Tebow Watch 2012

[Saintsfan]

Are these the numbers of a Hall of Fame QB?

Career Yards: 27,663 Number of 3,000 yard seasons 3

Career Touchdowns: 173! Number of 25 TD seasons 3

Career Interceptions: 220! Number of seasons under 10 interceptions 3 (All were years he was hurt)

Career QB Rating: 65.5

Yes they are!!

Whether or not they should be is a different question. Personally I think Namath should be in their. His guaranteeing victory is one of the founding myths of the Superbowl. I don't think Namath's influence on the game can be measured in numbers.

I am with Tank on this one. I don't think Namath was "below average", but he is definitely "overrated". That super bowl guarantee (and backing it up) was bold...without it he's not even mentioned for the HOF. Tank's TD/Int stat: 173/220. Wow...I did not know it was that bad.

Namath probably would have been better if not for bad knees. Either way, he was worthy of being a starter, but not one of the best ever.

So the question is whether the Super Bowl and the intangibles it created should get him in. I tend not to think so. I think that's more of something to put an otherwise borderline candidate over the top, but not for an otherwise "not to be considered".

The issue is that the HOF isn't just an achieve x number of whichever career stat you want to pick and get in. The Hall is there to reflect the history of the game. I agree that actually Namath's career numbers don't put him in the hall. But you can't really have a Hall of Fame that accurately reflects the modern game and doesn't have Broadway Joe in it, IMHO.

I think that moment should exist in the Hall of Fame in it's own exhibit or something, but to be a player accepted into the Hall of Fame, you should be one of the best to ever play your position. For Joe Namath to be a Hall of Fame kind of cheapens that, in my opinion -- I mean, as much as something like that can be "cheapened" anyways.

Well then Halls of Fame should set some minimum level of achievement, and enrol anybody that reaches that goal, and do away with a voting process! (I Know that some people would not hate that idea!) Personally I think everybody should get away from the notion of a minimum, quantifiable level of achievement and accept that achievement in sport is not always quantative and is sometimes qualitive. Namath's reputation may not be built on longevity, but it is built on talent, and for want of a better term chutzpah.

[Gothamite]

Apparently there's already a 10-week backorder on Tebow jerseys. I'll never understand how one player becomes so popular.

Never underestimate the allure of identity politics.

Does that backorder time include the fact that the jerseys won't be commercially available for a couple weeks for any player?

[charger77]

Apparently there's already a 10-week backorder on Tebow jerseys. I'll never understand how one player becomes so popular.

Never underestimate the allure of identity politics.

Does that backorder time include the fact that the jerseys won't be commercially available for a couple weeks for any player?

Also fans like players that are short on talant but are big in heart and win. (see the cult heros thread)

[Cujo]

Of course ESPN is having a Skip Bayless primetime special regarding Tebow to the Jets.

You can bet I will NOT be tuning in for that.

[nash61]

Deal still not finalized

[AndrewPF]

Tebow's a Jet.

See?

[Dexter Morgan]

Bear Bryant callled Namath "the greatest athlete I ever coached." Vince Lombardi called Namath "the perfect passer", Bill Walsh said Namath was the best pure passer he had ever seen, Don Shula called Namath "One of the three smartest QBs of all time" .....but yeah, you guys are right. He's overrated. Namath belongs in the HOF for his contribution to AFL alone. Without him their is no merger, he made that league.

[NJTank]

That is true, Super Bowl III is the most important game in NFL history.

[BBTV]

To counter the argument that there should be minimum requirements for the hall of fame, and that guys like Namath don't deserve it, it's called the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of BEST PLAYERS. You can't tell the story of the NFL without mentioning Namath, and he attained national fame and brought a lot of attention to the league - even if not or his talent.

I don't think any HOF should be a place to honor the players with the best stats. For example, and I'm not trying to start trouble here, but IMO a guy like Jim Thome isn't a HOFer in my book, because while he has historic numbers, he played a relatively insignificant role in the grand scheme of the game. Obviously he will get in, and it's not like I would argue anyone who feels he's a first ballot guy, but IMO he's a Hall of Great Stats guy, not a Hall of Fame guy.

[Island_Style]

To counter the argument that there should be minimum requirements for the hall of fame, and that guys like Namath don't deserve it, it's called the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of BEST PLAYERS. You can't tell the story of the NFL without mentioning Namath, and he attained national fame and brought a lot of attention to the league - even if not or his talent.

I don't think any HOF should be a place to honor the players with the best stats. For example, and I'm not trying to start trouble here, but IMO a guy like Jim Thome isn't a HOFer in my book, because while he has historic numbers, he played a relatively insignificant role in the grand scheme of the game. Obviously he will get in, and it's not like I would argue anyone who feels he's a first ballot guy, but IMO he's a Hall of Great Stats guy, not a Hall of Fame guy.

Question. Does Tebow deserve to be a HOFer if he has a Garrard type career but continues with this level of fame?

[Gothamite]

I'd tend to think "no" because unlike Namath, Tebow's fame is largely divorced from his on-field performance.

[pmoehrin]

To counter the argument that there should be minimum requirements for the hall of fame, and that guys like Namath don't deserve it, it's called the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of BEST PLAYERS. You can't tell the story of the NFL without mentioning Namath, and he attained national fame and brought a lot of attention to the league - even if not or his talent.

I don't think any HOF should be a place to honor the players with the best stats. For example, and I'm not trying to start trouble here, but IMO a guy like Jim Thome isn't a HOFer in my book, because while he has historic numbers, he played a relatively insignificant role in the grand scheme of the game. Obviously he will get in, and it's not like I would argue anyone who feels he's a first ballot guy, but IMO he's a Hall of Great Stats guy, not a Hall of Fame guy.

