Super Bowl XLIII Running Thread

See my comparison to the Patriots. It is a much better fit.

The Ravens averaged 4.0 yards per carry during the regular season. More importantly, they were committed to the run.

The Cardinals averaged only 3.5 yards per carry this season. They have been far more committed to the run in the playoffs, but they certainly aren't even close to the threat running the ball as they are passing it.

The Steelers focused on Sproles because he was the Chargers's most dangerous player in the playoffs. James has given Arizona a big boost in the playoffs, but Fitzgerald is the player lighting up defenses right now.

You are assuming the Steelers can't stop the Cards' running game without loading up to stop it, which makes me wonder how much you have actually seen the Pittsburgh defense this season.

 

It's the Hall of Fame ...not the Hall of Stats.

That being said, I'm still not a big fan of Namath...he was more hype than production even going back to his days at Alabama. He may have had the greatest arm ever, per legend, but Jeff George had a great arm too.

But the question that comes into play is how much did a player mean to the game than just stats? Trent Green threw for a lot of yards, but outside of the greater Missouri area, did anyone notice? There is a generation of people who remember pretty much every thing Namath did on the field.

I will throw in Paul Hornung into the mix. Growing up, I figured this guy must have put up amazing numbers the way I heard people talk to him. Then I saw his stats. Except for some inflated point scoring totals for two years, it's not an impressive career. But then I read some books about Hornuning and the Packers, and that is where the real story comes in. Hornung could be laying on the side of a field in a pool of his own vomit and urine, but the other team was so scared of him, they still had two linebackers shadowing him. It's the same story with Bobby Layne. His teammates were convinced that he could always lead them to victory even when he was throwing five interceptions and wondering about the odds.

My summation is that in the 1950s and 60s, hype and fear were synomous. A player needed that to be a star as opposed to straight stats. Gifford, Doak Walker, Layne, etc. fit that bill.
Now, hype is so overwhelming that its easy to see it doesn't cause fear. Case in point -- Michael Vick. People kept saying he was a superstar and how dangerous he was on the field, but was he? I would have taken Kurt Warner over Vick for most of the last decade because Warner could produce. Vick couldn't. In the late 1960s, though, who would I have wanted? Namath or stat-star John Hadl? I'd take Namath.

 

You can't compare QB stats now with QB stats then. It was pretty common for QBs, even good ones, to have as many or more INTs than TDs. QBs are far more efficient now. Namath (or Daryle Lamonica, say) wasn't throwing a lot of three-yard checkdowns or quick screens. Heck, take a look at how many receivers then averaged more than 15 or 20 yards per catch, and how few do now. In '67, when Namath threw for 4,007 yards, he AVERAGED 16 yards per completion. And his completion percentage was second-best in the AFL. Sure it was just more than 50 percent, but at the time 50 percent was considered good.

I like arguing numbers for worthiness as much as the next guy (unless he's spnited), but Namath's numbers, pre-1970, were great for his time. And his impact on the game and the league far outweighs the raw numbers of his performance.


Warner couldn't hope to approach Namath's off-the-field impact -- nobody could these days. Namath and Georgie Best (British version) hiked fan interest in their sports to amazingly new levels. Warner's argument is more whether a few amazing seasons overcome some awful and mediocre ones. Namath has the Fame part of Hall of Fame to keep his induction argument intact.

 

Dear OOP: Two notes. We're only talking first down here. The Cardinals yesterday, 90 percent of their runs had to be on first down.
Point the second. The Chargers were a pass-first team all year because of LT's injury. Then Sproles went off against Indy. The Steelers concentrated on stopping him because that was the easiest way to make the Chargers one-dimensional.
Super Bowl pressure is the defense's best friend. From the opening kickoff, teams feel like it's already the fourth quarter. The Steelers should concentrate on stopping James on first down and in the first quarter because that's all it will take. The temptation for the Cards to abandon any semblance of balance will be overpowering, and once that happens, sacks and turnovers will follow.

 

I'm not comparing stats then and now. I'm looking at stats from then.
Namath's are utterly unimpressive.
Consider this comparison:
Bart Starr
Year TD-Int completion
65 16-9 55.8
66 14-3 62.2
67 9-17 54.8
68 15-8 63.7
69 9-6 62.2
70 8-13 54.9

Len Dawson
65 21-12 53.4
66 26-10 56.0
67 24-17 57.7
68 17-9 58.5
69 9-13 59.0
70 13-14 53.8

Namath
65 18-15 48.2
66 19-27 49.3
67 20-28 52.3
68 15-17 49.2
69 19-17 51.2
70 5-12 50.3

Fran Tarkenton
65 19-11 52
66 17-16 53.6
67 29-19 54.1
68 21-21 54
69 23-8 53.8
70 19-12 56.3

Daryle Lamonica
65 3-6 41.4
66 4-5 39.3
67 30-20 51.8
68 25-15 49.5
69 34-25 51.9
70 22-15 50.3
Lamonica's 65 and 66 season he was with Buffalo as a backup

Joe Hadl
65 20-21 50
66 23-14 53.3
67 24-26 50.8
68 27-32 47.3
69 10-11 48.3
70 22-15 49.5

Jack Kemp
65 10-18 44.8
66 11-16 42.7
67 14-26 43.6
68 DNP
69 13-22 49.5
70 DNP


Guess which ones are NOT members of the HOF...
Namath's stats are unimpressive.
His reach outside of football, I can buy. His star power, etc.
But I think that same reasoning works for Warner, while not star with incredible cultural reach nobody expected shit out of this guy and look what he did and where he is at.

 

I honestly believe that Warner's story -- particularly if he wins this game in a few weeks (is it next week or the week after?) -- will push him into the Hall of Fame, similar to Namath's.

Part of what has made Warner such a legend in so many ways is his story -- his ability to resurrect a dead career, not once, but now twice, and get to the Super Bowl.

I know this - he's had some down time in between his peaks -- but when he's been good he's been unbelievable.

He will be an interesting case -- particularly if he wins a second Super Bowl (is there any QB with two rings not in the hall?) and has say two more years with stats like this year (which, given the talent on that offense there is no reason, other than health, to think that he won't)

 

And those are Namath's best years. His numbers after 1970 are too hideous to believe.

 

To answer the question in your last paragraph, Jim Plunkett has two rings and is not in the Hall of Fame.

 

Plunkett, Ken Stabler, and Ray Guy are three of the four most glaring omissions from the Hall (Roger Craig is the other). It can't be that the voters have it in for the Raiders. There are a lot of Raiders from that era who're in the Hall.

 

Similar to Namath's.....

wow, that is crazy.

 

Well there is a precedent then and that tells me Warner isn't a lock.

 

How many times was Plunkett NFL MVP?

How many diarrhea-shitty franchises did he carry on his shoulders to the Super Bowl?

And, I love Jim Plunkett. Better man than he was a QB... and that's saying a lot.