25 Most Criticized QBs in NFL History

[RayClay]

If Phil Simms and Joe Namath didn't play for teams centered around the most egotistical city on the planet, nobody would give two ****s about them.

While I'm here, "complex" is a perfect name for that website. When did displaying a list of things become so damn complicated? I had to switch from Firefox to Chrome just to get the page to load.

You watched Jets games back when Namath was QB? Did you see the game where he and Johnny Unitas combined for almost 900 yards, with Namath netting 496 yards and six touchdowns on only 15 completions in the 44-34 win.

I assume RDS watched Namath's career too, not just reading some ex players memoir or something.

 

[VrabelJr]

You watched Jets games back when Namath was QB? Did you see the game where he and Johnny Unitas combined for almost 900 yards, with Namath netting 496 yards and six touchdowns on only 15 completions in the 44-34 win.

I assume RDS watched Namath's career too, not just reading some ex players memoir or something.

Woohoo! One good game! And numbers like 496 yards on 15 completions sounds like the receivers making him look good.

 

[RayClay]

Woohoo! One good game! And numbers like 496 yards on 15 completions sounds like the receivers making him look good.

You're seriously saying Namath had one good game in his career? How many years did you watch him play, by the way?

 

[VrabelJr]

You're seriously saying Namath had one good game in his career? How many years did you watch him play, by the way?

Zero. But your argument is pathetic. That's like saying I can't critique a piece of art painted before my time.

Look at Namath's career INTs. Now look at his TDs. That's all you need to see.

 

[RayClay]

Zero. But your argument is pathetic. That's like saying I can't critique a piece of art painted before my time.

Look at Namath's career INTs. Now look at his TDs. That's all you need to see.

You never watched him.

Wow.

You don't know what the game was like then, how other top QBs performed, never saw him play.

Well, enjoy reveling in your ignorance, I watched him and every quarterback of that era, his whole career.

 

[VrabelJr]

You never watched him.

Wow.

You don't know what the game was like then, how other top QBs performed, never saw him play.

Well, enjoy reveling in your ignorance, I watched him and every quarterback of that era, his whole career.

Again, weak argument. You seem to be exercising and protecting something that can't be replicated (going back in time). Maybe state why you think he's a good NFL QB? I'm not the only one who thinks he is greatly overrated. Or maybe you would prefer to shout hyperbole from your rocking chair. Whatever suits you.

 

[RayClay]

Again, weak argument. You seem to be exercising and protecting something that can't be replicated (going back in time). Maybe state why you think he's a good NFL QB? I'm not the only one who thinks he is greatly overrated. Or maybe you would prefer to shout hyperbole from your rocking chair. Whatever suits you.

Who do you think was better, Sonny Jurgensen? Daryle Lamonica, Johnny Unitas?

I don't need to make an argument, my opinion is based on watching every great quarterback of the 60's and 70's actually play. it's also based on knowing the style of play if that era, which was drastically different, and all the great quarterbacks had drastically different stats, than the quarterbacks of today.

Maybe, since you know nothing of the era you purport to argue about, you could get a book and look up when teams started using west coast and other short passing offenses that piled up higher completion percentages and far fewer long passes.

 

[RayClay]

Wow. Someone who admits he knows nothing about the era he's trying to argue about dislikes my post again.

Bart Starr, Ken Anderson, Fran Tarkenton?

 

[RayClay]

Johnny Unitas had as many or more interceptions than TDs three years, was all pro all three, never completed more than 58.5% of his passes, yet is considered the greatest quarterback of all time even now by many experts and polls.

Hmmm, perhaps there's some context that mere stats across eras don't provide.

 

[Jetsfan25678]

i think Geno Smith would do a whole lot better in a Chip Kelly offense...plus i am not sure how you can evaluate him playing on that terrible Jets team.

What does the Jets staff have to do with Geno thrwoing three picks on three consecutive possessions? Geno's footwork is so terrible, that he can't even take a snap under center, and this has hurt our run game this season. The guy can't even read, his football IQ is incredibly low.

 

[RDS11]

You watched Jets games back when Namath was QB? Did you see the game where he and Johnny Unitas combined for almost 900 yards, with Namath netting 496 yards and six touchdowns on only 15 completions in the 44-34 win.

I assume RDS watched Namath's career too, not just reading some ex players memoir or something.

Even better, I have games from him on DVD that I can watch anytime I want.

I didn't say he wasn't good; he's in the Hall Of Fame after all. But, he's not on anybody's all time top 10 nor should he be. He had incredible talent, but an above average NFL career that may have been better should he had played on 2 good knees. But he's probably in the Hall of Fame because of the guarantee, and the impact of an AFL team winning a Super Bowl before the merger was completed (the merger was in serious jeopardy at the time, given that the Packers had blown out their AFL opponent the 2 first years of the Super Bowl).

