Kurt Warner a HOFer?

[neko4]

Not sure what people think of him and being a HOFer, but this guy has thrown 182TDs and 28,591 yards, won a Super Bowl, lost one too, has had 3 4,000 yard seasons, 3 30+ TD seasons (including a 41 TD pass season, a 93.8 career QB rating(and a season when he had 109) and has a great rags to riches story. So is this guy a HOFer? Would he have to go to the Super Bowl again to be considered? Have people already been calling him a HOFer and I just havent noticed?

[MetSox17]

You haven't noticed. He's in the HOF, for sure. Well maybe not for sure, but enough people see him as a HOFer to get in.

[GB12]

http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27208&highlight=kurt+warner
A Super Bowl ring and 2 MVPs are great, but he ranks

47th in TDs
44th in completions
46th in yards

He had great seasons in 99 an 2001 with a decent 2000. He then dissappeared until 2007. His highest TD count during that stretch was 11. Then last year he came back and is continuing it this season.

He has played just 4 seasons at a high level. Yes he was one of the best in the league during those seasons, but it was just 4 years.

4 Great years
1 decent year
5 bad years

That's not a hall of famer in my opinion. I do like Kurt Warner, but he does not belong in the hall of fame.

[neko4]

You haven't noticed. He's in the HOF, for sure. Well maybe not for sure, but enough people see him as a HOFer to get in.
I guess the only reason I thought Kurt wouldnt be in the HOF was because of the downtime from 02-05 and all the great players he played detract from what he's done a little bit. (Orlando Pace, Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, Marshall Faulk, Edge, Larry Fitz, Anquan Boldin)

[Philliez01]

Probably will be one of the more "debated" players upon entering.

One will see the stats, the ring, the awards and such and remember how he may have been the best in the late-90s. Actually he was the best. He was one Vinatieri kick away from possibly being a two-time Super Bowl champion.

Then the others will see the Martz system, the short length of his career and a couple miserable seasons thrown in with STL and NYG.

Then again, plenty o' HOF'ers have had terrible seasons.

Is it possible he could be the Terrell Davis of QBs? Sure, but I think he will at least consistently make the final cut. But if somehow leads ARZ to a Super Bowl win? It should be a very fun debate.

[neko4]

http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27208&highlight=kurt+warner
Thanks, i wasnt going on NFLDC alot at that time so i guess i missed the thread.

[GB12]

There are a ton of players that deserve it more than Warner that are not in the hall of fame. It'll be a shame if he makes it.

[MetSox17]

I guess the only reason I thought Kurt wouldnt be in the HOF was because of the downtime from 02-05 and all the great players he played detract from what he's done a little bit. (Orlando Pace, Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, Marshall Faulk, Edge, Larry Fitz, Anquan Boldin)

I guess i can see where someone would try to diminish his accomplishments by using the supporting cast argument, but at the end of the day, he had to make all the throws and make all the plays. His post-season career is pretty impressive, as well as being flat out dominating for various spurts in his career. Two MVP's and a superbowl ring are enough in my eyes to overlook the longevity of his career.

[neko4]

There are a ton of players that deserve it more than Warner that are not in the hall of fame. It'll be a shame if he makes it.
Even if he got another ring?

[MetSox17]

There are a ton of players that deserve it more than Warner that are not in the hall of fame. It'll be a shame if he makes it.

Drew Bledsoe?

[GB12]

Drew Bledsoe?
What about him?

[MetSox17]

What about him?

Would you consider him a HOFer, since you're obviously only using statistics as a barometer for HOF consideration.

[Shiver]

My personal opinion is that the players who had a few seasons of dominance at their respected position are more worthy than those who accumulated stats but were never the best. That's why I think Terrell Davis should make it in before Curtis Martin, why Michael Irvin deserved it over Art Monk, and why I think Kurt Warner should make it. However, there are other people who see things differently than I do.

[GB12]

Would you consider him a HOFer, since you're obviously only using statistics as a barometer for HOF consideration.
No I wouldn't. He would be awfully close to Warner though. If you think Warner should be than you should think Bledsoe should as well.

And don't get all high on yourself for saying I only used stats for HOF consideration. You think that it's ok that was horrible for over half of his career? 5 good seasons gets you into the hall of fame now?

If so, Hall of fame class 2013: Kurt Warner, Shaun Alexander

[MetSox17]

No I wouldn't. He would be awfully close to Warner though. If you think Warner should be than you should think Bledsoe should as well.

