Conference 7.286::sports_90

    
    It looks like Michael Carter will be ready for more playing time
    next Sunday.  8^)

       Definitely the best Qb ever in the AFL.
                                     Denny

    	Dan, to get back to your note in the 49er topic, one of the reasons
    the Jets were so good was their secondary.  Off the top of my head
    I can think of Randy Beverley and Johnny Sample.  Even in the late
    60's teams like the Broncos, Bills, Dolphins, Patriots and the Chargers
    didn't have particularly good defenses.  The Jets, Oilers, Raiders
    and Chiefs were the only teams that I can remember that had what
    could pass for quality defenses.  Joe Namath didn't have to pass
    against his own defense, so the Jets secondary cain't count.  Right
    Lee?
    
    				/Don

    BTW, where's SPORTS notes other Namath fanatic, Jo*?  He's been missing
    lately......
    
    Hawk

Namath=Marino ?

If Namath hadn't had those horrible knees, wouldn't he have been the
greatest QB of all-time ?


Joe

    re: -1
    
    No Joe,
    
    The greatest QB of all time would have been this guy I knew from
    Syracuse....Joe 'Dribbles' Garbarino......except that he couldn't
    overcome his physical problem......he only grew to be 4'11"!!!!
    
    Many :^)'s
    
    
    Nelly

>If Namath hadn't had those horrible knees, wouldn't he have been the
>greatest QB of all-time ?
    
    That's what most NFL experts say.  But Pat O'Brien, Doctor Midnight,
    /Don and Lee all seem to disagree.  I can understand Pat, since Joe
    embarrassed his brother, but the rest?  I question their pedigree.
    
    Dan

>    The greatest QB of all time would have been this guy I knew from
>    Syracuse....Joe 'Dribbles' Garbarino......except that he couldn't
>    overcome his physical problem......he only grew to be 4'11"!!!!

But he did play CB for Adirondack Central, weighing-in at a very solid
137 lbs (with equipment on).


Joe

    We'll never know.  But Joe Willie was good, but not the best.  If
    Ken Stabler didn't have such bad knees, he could have been the
    greatest...
    
    Namath's prowess has been blown way out of proportion, mainly due
    to his 'prediction' in 69 and his off-the-field antics.  He led
    his team to one champeenship.  That's all.  One game - and he was
    far from the hero that day, as Snell, Boozer and the Jets Defense
    carried the day.  Joe Willie wasn't even the best QB on the field
    that day.  That honor belonged to Johnny Unitas, who came in off
    the bench to direct the Colts only score.
    
    JD

    >Namath's prowess has been blown way out of proportion, mainly due
    >to his 'prediction' in 69 and his off-the-field antics.
    
    Hardly.  It's more like, some fans overlook his on-field majesty
    because of his off-field manner.
    
    >Joe Willie wasn't even the best QB on the field
    >that day.  That honor belonged to Johnny Unitas, who came in off
    >the bench to direct the Colts only score.
    
    Since when do we record such respect for the guy who shuts the barn
    door after the horse has already escaped?  The Unitas-led 4th quarter
    drive was undertaken when the game was already out of reach thanks to
    Joe Namath.  What makes his brief appearence better than 4 quarters of
    excellence.  Belief in such hogwash is akin to really thinking the
    Patriots had the best offense in the conference this year.
    
    The Jets crushed the Colts that day, even if the score was only 16-7. 
    They pushed them all over the field; Joe dissected the Colts vaunted D. 
    Colt's fans languish over Jimmy Orr being free on the flea-flicker and
    going unnoticed and Unitas' last ditch effort.  It's just like a
    baseball game where the losing team didn't get the big hit in the 4th
    inning when they were only down 3-0, and then in the ninth, when the
    score was 7-0, a solo HR makes it 7-1.  The guy who gets the
    meaningless HR doesn't win any stars of the game, not when a guy on the
    winners went 4 for 4 with 2 HRs.
    
    Dan

     Dan, Dan, Dan.
    
    The fack that the 'totally dominant' Jetsies could only muster one
    touchdown (rushing) and 3 FGs is testament to the fack that Joe
    Willie's game was overrated.  It was snell and boozer, and the defense.
    They won despite Joe's overrated performance.  If you want to watch
    real champeenship quarterbacking - take a look at Terry Bradshaw,
    joe Montana, Phil Simms, Doug Williams - those guys played the type
    of games that you wish Joe Willie had in 69.  Then the Jetsies would
    have demolished the Colts.  Instead, Joe Willies ineptness kept
    the Colts in the game.
    