The fact remains that Namath threw 50 more interceptions than TD (173 TDs to 220 INTs) and has an 65 career rating (the worst of any QB in the HoF). By comparison, Roman Gabriel, who played during the same period, threw 201 TDs to 149 INTs (and a 74 career rating). John Hadl also has better career stats than Namath (244 TDs to 268 INTs and a 67 rating). Stats are not the tell all, but then taking into account that Namath was below .500 (winning percentage) during his career, and didn't go to the playoffs with the Jets after the 1969 season (his fifth season), there's not much left except subjective arguments.

Good for you if you saw that 1972 game between 2 washed up QBs that had their one final great game that afternoon. Could have been incredible, but given that it wasn't saved by CBS only memories remain from a game that was played 42 years ago. It is not a reason to discard the opinion of some of the younger fans like myself who has read and watch everything we could get our hands on. I think I could discuss any great QBs from Benny Friedman to Tom Brady and not embarrass myself.

 

[RayClay]

Even better, I have games from him on DVD that I can watch anytime I want.

I didn't say he wasn't good; he's in the Hall Of Fame after all. But, he's not on anybody's all time top 10 nor should he be. He had incredible talent, but an above average NFL career that may have been better should he had played on 2 good knees. But he's probably in the Hall of Fame because of the guarantee, and the impact of an AFL team winning a Super Bowl before the merger was completed (the merger was in serious jeopardy at the time, given that the Packers had blown out their AFL opponent the 2 first years of the Super Bowl).

The fact remains that Namath threw 50 more interceptions than TD (173 TDs to 220 INTs) and has an 65 career rating (the worst of any QB in the HoF). By comparison, Roman Gabriel, who played during the same period, threw 201 TDs to 149 INTs (and a 74 career rating). John Hadl also has better career stats than Namath (244 TDs to 268 INTs and a 67 rating). Stats are not the tell all, but then taking into account that Namath was below .500 (winning percentage) during his career, and didn't go to the playoffs with the Jets after the 1969 season (his fifth season), there's not much left except subjective arguments.

Good for you if you saw that 1972 game between 2 washed up QBs that had their one final great game that afternoon. Could have been incredible, but given that it wasn't saved by CBS only memories remain from a game that was played 42 years ago. It is not a reason to discard the opinion of some of the younger fans like myself who has read and watch everything we could get our hands on. I think I could discuss any great QBs from Benny Friedman to Tom Brady and not embarrass myself.

Good post. He played much longer than doctors told him he could (4 years) and played later when he could hardly walk. Still, he certainly wasn't criticized for how he played on two terrible knees in the days before arthrosopic knee surgery and that's what the article was about. He was probably the most feared qb in the league for a while, when being a great QB meant being able to hit bombs while using the run to move the chains.

Good for you for reading up on other eras, but Qbs passed

If you aren't impressed with 496 yards and 6 TDs on 15 passes, that's up to you. Not sure how many more he would have gotten if he wasn't "washed up" at the time.

BTW, Roman Gabriel's career pct was 52.6% and he had four years with more interceptions than TDs.

 

[RayClay]

There is a lot to be said for actually seeing players play against the same defenses.

It's true even in a statistical sport like baseball. Don Sutton holds most of the career pitching records for the LA Dodgers, yet baseball fans of the era know he wasn't the best, 2nd best, or even the 3rd best pitcher when he was in the rotation with Koufax, Drysdale and Claude Osteen.

Statistics have their place, but they usually don't tell the whole story. that's why we watch the games instead of just reading box scores.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

What does the Jets staff have to do with Geno thrwoing three picks on three consecutive possessions? Geno's footwork is so terrible, that he can't even take a snap under center, and this has hurt our run game this season. The guy can't even read, his football IQ is incredibly low.

Consider Sanchez's current playing under a new Philly staff versus his final group of games playing under the Jets staff. Is that one possible answer to your question?

 

[Jetsfan25678]

Consider Sanchez's current playing under a new Philly staff versus his final group of games playing under the Jets staff. Is that one possible answer to your question?

Sanchez showed flashes with us, and he showed up on the biggest stages when it counted. However, I do agree that Rex and co stunted Sanchez's development, but Geno on the other other is just awful from a mechanical stand point. Just look at his putrid footwork....

 

[RDS11]

Good post. He played much longer than doctors told him he could (4 years) and played later when he could hardly walk. Still, he certainly wasn't criticized for how he played on two terrible knees in the days before arthrosopic knee surgery and that's what the article was about. He was probably the most feared qb in the league for a while, when being a great QB meant being able to hit bombs while using the run to move the chains.

Good for you for reading up on other eras, but Qbs passed

If you aren't impressed with 496 yards and 6 TDs on 15 passes, that's up to you. Not sure how many more he would have gotten if he wasn't "washed up" at the time.

BTW, Roman Gabriel's career pct was 52.6% and he had four years with more interceptions than TDs.

Sure, 496 yards and 6 TDs is impressive, especially for 1972 when the rules didn't help the passing game as it does today. But it was still Unitas and Namath's last hurrah. Unitas was 39 at the time and 1 year away from retirement, and had never properly healed from the torn muscle in his right arm which happened in 1968. In fact, the disability was so serious that he became left-handed later in life. If Cahd Pennington was ''noodle arm'' it was nothing compared to Unitas post-1968. As for Namath, he had 3 other 300+ yards games after the one against Unitas, 2 of them later in 1972. He had missed most of 1970 and 1971 to injuries, and would miss most of 1973 too. When he came back in 1974 he threw for the most INTs in the NFL in back-to-back seasons.

