Kurt Warner.....H.O.F.????

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by bababui

But a real HoF would never be a backup in the prime of his career. A HoFer is either the best or second best QB of his day. Warner is nowhere close to that standard. The whole context of a HoF gets damaged when players of this caliber are considered for admission.

Your forgetting he didnt become a starting NFL qb till he was 28. His prime was with the Rams. Then he had some injury years. The years he took the starting jobs away from starters has been past his prime unless you consider
33-37 to be prime. I will give you that his prime was too short due to arena years.

[SWardle]

Originally Posted by Andy

Actually, 10,000 yards with 2 different teams is quite a bit of offense, I think.

I'm sure Jim Everett is on that list too. I don't see him in the Hall of Fame. I think he was a pretty good QB, too. Like a Warner. Neither one Hall of Fame worthy.

[andjbock]

Warner's success was built around the people he has had to throw to and his coordinator's.

How many games has he had 5+ fumbles? Steve DeBerg would be in the HOF if he had Holt/Bruce or Boldin/Fitzy.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by andjbock

Warner's success was built around the people he has had to throw to and his coordinator's.

How many games has he had 5+ fumbles? Steve DeBerg would be in the HOF if he had Holt/Bruce or Boldin/Fitzy.

so we shouldnt put Peyton Manning in because he had Marvin Harrison?
Or Joe Montana cause he had Jerry Rice & Dwight Clark?
Or Troy Aikman cause he had Michael Irvin, Jay Novacek?
No matter who the receiver is warner still has to get the ball to the receiver.
Why not keep Warner out because he had a great line with Orlando Pace.
Im not sure if warner belongs in the hof. I think his heyday was too short. Maybe if he is consistently good for a few more years. His career may have started too late. Especially if there are players like Manning on the same ballot.

[SWardle]

I think Hall of Fame worthiness boils down to this: Was the guy one of the 2-3 best players at his position for a nice chunk of time? The NFL, moreso than MLB, is more about peak than any other sport. The careers are so short that peak value means a lot. Warner was one of the best QB's in the league what... 2-3 years, max? A backup QB for 3-4 years. Eh, may as well put Rich Gannon in as well if that's the standards for NFL HOF.

There's a difference in pretty good and Hall of Fame. Kurt Warner, for me, falls into the same group guys like Randall Cunningham, Jim Everett, Vinny Testeverde, Dave Krieg and Boomer Esiason. All pretty good QB's but nothing special like a Montana, Marino, Favre etc...

[Jonzard]

We should consider how his numbers were in the Arena League too. It may be a factor, as this is the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not the NFL HOF. While his time wasn't long in the league, he was on a list of the twenty greatest arena football players of all time when they had their 20th anniversary.

[Prodigal Son]

You can debate if he belongs in the Hall based on longevity, but there is no debate in my mind that they guy has been one of the league's absolute elite QB's for most of his career, stupid coaching decisions aside. He was an MVP twice plus a Super Bowl MVP with the Rams, he performed very well for a Giants team that lacked weapons in the passing game at the time (to say the least), and now he's putting up MVP numbers for a team with the worst running game in the NFL, for a franchise that wins playoff games about as often as Rosie O'Donnel has sex with men.

Along with being able to read defenses better and faster than any QB I've ever seen, he's the most accurate QB in NFL history. He's tied for the highest completion percentage in NFL history, and he's achieved that in offenses that throw the ball deep downfield. The guy he's tied with is the king of the dink and dunk, Chad Pennington.

He has the second-highest QB rating of all time, behind a guy who played with Jerry Rice and others who formed arguably the best supporting offensive cast in NFL history. But just like Steve Young, Warner is just as responsible for making his WR's look good as they are responsible for making him look good. When Anquan Boldin went down to injury earlier this season, Warner made #3 WR Steve Breaston look like one of the best WR's in the NFL, as the youngster racked up nearly 600 yards in 6 games. Warner made friggen' stone hands Az-Zahir Hakim look good in St. Louis, ok?

Warner has passed for 300+ yards in 45% of the games that he's played. The second highest rate? 28%. That's an insane stat, and one that completely dwarfs the numbers put up by so-so players like Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Joe Montana, Brett Favre and Dan Fouts. It's no coincidence that the most important position on the best offense in NFL history was manned by Kurt Warner, and it's no coincidence that the 2008 Cardinals, despite having the lowest rushing YPC in the NFL, also have the best overall offense in the league. With a mediocre defense ("mediocre" is being kind) and with the aforementioned injury to Boldin for several games, Warner has been carrying that team all year.

