" league until then. The Packers had handily defeated the AFL's representative in the first 2 SB's and the Jets win is still viewed as one of the biggest upsets in sports history.

Also, to compare Namath to Rex Grossman just isn't fair. The offenses run today throw shorter, high percentage passes which lead to high completion percentages and thereby higher passer ratings. The game has changed so much that you really have to compare guys from similar eras to get a fair perspective. Much like in Baseball, it's not fair to compare the ERA of Christy Mathewson to someone who plays today or "Home Run" Baker's league leading totals to a player who started after Ruth came along. Yes Namath had more INT's than TD's but that could be said of many other HoF QB's from the 1970's and prior (before the advent of the West Coast offense). If you want to compare Namath's stats to other players, choose Dawson, Unitas, Starr, Jurgensen, etc...

Namath won a major championship in the most glamorous city during the early years of the boom in professional Football! Namath also has a "what if?" quality attached to him because of his nagging injuries, much like Mantle. People love to speculate. Plus Namath had flair (was always in the company of beautiful women). Also, the 1965 Topps set is very popular. Is it the 1952 Topps Baseball set? Not even close, but Football cards in general aren't currently sought at nearly the same level as their BB counterparts.

Jeff put it best, "it's all about supply and demand" and right now the Namath RC's demand far exceeds it's supply, much like the 1952 Mantle (just not to the same extent).
Reply With Quote