I get your point regarding stats, but I think box scores can be used to evaluate QBs from the same period, as great QBs will always put better efficiency stats (not talking about volume, otherwise Bledsoe would be top-10 in history) than the average of their peers. Getting back to Gabriel, his 52.6% completion percentage does not seem impressive today, but it was better than Namath's 50.1%. Unitas' is at 54.6%, so Gabriel wasn't far behind one of the all-time great. And Unitas also had 6 years throwing more INTs than TDs (including 1956 and 1968 when he wasn't the opening day starter). Obviously everything has to be put in perspective given the time period and rules at the time.

Again, not taking away anything from Namath's talent, but he might be one of the Hall Of Famers who made it more because of the 'Fame' part that the actual body of work from his career. I think he is remembered more for the guarantee, the outrageous rookie contract, the fur coat and the pantyhose commercial than his performance on the field. It's a telling sign that he wasn't elected to the HoF until his 3rd year of eligibility. Again, too bad we never got to see him play injury-free, because along other oft-injured QBs such as Greg Cook and Bert Jones it is one of the most fun 'what if' subject to discuss...

 

[lurker1965]

Zero. But your argument is pathetic. That's like saying I can't critique a piece of art painted before my time.

Look at Namath's career INTs. Now look at his TDs. That's all you need to see.

I hate you because you made me defend a fricken' Jet.
1) All QB stats before Montana and the West Coast Offense are weird looking. Back then there were no 2 yard dump offs. A short pass was under 20 yards. Higher incompletion rates, higher interception rates, and higher yards per completion. Compare him to contemporaries and he doesn't look as bad.
He still looks bad because
2) He played too long after he injured both "hamstrings." I put that in quotes because 1972 medicine was, well, pre-MRI. If you told me those were really ACL injuries that were misdiagnosed and mistreated, I'd believe it.

In his early career, before injury, he was much better. Still not the best, but on his good days could go toe to toe with the best.

But I yield to your self admitted lack of experience.

 

[VrabelJr]

Who do you think was better, Sonny Jurgensen? Daryle Lamonica, Johnny Unitas?

Blocked. :/

I hate you because you made me defend a fricken' Jet.
1) All QB stats before Montana and the West Coast Offense are weird looking. Back then there were no 2 yard dump offs. A short pass was under 20 yards. Higher incompletion rates, higher interception rates, and higher yards per completion. Compare him to contemporaries and he doesn't look as bad.
He still looks bad because
2) He played too long after he injured both "hamstrings." I put that in quotes because 1972 medicine was, well, pre-MRI. If you told me those were really ACL injuries that were misdiagnosed and mistreated, I'd believe it.

In his early career, before injury, he was much better. Still not the best, but on his good days could go toe to toe with the best.

But I yield to your self admitted lack of experience.

Of course the times were different. Heck, the times were different just 8 years ago even. I've only been watching football since the 80s but I've never really been about hyping up the really old school players just because the time they played in. It's so incredibly hard for players to get into the Hall of Fame today, despite doing incredible things regardless of the times. I'm not saying every QB with better stats/as many rings as Joe Namath should be in the Hall of Fame. I'm just saying Joe Namath shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.

 

[lurker1965]

Blocked. :/


Of course the times were different. Heck, the times were different just 8 years ago even. I've only been watching football since the 80s but I've never really been about hyping up the really old school players just because the time they played in. It's so incredibly hard for players to get into the Hall of Fame today, despite doing incredible things regardless of the times. I'm not saying every QB with better stats/as many rings as Joe Namath should be in the Hall of Fame. I'm just saying Joe Namath shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.

Wrong.
Not because he was good. Heck, I can name better from that era.
Because he was the face of the AFL and justified the merger.
It would be like if the NFL merged with the XFL. Everyone that knows anything wonders why you diluted your talent. (Yes, the AFL was not as "good" as the NFL.) To claim they are not absorbing a minor league they build up Maddox or HeHateMe. That person is still a mediocre player. (And I am being generous for Smart.)
He is also Famous. You know, the adjective form of Fame - as in Famous, Hall of.
Yes, if you can find the face of another league the NFL merged with as a comparable...
(Yes, maybe Otto Graham and the AAFC, but Otto was good so we can't compare him to Namath. )

 

[VrabelJr]

Wrong.
Not because he was good. Heck, I can name better from that era.
Because he was the face of the AFL and justified the merger.

Joe Namath was, and still is, more famous for what he did off the field (guaranteeing victory, sexually harassing women) than what he did on the field.

He is also Famous. You know, the adjective form of Fame - as in Famous, Hall of.

Your pedantry makes me sick. By your logic, if I'm a guitar player, and I suck at playing the guitar, but I've got a ton of fans because I do a ton of coke and do crazy **** that people think is funny, then I belong in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?