And don't get all high on yourself for saying I only used stats for HOF consideration. You think that it's ok that was horrible for over half of his career? 5 good seasons gets you into the hall of fame now?

If so, Hall of fame class 2013: Kurt Warner, Shaun Alexander

I actually think they should both get in. Like Shiver mentioned, his preference is guys that dominated for a short while over guys that were consistently pretty good. I think both sides of that argument should get strong looks. I believe both Bledsoe and Warner should get in, but if i had to choose who goes in first, i take Warner.

And dominating the runningback position when compared to quarterbacks is apples and oranges. There's plenty of guys that did and have done, and will do what Shaun Alexander did. He was only really "dominant" for about two years, and that was in 04 and 05, so you might wanna name drop someone that can better help your case.

[Twiddler]

I'll back GB12 on this one, I just don't see it even if they end up winning the Super Bowl. He just hasn't consistently been a factor in the league, as much of a joy it has been to watch him recently.

[GB12]

I actually think they should both get in. Like Shiver mentioned, his preference is guys that dominated for a short while over guys that were consistently pretty good. I think both sides of that argument should get strong looks. I believe both Bledsoe and Warner should get in, but if i had to choose who goes in first, i take Warner.

And dominating the runningback position when compared to quarterbacks is apples and oranges. There's plenty of guys that did and have done, and will do what Shaun Alexander did. He was only really "dominant" for about two years, and that was in 04 and 05, so you might wanna name drop someone that can better help your case.
I can see that arguement if they dominated a short time and were good the rest of their career, but that's not Warner. From 2002 to 2006, a five year span, his high for TDs was 11. That's pathetic.

[illmatic74]

My personal opinion is that the players who had a few seasons of dominance at their respected position are more worthy than those who accumulated stats but were never the best. That's why I think Terrell Davis should make it in before Curtis Martin, why Michael Irvin deserved it over Art Monk, and why I think Kurt Warner should make it. However, there are other people who see things differently than I do.I agree with you fundamentally but Warner is not one of those guys. But sustaing success has to count for something. I think Tony Boselli and Sterling Sharpe should get hall of fame consideration because they were dominant but injuries ended their careers. For Warner it wasn't injury he was just awful at times. Favre, Brady and Manning were the dominant QBS of this era. Also QBS Rothelisberger, Rivers, Eli, Cutler,Ryan are going to pass him in greatness over the years. Also less skill players should get in until more offensive lineman and defensive players get in.

[MetSox17]

I can see that arguement if they dominated a short time and were good the rest of their career, but that's not Warner. From 2002 to 2006, a five year span, his high for TDs was 11. That's pathetic.

I agree that he was pathetic for those years. But he was the MVP of the league twice and won a superbowl in that time frame. Not many others can claim anything near that.

[boknows34]

Drew Bledsoe?

Bledsoe has zero chance for the HOF. Both Testaverde and Drew have over 40,000 yds but that's not what HOF voters look for in QB's. Even winning a Super Bowl is not enough for the likes of Stabler, Plunkett or Simms. It's all about dominance and their impact on the history of the NFL and not just looking at raw career stats.

Canton is for the likes of Montana, Elway and Marino, not stat compilers like Bledsoe. The HOF would lose all credibility with players like Bledsoe and he'll be lucky to reach the last 25 for election. Remember he lost his job in each of the three teams he played for.

As for Warner I have always been in the 'No' camp as I could not overlook the vacuum between 2002-06. However he is still writing the final chapter of his career and I'm beginning to be more open-minded to his candidacy. Another thing that will go in his favour and may also raise a few eyebrows is when you compare him to another HOF QB in terms of their career path - Steve Young. Both players had a vacuum in their career. Warner's was in the middle of his career, Young's was at the start in Tampa Bay and on the bench in San Francisco behind Montana.

Warner has had 5 good to great seasons as a starter, 2 league MVPs, 2 All-Pros and a Super Bowl title where he was MVP. Young had 8 good to great seasons with San Francisco. He also had 2 league MVPs, 3 All-Pros and a Super Bowl title where he was MVP.

Young had two 4,000 yd seasons, and six over 3,000 yds. He had two seasons with over 35 TDs and six seasons with a QB rating over 100.

Warner has three 4,000 yd seasons and five over 3,000 yds. He also matches Young with two seasons of at least 35 TD passes (and another at 30). Warner has two seasons with a QB rating over 100 and has come very close on two other occassions (98.3 with the Rams in 2000 and a 96.9 this season).

