Defending Joe Theismann in response to Peter King’s criticism

Dwayne Haskins, drafted by Washington in the first round, wore No. 7 in college. That happened to be the same number worn by quarterback Joe Theismann during his playing days with the franchise. That number was never officially retired, but no one else has worn No. 7 in a Washington uniform since Theismann broke his leg in 1985.

That allowed Theismann to get back in the news by talking about Haskins wearing his number. At first, Theismann asked Haskins to consider a different number since no one has worn it in 33 years and it might create pressure, but later, Theismann said he gave his blessing to Haskins.

“I said it’s perfectly fine by me,” Theismann said of Haskins’ decision, via FOX 5 in DC. “He’s going to have so many adjustments to deal with to become a professional football player, the last thing anybody needs to worry about is to keep hounding him about a number. It will be interesting to see a much bigger version of me out on the football field!”

Theismann went on to say that the Washington organization not giving out his number randomly to others has been nice, but he felt good about Dwayne Haskins and how he handled the decision.

Theismann and his number made their way into Peter King’s column on Monday, and King did not hold back.

3. I think Joe Theismann even seeming to suggest Dwayne Haskins had to kiss his ring before being rewarded with the number seven jersey in Washington is really weird, and a little bit mindful of the Emperor with No Clothes. Would anyone think that a man with fewer passing yards than Steve Grogan and Jim Harbaugh, with fewer touchdown passes than Earl Morrall and Jon Kitna, with a lower career rating than Kyle Orton and Dave Krieg … should have his number retired? Mark Rypien won a Super Bowl. Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. Brad Johnson and Jeff Hostetler won one. Come on. The fact that Washington never gave Theismann’s number out for years after his gruesome injury is a nice gesture, I suppose. But it’s silly to think he was an all-timer, the kind of player whose number should never be worn again.

King owned Theismann here, as the kids might say. But he did so with some very questionable comparisons.

Theismann, like some other famous quarterbacks, did not play as long for a couple of reasons. First, he did not start at a young age, and he did not become the full-time starter in Washington until he was 29. Second, his career was cut short because of the whole injury thing, so he effectively had about a 7.5-year window. Add in the player strike in one of his best seasons (and the one where Washington won the Super Bowl) and coming along as the league was just starting to transition from the dead-ball era of the 1970s, and there are lots of reasons why Theismann’s stats may not look impressive.

But this whole thing where someone is compared to one person in one category, then another in a different one, and then a third in another, is a crutch of bad comparison-making. It frankly smacks of pettiness. Throwing in Kyle Orton’s name as having a higher passer rating may be there for giggles, but anyone that has been around the game for as long as King has knows that the offensive numbers have steadily escalated over the years, making such comparisons meaningless.

Let’s try this technique with a few others. All we need to do is pick someone who maybe didn’t have the volume of games because of not playing at a young age or retired early.

Kurt Warner?

Joe Flacco and Jay Cutler have more passing yards and passing touchdowns. Kirk Cousins and Dak Prescott have better passer ratings.

Troy Aikman?

He’s got fewer passing yards than Alex Smith, fewer passing touchdowns than Jeff Garcia, and a worse career passer rating than Mike Glennon or Cody Kessler.

King seems to be questioning whether it is appropriate for Theismann to think so highly of his accomplishments that he needs to speak on the topic or bestow a blessing. Well, ego is not exactly a recessive trait in quarterbacking. So Theismann is not alone there. But let’s try to put his career in a much fairer light than King did.

Brad Oremland wrote up a Top 100 ranking of quarterbacks at Football Perspective. Theismann was No. 49. Several of the guys mentioned in King’s article were in the 70-80 range. He’s above Eli Manning, and behind Kurt Warner and Tony Romo (but closer to those guys than the guys used in King’s comparisons). He’s better than Eli but with one fewer ring. Theismann was kind of like Warner in career shape, except Warner had that later career resurgence in Arizona as well. He’s similar to Tony Romo but with a MVP award and a Super Bowl title.

In fact, here’s this noteworthy fact from Oremland:

So when King lumps him with other one-time Super Bowl winners like Dilfer, Johnson, and Hostetler, it’s pretty unfair. Theismann won an MVP award. Those guys might have seen one at some point in their lives.

While Theismann is not a Pro Football Hall of Famer, he is in that group of about 20 guys after that are in a notch below, and easily worthy of honor with the organizations they played for during their careers. If you actually era-adjust the passer rating for all Washington quarterbacks, you will see that Theismann has two of the top five seasons for Washington since 1960, and three of the top eight. By peak, he’s probably the best quarterback for Washington of the last sixty years (Sammy Baugh is obviously top of the list if we include all of team history). Sonny Jurgensen had the longer career and was more productive for more years and is in the Hall of Fame, but overall Theismann has a claim at the No. 2 spot, and certainly no lower than third depending on your view of Billy Kilmer.

I would submit that if you are one of the top three quarterbacks for your franchise over a sixty-year period, you are pretty good and way better than the comparisons that King made, and it’s acceptable if you would like to give your blessing to someone using your old number.