    JD

    But JD, you miss the point of football completely.  After all, their
    were no Broncos for the Jets to humiliate, no Patriots to set the
    precedent for 40-point Super Bowl losses.
    
    The number of scores and the method of scoring in no way diminishes the
    masterful job Joe performed that day.  And if you want to talk Snell,
    Boozer and the defense, you'd better believe that every single one of
    them from Beverly to Philbin, from Grantham to John Eliot, from Emerson
    to Sauer, will tell you that there is no doubt in their minds who was
    MVP that day.  There was nothing overrated about it.
    
    As a Giant fan, I'm not surprised at your obstinance on this issue. 
    All the Giant fans I knew were deeply disappointed that the Jets and
    the puny AFL had shown up the NFL, that the Jets brought the Super Bowl
    home and not the Giants, that the Jets had Joe Willie White Shoes, and
    all the Giants had to counter with was Scramblin' Fran.  Cool off, and
    let those latent feelings of inferiority become more so.
    
    Dan

    Ha ha Dan,
    
    Funny, funny.  No feelings of inferiority here.  Not in the least.
    I think Joe Willie was a good one, but not the best ever, as you
    say.  I do think he was overrated.  A perfect example of New York
    hype.  The Jets?  they've had one day of greatness in their sorry
    history.  One day.  They have no legacy.  They have no history.
    More important, they have no future.
    
    The offensive line deserves more credit for the victory than Joe
    WIllie.  I watched the game dan.  I know what happened.
    
    Joe was part of the reason the Jets won.  He wasn't THE reason.
    His performance as a SUperBowl QB doesn't rank him in the top 15
    performances in the SB!  
    
    I know where you're coming from dan.  You love JOe Willie.  You
    love the Jets.  You're blinded by that devotion.  You caint be
    objective...
    
    Sarge

    The Jets have had 8 winning seasons in 30 years of history and I
    don't think any Jets coach has had a winning career record.  Weeb
    Ewbank has a career winning record when you take the Colts and Jets
    together, but I don't think he had a winning record with the Jets.
    
    John

    JD, I see you caught on to "LDUC" quickly.  Congrats!  :-)
    
    Hawk

    
    Joe Namath completely controlled the 1969 Super Bowl, and was the
    deserving MVP.  And I (was) a Colts fan.  Joe Montana has had similar
    Super Bowl appearances, where he didn't rack up tremendous yardage, but
    nonetheless dictated the game from the offensive end.  The thing about
    Unitas being the best on the field that day is a joke.  Unitas was long
    in the tooth by that time, and never did get a chance to distinguish 
    himself in Super Bowl play.  A couple of years later the Cowboys busted 
    up his ribs in the opening quarter and the roles with Morrall were 
    reversed.
    
    As for Namath being the greatest, or the yardstick, or whatever, it
    could only be based on peak performance over a very short period, like 
    2-3 years.  Very few football experts would accord such an honor under
    those criteria, extenuating circumstances like knee injuries
    notwithstanding.  When I hear Montana being compared to the greatest by
    today's media, the name I keep hearing again and again is Unitas.  I 
    honestly haven't heard Namath's name mentioned, even with any New York
    advantage.  Without extending myself too far, I'd put Namath in a class
    with a player like Bert Jones in his prime, although, yes, I'd give
    Namath the edge for his classiness and the fact that he brought home
    the title.  Talentwise pretty close, but Namath was All-Universe in
    intangibles and Jones was a whiner. 
    
    I believe Unitas was elected as the dominant player of the NFL's first 
    50 years by the NFL writers in the 1970's, wasn't he?
    
    glenn
  

    What the heck is an "LDUC"
    

    LDUC (tm) is the kinder, gentler SPORTS term for pissing contest.
    It is long-distance urination contest.
    
    John
    

    
    What were Namath's stats in the Bowl? I don't think he threw 20 passes.
    I agree with JD, that game was won with the running game and defense.
    The Colts couldn't do anything after the botched flea flicker.