Young finished with 33,124 yds, 232 TDs, 64.3% completions and a 96.8 QB rating. Warner has 28,591 yds, 182 TDs, 65.4% completion rate and a 93.8 rating.

When you compare Warner's numbers, milestones and awards to Young there are actually quite a lot of similarities. And Steve Young was also elected on the first ballot. That would suggest that Warner will make it eventually.

[illmatic74]

I agree that he was pathetic for those years. But he was the MVP of the league twice and won a superbowl in that time frame. Not many others can claim anything near that.True but that still doesn't make up for those awful years. Also Boomer Essiason Joe Theissmann and Rich Gannon have all been to Super Bowls and won MVPS. It would be a complete joke if he makes the Hall of Fame.

[ThatThereCarGoin200mph]

Im not positive that warner is a hall of famer but I'm positive delhomme will be flipping burgers instead of throwing footballs in the nfl after that terrible performance

[GB12]

boknows34 made the best argument you can for this, but it's still not enough. The difference is that Young only had one year as a starter with a terrible Tampa team and then was stuck behind one of the best QBs of all time. Once he got a real chance he was great. Warner got his chance and then blew it by sucking for 5 years before a comeback with the Cardinals where he didn't even beat out Matt Leinart until this season.

[GB12]

True but that still doesn't make up for those awful years. Also Boomer Essiason Joe Theissmann and Rich Gannon have all been to Super Bowls and won MVPS. It would be a complete joke if he makes the Hall of Fame.
I'm as big of a Rich Gannon fan as you'll find, but no way is he even close to a hall of famer. The one with the best case out of those three is Esiason and I'd probably put Warner ahead of him.

[Shiver]

I agree with you fundamentally but Warner is not one of those guys. But sustaing success has to count for something. I think Tony Boselli and Sterling Sharpe should get hall of fame consideration because they were dominant but injuries ended their careers. For Warner it wasn't injury he was just awful at times. Favre, Brady and Manning were the dominant QBS of this era. Also QBS Rothelisberger, Rivers, Eli, Cutler,Ryan are going to pass him in greatness over the years. Also less skill players should get in until more offensive lineman and defensive players get in.


It is impossible to tell the story of the NFL from 1999 to 2001 without Warner. That was after Favre had receded from his MVP form and before Manning and Brady emerged. As for the quarterbacks you mentioned as passing Warner, I have a hard time believing they will all accomplish what Kurt did. In fact, it is quite possible that none of them will be able to.

[WinslowBodden]

His worst QB rating for a year in which he played in 10 or more games is 85.8

Thats not very bad...

182 tds to 114 ints, which is good.

His career rating is 93.8... Thats VERY good... If you want comparison, he has a higher QB rating for his career than Tom Brady, and is .9 away from Peyton manning, two SURE hall of famers.

He also has as many super bowl wins as Peyton and more super bowl appearances.

[Bucs_Rule]

He did have a terrible stretch, but if you think about it most HOF QBs really struggled at the start of their careers. Warner hit the ground running.

He will most likely leave his career with a very strong finish. That will make a difference in the eyes of voters. The last memory sticks out in your mind.

[Bengalsrocket]

Kurt Warner would have to be a miracle worker to make it into the HoF. Even if he won the Superbowl, I don't know if it would be enough. He might have to have a really good performance to have any shot of making a case for himself.

Now, let me say that being a big part of the NFL shouldn't be a huge factor (otherwise we'd be force to put in guys who were just around forever, regardless of their skill). However, Kurt Warner (as previously mentioned) was a huge part of the NFL right around the turn of the century. Combining that with his dominating stats, awards and superbowl ring (possibly multiple) should help put up a heavy case for himself.

Hopefully he gets in sometime in the future, but I'm doubting 2013.

[illmatic74]

He did have a terrible stretch, but if you think about it most HOF QBs really struggled at the start of their careers. Warner hit the ground running.

He will most likely leave his career with a very strong finish. That will make a difference in the eyes of voters. The last memory sticks out in your mind.He hit the ground running because he was 28 playing with Torry Holt, Issac Bruce and Marshall Faulk. Really ask yourself since 2001 what was one year you truly believe he was a top 10 QB.

[LonghornsLegend]

You have to keep in perspective he still has this season, and next year where he will probably be on a new team as a starter, to help his HOF cause...He can really work his way in with a strong finish this year and maybe two more high level years at QB.

[WinslowBodden]

I dont get how the Cardinals can't keep him after this year, Lienart has done NOTHING.

[Bengalsrocket]

I dont get how the Cardinals can't keep him after this year, Lienart has done NOTHING.