Is the guy a Hall-of-Famer? I'm not sure. I say if he takes Arizona to the playoffs and keeps up his current level of play--which would get him a third MVP to join Hall of Famers Jim Brown, Unitas, and [future HOF'er] Favre as the only players to win that many--then has another good season or two, then he's in. What I am sure of is that he should be in the conversation and that he hasn't gotten a fair shake in this thread. Many of you guys are vastly undervaluing this guy's talent.

[Lando]

Warner's not even close to a HOFer, IMHO. He had 3 really good seasons with St. Louis, and 1.5 good seasons with Arizona. The rest of his career he's been mediocre to downright terrible. You need to be great for more than 5 seasons to be enshrined in Canton.

[Khan]

His career isn't even over yet.

If he can play for 2-3 more seasons like he is now then I'd say he definitely should be considered.

He's already thrown for more TD's than Aikman and is one of the most accurate passers ever.

His number's are also comparable to a few other HOF's like Bradshaw.

If he can play a few more seasons he'll have comparable numbers to Jim Kelly & Steve Young.

[bear]

Roman Gabriel would have to go in first, and I don't see that happening.

[Prodigal Son]

Originally Posted by Lando

Warner's not even close to a HOFer, IMHO. He had 3 really good seasons with St. Louis, and 1.5 good seasons with Arizona. The rest of his career he's been mediocre to downright terrible. You need to be great for more than 5 seasons to be enshrined in Canton.

Please list the mediocre and terrible seasons that Warner had.

[Lando]

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son

Please list the mediocre and terrible seasons that Warner had.

1999-2001 = superstar
2002-2003 = terrible
2004-2005 = mediocre
2006-2007 = above-average
sum total = not a HOFer

[SWardle]

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son

You can debate if he belongs in the Hall based on longevity, but there is no debate in my mind that they guy has been one of the league's absolute elite QB's for most of his career

So, in 2002 through 2007 you think Kurt Warner was an elite QB in the NFL? I guess my first question should be what is your definition of elite? To me, it's top 2-3 in the league. In none of those years would I consider him a top 2-3 QB. 2000 is even questionable to me if I'd place him top 2-3. Trent Green, his backup, who played a lot posted better numbers than Warner with the same talent. Then you have Griese, Culpepper, Garcia, Manning and Gannon who all had beastly seasons that year. I'm not really sure I take Warner over any of those guys.

Plus, in all of your stats you forgot to mention Warner's sacks and fumbles. The guy holds the ball forever and he fumbles like crazy. I'm sure you'd never convince the Giants he had a good year for them. 6 passing TD's to 4 INT's and then you throw on top of that 12 fumbles in 9 games? He's not a stone statue like Drew Bledsoe but the man does hold the ball forever and a day just like him. He's been blessed with really good offensive lines most of his career, too. And 86 fumbles in 85 games started is Culpepperesque, who had 93 fumbles in 90 games started.

I see 2-3 years I'd consider the guy "elite" and then a bunch of "ok" seasons and years where he was a backup. Like I said, if that's good enough for the HOF these days we may as well start on Rich Gannon's plaque.

[Lando]

Originally Posted by Khan

His career isn't even over yet.

If he can play for 2-3 more seasons like he is now then I'd say he definitely should be considered.

He's already thrown for more TD's than Aikman and is one of the most accurate passers ever.

His number's are also comparable to a few other HOF's like Bradshaw.

If he can play a few more seasons he'll have comparable numbers to Jim Kelly & Steve Young.

Aikman & Bradshaw are in the Hall more due to team success than individual statistics, as is Kelly to a large extent. Warner is obviously a better QB than Kelly was, but Kelly played almost twice as many games for a consistently successful team.

Young may be the best comparison to Warner since they both began their NFL career late in life, but Warner doesn't hold a candle to Young. Young had an 8-year stretch from 1991-1998 where he averaged a 100+ passer rating.

Warner hasn't had the sustainability of any of the other names that you mentioned, and his peak simply wasn't long enough.

[Prodigal Son]

Originally Posted by Lando

1999-2001 = superstar
2002-2003 = terrible
2004-2005 = mediocre
2006-2007 = above-average
sum total = not a HOFer

I agree he was bad in 02-03. He barely played due to injury (9 total games). I wouldn't say he was mediocre in 04-05; I'd say he was at least average, and on bad teams average is pretty good. So I'd say he was:

1999-2001 - superstar
02-03 - mostly out due to injury, played poorly across 9 games
04-05 - average on a bad team
06-07 - very good
08 - superstar

You can spin that stuff any way you want to, but it's exactly that, spin. The guy has produced the numbers, the championship, the MVP's, and the only argument against him is some qualitative shenanigans about putting his career path into vague categories. Even so, you're looking at a guy who was very good or better in probably 80%+ of his career starts, something that is reflected in his statistical record.