    Namath was 17-28-0 206 yards 0 TD's.
    
    Matt Snell : 30 carries, 121 yards the Jets only TD.
    
    I took the liberty of checking out SB III. The Jets played very
    well, but did not push the Colts all over the field. In fact, the
    Colts beat themselves. Look :
    
    Colts 1st drive : Richardson drops TD pass. Micheals misses 27 yard
    FG.
    2nd drive : Morall just misses open reciever. Then next pass is
    tipped, bounces off pad of receiver, and Beverly makes diving INT.
    
    Morrall misses wide-open Jimmy Orr for sure TD, throws to another
    player, and pass is picked off.
    
    Matte reels off 58 yard run, but Sample makes diving INT at Jets
    2 yard line.
    
    Unitias' first drive moves Colts to Jets 25. Unitias tosses INT.
    
    Colts' last drive gets them to Jets 20, they lose the ball on downs.
    
    There was at least one other botched scoring op by the Colts in
    the game. In short, they lived large parts of the game in the Jets
    red zone (inside the Jets 20), and came up empty. Partly due to
    good D, and partly due to mistakes.
    
    Funny how reality takes the gloss of Dan's FACKS (tm) eh ?
    
    Speaking of the role of JWN in SB III, I happened upon a interesting
    article on Jim Turner, former kicker of the Donks and Jets, who
    is now a successful broadcaster in Denver. 
    
    As you all remember, his 3 FG's were the margin of victory in SB
    III. He had this to say :                                       
    
    =============================
    
    "What continues to irritate Turner is the common perception that
    it was Joe Namath and the 39 dwarfs who beat the Colts on that January
    Sunday 21 years ago [does this sound familar SPORTSnoters ?].
    Namath  co-opted all the ink by going public with a "guarantee"
    that the Jets would win ......
    
    'We were the No. 1 offensive team in the AFL,' points out Turner.
    'We were the No. 1 defensive team. We had the best special teams.
    Joe gets too much credit for happened that day.' "
    
    Well Dan, what do you say now ? Or is Jim jealous ? :-)
    
    Dr. Midnight

       If Dan wants to look up Turner's quotes, they're in todays Globe.
                                       Denny

    Glenn, I appreciate your refreshing objectivity and honesty, especially
    in the wake of JD's weak comparison of Namath to Phil Simms.  Obviously
    it didn't fly and he was trying to squeeze some revenge out of Phil's
    underrated career at the expense of the master of the game.
    
    >As for Namath being the greatest, or the yardstick, or whatever, it
    >could only be based on peak performance over a very short period, like 
    >2-3 years.  Very few football experts would accord such an honor under
    >those criteria,
    
    I can think of three such experts: Bill Walsh, John Madden and myself.
    
    Dan

    After .24, my case rests.  Namath AIN'T in the top echelon, period.
    
    Thanks for confirming that, Dan.  :*)
    
    Lee

    Dan,
    
    As usual, you misrepresent facks (tm).  You've been spouting bunk
    about how Joe totally dominated SBIII.  I rebuked that theory, backed
    up by others.  I simply said that for a true dominant QB performance
    in a SB, you can look at Bradshaw (not all 4 bowls, to clear Glenn's
    haid), Staubach, Montana (not all 3 bowls, to clear up Glenn's haid),
    Simms (22-25 ain't shabby, is it Dan?), Williams (Awesome performance-
    career wise, he don't touch JWN, but in SB performance, he super-novas
    Joe).
    
    But then again, facks (tm) have never been your strong point Dan-o,
    but opinion has been.  In your opinion, JWN was the greatest ever.
    That doesn't make you an expert.  After all, you buy John Elway
    footballs...
    
    Sarge

    
    Don't believe I made any reference to Bradshaw, JD.  Here's another one
    to clear your haid: try putting Namath's performance in the context of
    the mighty NFL, 1968, not the no-touching-the-receivers era most of
    those other "greats" participated in.  To do otherwise is to deny that 
    Bart Starr did a damn thing in his two Super Bowl appearances, either.  
    And do you still really believe that Unitas was the best quarterback on 
    the field that day?
    