Neither did Aaron Rodgers and the Packers got rid of Brett Favre. Sometimes you just gotta start with the future.

[illmatic74]

Neither did Aaron Rodgers and the Packers got rid of Brett Favre. Sometimes you just gotta start with the future.Aaron Rodgers showed flashes Leinart hasn't yet.

[Bengalsrocket]

Aaron Rodgers showed flashes Leinart hasn't yet.

Well, that's not really why they did it. It was Aaron Rodgers last year on his contract, had Favre been the starter this year then Rodgers probably wouldn't have resigned with GB and then they'd be back to square one as soon as Favre retired.

For the record, I think it makes sense to resign Warner in Arizona, but if every franchise did what made sense then we wouldn't have teams like the 08 Lions.

[Gay Ork Wang]

His worst QB rating for a year in which he played in 10 or more games is 85.8

Thats not very bad...

182 tds to 114 ints, which is good.

His career rating is 93.8... Thats VERY good... If you want comparison, he has a higher QB rating for his career than Tom Brady, and is .9 away from Peyton manning, two SURE hall of famers.

He also has as many super bowl wins as Peyton and more super bowl appearances.
QB Ratings are horrible, i believe Chad Pennington is #3 all time

[shane_man]

QB Ratings are horrible, i believe Chad Pennington is #3 all time

Chad Pennington is a very good QB when he is on the field and uninjured.

[illmatic74]

His worst QB rating for a year in which he played in 10 or more games is 85.8

Thats not very bad...

182 tds to 114 ints, which is good.

His career rating is 93.8... Thats VERY good... If you want comparison, he has a higher QB rating for his career than Tom Brady, and is .9 away from Peyton manning, two SURE hall of famers.

He also has as many super bowl wins as Peyton and more super bowl appearances.He also has fumbled 91 times in 110 games. He also has taken 236 sacks in the same amount of games. He also has been benched 3 times in his career. People need to ask themselves would you take Warner's prime over Favre, Manning, Brady or McNabb.

[WinslowBodden]

I never said I would take Warner in his prime any of them, I just think he needs to be considered for the HOF.

As far as his sacks/fumbles, that reflects more on his lines than it does on him.

[Basileus777]

Kurt Warner would have to be a miracle worker to make it into the HoF. Even if he won the Superbowl, I don't know if it would be enough. He might have to have a really good performance to have any shot of making a case for himself.

Now, let me say that being a big part of the NFL shouldn't be a huge factor (otherwise we'd be force to put in guys who were just around forever, regardless of their skill). However, Kurt Warner (as previously mentioned) was a huge part of the NFL right around the turn of the century. Combining that with his dominating stats, awards and superbowl ring (possibly multiple) should help put up a heavy case for himself.

Hopefully he gets in sometime in the future, but I'm doubting 2013.

Warner is probably on the outside right now, but if he wins a Superbowl with the Cards he is in. There is no way they would keep him out if he does that.

[princefielder28]

Kurt Warner is not a Hall of Famer

Having a 3 year span of success, the year 2000 could be debated as successful too, and then being a non-factor in the league for five years and winning the job due to the failures of a youngster doesn't define Hall of Famer to me. He has been very good this year but the years 1999, 2001, and 2008 shouldn't be considered enough for a spot in Canton.

[bearsfan_51]

I love Kurt Warner. Somewhere along the line it became cliche to rag on him (probably because of the hype he got with the Rams), but he's been a top notch QB throughout his career. HOF worthy? I would say yes.

[GB12]

Neither did Aaron Rodgers and the Packers got rid of Brett Favre. Sometimes you just gotta start with the future.Completely different. Leinart had started 16 games his first two years and then got benched for Warner, Rodgers didn't start a single game his first three years. Leinart got more than a fair shot and did nothing, Rodgers did nothing because he never had a chance.

Well, that's not really why they did it. It was Aaron Rodgers last year on his contract Well that's not really why we did it either. We moved on to Rodgers because Favre retired. Had Favre never retired he would have been the starter. Once he retired it was Rodgers' job and we weren't going to change that no matter what.


Sorry, but you're wrong.

[AtariBigby]

I say hell yah this guy has earned the Hall.

[illmatic74]

I never said I would take Warner in his prime any of them, I just think he needs to be considered for the HOF.

As far as his sacks/fumbles, that reflects more on his lines than it does on him. Sacks have more to do with QBS then people realize that is the reason why Peyton Manning doesn't get sacked a lot when Tarik Glenn was protecting his blindside or now with Tony Ugoh protecting his blindside. Also if he isn't better than the 4 I mentioned aren't you lowering the standards a bit?