If you're going to make an argument against him, I say do it on the basis of longevity. When you have a guy who has accomplished what he has accomplished, who has been the most accurate QB in NFL history, the 2nd-highest rated, who had the highest "peak value" of any QB and perhaps any NFL player in history, and he's done it while playing for several different teams with different casts with different levels of quality among his supporting personnel and coaches, then you've got a guy who has played at a HoF level, no doubt in my mind. Whether he's done it long enough is the only question I have.

[SWardle]

Originally Posted by Lando

Aikman & Bradshaw are in the Hall more due to team success than individual statistics, as is Kelly to a large extent. Warner is obviously a better QB than Kelly was, but Kelly played almost twice as many games for a consistently successful team.

Young may be the best comparison to Warner since they both began their NFL career late in life, but Warner doesn't hold a candle to Young. Young had an 8-year stretch from 1991-1998 where he averaged a 100+ passer rating.

Warner hasn't had the sustainability of any of the other names that you mentioned, and his peak simply wasn't long enough.

You also can't forget Young's mobility, either. Which isn't factored into QB rating. I don't simply look at QB rating when judging a QB. How they play when the game is on the line, fumbles, how many times they get sacked, mobility, throwing on the run etc... are all things you have to consider as well. Yes, passing the ball is a huge part of a successful QB's resume but there's a lot of situations and exterior stuff that needs to be factored in as well. A fumble is just as bad as an INT, if not worse, for instance.

I also factor in a QB's teammates to a smaller degree. A QB can't really help who he plays with but there are guys like Marino who did more with less than most other QB's did with a lot. The guy never had a running game. Threw into 7-man coverages his entire career. Aside from his early years he never had a WR worth a crap. O.J. McDuffie, Orende Gaston etc... LOL.

I can't even fathom the numbers he would have put up if he had an offense like the 80's 9'ers or 98-01 Rams. It would have been mind boggling, honestly.

[Lando]

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son

snip

I can see that comprehension is not your strong suit.

My argument was that he wasn't great over a long enough period of time to get into the HOF. You asked for a breakdown of Warner's average or worse seasons, I gave it to you, then you whine about "qualitative shenanigans about putting his career path into vague categories", even though you specifically requested said categories. You close with saying that longevity is the only sensible argument, which was ... exactly ... my original point.

Perhaps you should gracefully bow out of this one before you do any more damage.

[Prodigal Son]

Originally Posted by Lando

I can see that comprehension is not your strong suit.

My argument was that he wasn't great over a long enough period of time to get into the HOF. You asked for a breakdown of Warner's average or worse seasons, I gave it to you, then you whine about "qualitative shenanigans about putting his career path into vague categories", even though you specifically requested said categories. You close with saying that longevity is the only sensible argument, which was ... exactly ... my original point.

Perhaps you should gracefully bow out of this one before you do any more damage.

I'd rather make an error in reading comprehension than be completely uncharismatic. Perhaps you're right that it would be less damaging if I simply stopped conversing with you, a tactic that many people surely take if you are this rude in face-to-face discussion.

As for Warner, suffice it to say that I disagree with your breakdown of his "mediocre" years, but I agree that longevity is a tally against him. Next time I'm talking sports I will ensure that I am logging and tagging the posts of anonymous message board users in a more accurate fashion so as not to be accused of having poor reading comprehension skills by anonymous message board users. That always hurts my feelings so much.

[Lando]

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son

snip

Apology accepted.

[railroad_ross]

As somebody who watched him play every week, he was the greatest Arena Football player of the 90s and ranks in the top 20 all-time. I think you need to consider the path he had to take to get to where he is... Division II school ---> undrafted free agent cut by the Packers ---> Hy-Vee stocker ---> Arena League (two time Arena Bowl QB) (Oh, and Pro Football) ---> NFL Europe (Pro Football) ---> NFL MVP and championship QB (Wait is that Pro Football?) He was age 28 when he took his first NFL snap as a starter... and still ranks among the best ever statistically. That coupled with his list of achievements makes him a HoF QB.

As for this notion he's a system QB. This is something that people who don't know what they are talking about or are bias would say. I can't say it any better than Prodigal Son has said... his stats transcend systems.