Question. Does Tebow deserve to be a HOFer if he has a Garrard type career but continues with this level of fame?

In terms of where Namath is, he was a great quaterback for a period of time. '66-'69 I'm not sure if there's a better QB in the game. Maybe Sonny Jurgensen or Fran Tarkenton but those are the only guys I think have a real argument if we are just talking about those four years.

For me its not enough for a HOF QB, but Namath is also not the only guy to get in on those credentials either. Bob Waterfield gets in for having essentially the same type of career Namath did just 15 years sooner and like Namath was also very high profile off the field. Gale Sayers gets in on five years. Hell Lynn Swan gets in on making three highlight reel catches.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Namath is not the only guy in the HOF to get for the reasons he's in for, which is a short line of success and being a ultimately being a better marketing person then a football player.

As for Tebow I think he will get in for the same reasons provided he can actually play. That is the still the number one requriement (to me it should be the only requirement but I'm not in charge) and if he can't do that then I doubt he will even be considered.

[rams80]

For me its not enough for a HOF QB, but Namath is also not the only guy to get in on those credentials either. Bob Waterfield gets in for having essentially the same type of career Namath did just 15 years sooner and like Namath was also very high profile off the field. Gale Sayers gets in on five years. Hell Lynn Swan gets in on making two highlight reel catches.

Waterfield's career numbers likely would be better if the Rams hadn't added Norm Van Brocklin as a rookie in 1949. Admittedly its a good problem for a team to have 2 Hall of Fame QBs on the roster at one time, but individual numbers will suffer.

Sayers gets in because he is one of the 10 best backs in league history and would have the numbers to prove it if his knees hadn't exploded in the late 1960s.

[sc49erfan15]

I don't think any HOF should be a place to honor the players with the best stats. For example, and I'm not trying to start trouble here, but IMO a guy like Jim Thome isn't a HOFer in my book, because while he has historic numbers, he played a relatively insignificant role in the grand scheme of the game. Obviously he will get in, and it's not like I would argue anyone who feels he's a first ballot guy, but IMO he's a Hall of Great Stats guy, not a Hall of Fame guy.

This being previously about football, I read that as Jim Thorpe (stopped reading after "insignificant role in the grand scheme of the game") and clicked on the reply button to tell you you've lost your mind. Turns out...I'm just an idiot.

[Saintsfan]

To counter the argument that there should be minimum requirements for the hall of fame, and that guys like Namath don't deserve it, it's called the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of BEST PLAYERS. You can't tell the story of the NFL without mentioning Namath, and he attained national fame and brought a lot of attention to the league - even if not or his talent.

I don't think any HOF should be a place to honor the players with the best stats. For example, and I'm not trying to start trouble here, but IMO a guy like Jim Thome isn't a HOFer in my book, because while he has historic numbers, he played a relatively insignificant role in the grand scheme of the game. Obviously he will get in, and it's not like I would argue anyone who feels he's a first ballot guy, but IMO he's a Hall of Great Stats guy, not a Hall of Fame guy.

Question. Does Tebow deserve to be a HOFer if he has a Garrard type career but continues with this level of fame?

I'd basically agree with Gothamite on this. Basically Tebow doesn't have fame, he has celebrity.

[officeglenn]

Tebow's a Jet.

See?

Te-Boeing.

[BBTV]

To counter the argument that there should be minimum requirements for the hall of fame, and that guys like Namath don't deserve it, it's called the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of BEST PLAYERS. You can't tell the story of the NFL without mentioning Namath, and he attained national fame and brought a lot of attention to the league - even if not or his talent.

I don't think any HOF should be a place to honor the players with the best stats. For example, and I'm not trying to start trouble here, but IMO a guy like Jim Thome isn't a HOFer in my book, because while he has historic numbers, he played a relatively insignificant role in the grand scheme of the game. Obviously he will get in, and it's not like I would argue anyone who feels he's a first ballot guy, but IMO he's a Hall of Great Stats guy, not a Hall of Fame guy.

Question. Does Tebow deserve to be a HOFer if he has a Garrard type career but continues with this level of fame?

I'd basically agree with Gothamite on this. Basically Tebow doesn't have fame, he has celebrity.

I'd say right now he's more of a novelty act than anything. If he doesn't become a legitimate NFL player and acheive success on the field, this "Tebowmania" will fade away pretty quickly.

[waltere]

Tebow's a Jet.

See?

Te-Boeing.

Very well played sir

[Gothamite]

I'd say right now he's more of a novelty act than anything. If he doesn't become a legitimate NFL player and acheive success on the field, this "Tebowmania" will fade away pretty quickly.

Oh, I think you're wrong there.

Tebow is a very canny user of identity politics. He'll be able to keep his public persona going for at least a decade (if not the whole of his natural life), even if he doesn't become a good player. The only question is how long he'll be able to use the NFL as an active platform to promote that persona.

[Saintsfan]

I'd say right now he's more of a novelty act than anything. If he doesn't become a legitimate NFL player and acheive success on the field, this "Tebowmania" will fade away pretty quickly.

Oh, I think you're wrong there.

Tebow is a very canny user of identity politics. He'll be able to keep his public persona going for at least a decade (if not the whole of his natural life), even if he doesn't become a good player. The only question is how long he'll be able to use the NFL as an active platform to promote that persona.

I think you're both right in a way. As a football player, Tebow may well have a short life. He may well be too much of a novelty to amount to much, consistently.

But, he seems a canny guy, and my guess is he will use his profile and identity for a life beyond football, be it on Fox News or some reality show or as a kind of celebrity pastor or what have you!