[Bengalsrocket]

Completely different. Leinart had started 16 games his first two years and then got benched for Warner, Rodgers didn't start a single game his first three years. Leinart got more than a fair shot and did nothing, Rodgers did nothing because he never had a chance.

Well that's not really why we did it either. We moved on to Rodgers because Favre retired. Had Favre never retired he would have been the starter. Once he retired it was Rodgers' job and we weren't going to change that no matter what.


Sorry, but you're wrong.


Well, I don't know if I'd call Leinart's situation "more than a fair shot". He was still in the middle of his growing pains when a coach, who didn't draft him, decided to go with the more experienced QB. 16 games is nothing, especially spread across 2 seasons.

As far as Aaron Rodgers goes, I'll concede because it's really off-topic to the point. And I don't know what the "Sorry, but you're wrong" thing is about either; I am just having a conversation here buddy.

[gsorace]

Warner is only as good as his receivers

[BBIB]

IMO if Steve Young made it Kurt Warner has to make it

Steve Young didn't start until he was 30. Off the top of my head, he couldn't have had more than 5-6 HOF years just like Warner. And just like Warner he had HOF talent at Wr.

Warner just like Young as a Super Bowl ring and actually more Super Bowl appearances. And he also has one of the highest passer ratings of all-time.


Edit:

I see Steve Young actually made the Pro Bowl 7 years. So I guess so much for that.

Looking at the numbers, Warner needs to have another 2-3 years like that

[princefielder28]

IMO if Steve Young made it Kurt Warner has to make it

Steve Young didn't start until he was 30. Off the top of my head, he couldn't have had more than 5-6 HOF years just like Warner. And just like Warner he had HOF talent at Wr.

Warner just like Young as a Super Bowl ring and actually more Super Bowl appearances. And he also has one of the highest passer ratings of all-time.


Edit:

I see Steve Young actually made the Pro Bowl 7 years. So I guess so much for that.

Looking at the numbers, Warner needs to have another 2-3 years like that

Good thing you made that edit

Young had 6 or 7 great seasons, won 6 passing titles, 3 Super Bowls, and 2 MVPs, and many other accomplishments to his name

[BBIB]

Good thing you made that edit

Young had 6 or 7 great seasons, won 6 passing titles, 3 Super Bowls, and 2 MVPs, and many other accomplishments to his name

LOL now wait a second. He only won 1 of those Super Bowls as a starter.

Giving him credit for that Super Bowl is the same as giving Matt Leinart credit if the Cardinals won the Super Bowl this year.

But yeah his 6-7 great season are more numerous than Warner.

Warner is also a 2-time MVP and currently a 4 time Pro Bowler.

Warner needs another 2-3 more seasons like this to compare more favorably to Young.

But if he wins another Super Bowl he should be a lock

[princefielder28]

LOL now wait a second. He only won 1 of those Super Bowls as a starter.

Giving him credit for that Super Bowl is the same as giving Matt Leinart credit if the Cardinals won the Super Bowl this year.

But yeah his 6-7 great season are more numerous than Warner.

Warner is also a 2-time MVP and currently a 4 time Pro Bowler.

Warner needs another 2-3 more seasons like this to compare more favorably to Young.

But if he wins another Super Bowl he should be a lock

yeah lol but honestly, putting Kurt Warner and Steve Young in the same discussion is a joke.

[gsorace]

IMO if Steve Young made it Kurt Warner has to make it

Steve Young didn't start until he was 30. Off the top of my head, he couldn't have had more than 5-6 HOF years just like Warner. And just like Warner he had HOF talent at Wr.

Warner just like Young as a Super Bowl ring and actually more Super Bowl appearances. And he also has one of the highest passer ratings of all-time.


Edit:

I see Steve Young actually made the Pro Bowl 7 years. So I guess so much for that.

Looking at the numbers, Warner needs to have another 2-3 years like that

You never watched Steve Young play did you?

[RAVENS/WIZARDS/ORIOLES]

You never watched Steve Young play did you?

couldnt of have lol otherwise he would know that you shouldnt question youngs HOF

[BBIB]

couldnt of have lol otherwise he would know that you shouldnt question youngs HOF

Im by no means questioning Kurt Warner's HOF credentials.

Im just saying the argument that 6-7 years of greatness isn't enough to make the HOF is not true.


Of course I know Steve Young is also the all-time TD leader in rushing TDs for a QB as well as passer rating. How's that for versatility. But still it was acccomplished with less than a decade of greatness that's all Im saying.