    Still can't believe I'm defending Joe Namath, but, hey, an obscene
    statement is an obscene statement.
    
    glenn
    

    Glenn,
    
    Re Bradshaw - just covering my butt.  Unitas - yep.  JWN couldn't
    hold Johnny U's jock.  As for Bart Starr, no one has been in here
    claiming he was the most dominant player on the field in the first
    2 super bowls.  The Pack won as a  team.  But Bart did perform better
    than JWN.  At least he threw a few TD passes.
    
    JD

    
    Remember guys back then the QB's called the plays so granted JWN
    got a lot of help but he was bandleader who orchestrated the
    masterpiece....
    
    I loved it Jets +18 I laughed all the way to the bank....
    
    In his era he was the best period. just like Johnny U, Joe Roger and
    Terry in their era....
    
    
    mike

    Mike,
    
    Namath didn't have an era.  He had a year or two, and that's it.
    
    JD

    I wonder if Joe sees any parallel between this bowl and his?
    
    BoB

    Give it a rest JD.  You sound as bad as Doc.  You usually keep much
    better company.
    
    The experts agree.
    
    Dan

    Dan,
    
    Got ya.  Only a 6-liner.  You have admitted defeat.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Sarge

================================================================================
Note 119.5                         Joe Namath                            5 of 36
VAXWRK::SCHNEIDER "Rah! Rah! Bronx! Go, Bronx!"        1 line  22-JAN-1990 14:21
>                    -< You're wrong, /Don.  Very wrong. >-
	Prove it.


================================================================================
Note 119.9                         Joe Namath                            9 of 36
VAXWRK::SCHNEIDER "Rah! Rah! Bronx! Go, Bronx!"       8 lines  22-JAN-1990 15:49
                -< Joe Willie = the standard for great passers >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>   That's what most NFL experts say.  But Pat O'Brien, Doctor Midnight,
>   /Don and Lee all seem to disagree.  I can understand Pat, since Joe
>   embarrassed his brother, but the rest?  I question their pedigree.
                                                             ^^^^^^^^    
>   Dan

	Pedigree this!  8^)

    I took time to read the NY Times articles a week before the game
    and the day after.  This is great stuff.  No one gave them a 
    chance to win the game . Fights broke out in bars between the teams.
    Joe gave the Colts every reason to want to kill him . The Colts
    defense was very vocal of how they were going to shut his mouth
    on Sunday.  Point is you have read this stuff to get a feel for
    the times and game.  The colts did fear Joe throwing long. The
    fact the Joe did call a masterly game that untilize his running game
    and kept the defence off balance cannot be deny.  
    
    Finally he didn't let his ego get in the way and throw all the time. 
    Joe never made comments about himself but alway aluded to his team as
    the best.  No teamate did stated he wasn't a team player.
          
    As far as being the Greatest no way, but in his time one of the
    the best around. Now Joe Montana reminds me of Bob Grease a great
    field general  with a great team around him.
                                                
    
    A NY Jets fan forever ( I do like Joe)
    
    John
    

    
    Joe Namath is the worst color man ever to do an NFL game on network
    t.v. I hate they way he pronounces his L's!!!
    
    
    
    Steve

    Joe Willie was a boyhood hero of mine, and in retrospective, he
    was probably not the greatest role model in the world for teen age
    kids.  
    
    As far as his play is concerned, I'll grant you he was not the gretest
    ever.  You can say "if it wern't for his knees..." but you can say
    that about alot of guys.  You cann't forget, however, the impact
    he had on the game.  He made the AFL a real league by signing with
    them, and gave them a lot of publicity by being so outspoken.
    
    I remeber the 1969 Super Bowl well, and my recallection was that
    Matt Snell was the best impact player on the field.  It was back
    in the days when people could actually get excited about the SB.
                                                                      
    I think that Kim Hammond was probably the all time great.
    
    =Bob=

    
    Digger,
    I take it you never had the pleasure (HA!) of watching a game that Lyle
    Alzado announced, before he was canned.

     Lyle was really bad !!  I think he was a typical representation 
    of the average IQ on the Faider team.
    
    ;^)
    
    Big Game

    Howsabout Bill Walsh?!?  He's not the worst, but he ain't really good. 
    He certainly doesn't deserve to be NBC's numero uno color man.  He
    continually confuses players, teams, and really has no idea at times
    what has happened on the field.  Wonder if he was like this on the
    sidelines?
    
    	--dan'l