I don't think you need to necessarily play a full 10 years as a HOFer if you have the ring, have been an MVP, etc.

[illmatic74]

Im by no means questioning Kurt Warner's HOF credentials.

Im just saying the argument that 6-7 years of greatness isn't enough to make the HOF is not true.


Of course I know Steve Young is also the all-time TD leader in rushing TDs for a QB as well as passer rating. How's that for versatility. But still it was acccomplished with less than a decade of greatness that's all Im saying.

I don't think you need to necessarily play a full 10 years as a HOFer if you have the ring, have been an MVP, etc.But every year Young started he was arguably the best QB in the league. Warner's accomplishments are great but he didn't have the consistency of a Hall of Famer. He aslo had extreme fumbilitis. I would put Steve McNair and Jeff Garcia in the Hall over him and neither of those guys are Hall of Famers.

[BBIB]

But every year Young started he was arguably the best QB in the league. Warner's accomplishments are great but he didn't have the consistency of a Hall of Famer. He aslo had extreme fumbilitis. I would put Steve McNair and Jeff Garcia in the Hall over him and neither of those guys are Hall of Famers.

Well you do have a point about the fumbles which really hurts Kurt's career TD/TO ratio.

[AtariBigby]

But every year Young started he was arguably the best QB in the league. Warner's accomplishments are great but he didn't have the consistency of a Hall of Famer. He aslo had extreme fumbilitis. I would put Steve McNair and Jeff Garcia in the Hall over him and neither of those guys are Hall of Famers.

Are you serious?
Warner has MVPs, records, Super Bowls, etc.... what does Garcia have again?

[Malaka]

Steve McNair has an argument fine, but Jeff Garcia has no right to ever be mentioned next to the words HoF.

I think Warner will get into the HoF, maybe not first ballot but eventually, and I think he deserves over McNair IMO.

[YAYareaRB]

Steve Young

Passing Yards - 33,124
Passing TDs / INTs - 232-107
Rushing TDs - 43 (Record for QBs)
Rating - 96.8 (NFL Career Record)
Threw 6 TDs in one super bowl (Record)

Awards
7x Pro Bowl
3x First Team All Pro
3x Second Team All Pro
3x Superbowl Champion
1x Superbowl MVP
2x NFL, PFWA, and NEA NFL MVP
1x Offensive Player of the Year
1x NFC Player of the Year
1x Bert Bell Award

Just in case anyone else wanted to question Steve Young's HoF credentials.

[CC.SD]

Steve Young

Passing Yards - 33,124
Passing TDs / INTs - 232-107
Rushing TDs - 43 (Record for QBs)
Rating - 96.8 (NFL Career Record)
Threw 6 TDs in one super bowl (Record)

Awards
7x Pro Bowl
3x First Team All Pro
3x Second Team All Pro
3x Superbowl Champion
1x Superbowl MVP
2x NFL, PFWA, and NEA NFL MVP
1x Offensive Player of the Year
1x NFC Player of the Year
1x Bert Bell Award

Just in case anyone else wanted to question Steve Young's HoF credentials.

No one rational is criticizing Young's Canton credentials. I have to admit I had a tough time drumming up sympathy for his concussions though.

[illmatic74]

Are you serious?
Warner has MVPs, records, Super Bowls, etc.... what does Garcia have again?Warner has two MVPS and went to a Super Bowl but Garcia Garcia was a more consistent QB. Warner's accomplishments look good on paper but Garcia is a better QB.

[MetSox17]

Warner has two MVPS and went to a Super Bowl but Garcia Garcia was a more consistent QB. Warner's accomplishments look good on paper but Garcia is a better QB.

When i first read that i didn't think you could be serious, but now that you've come to rebut, i am completely baffled. Jeff Garcia is complete trash compared to Kurt Warner.

[noromasionadom]

Young is HOF -- Warner is not.

[illmatic74]

When i first read that i didn't think you could be serious, but now that you've come to rebut, i am completely baffled. Jeff Garcia is complete trash compared to Kurt Warner.Because Kurt Warner lucked into playing with Faulk, Bruce, Holt, Boldin and Fitsgerald he is better?

[Fogartynyy2789]

Idk this is tough, if he wins the Super Bowl this year, then I say, yes he belongs.

[holt_bruce81]

This topic seems to be brought up a lot.

30% chance....right now
80% chance.....if Cards win Superbowl.

[cdub11]

even though the Cards didnt win I think Warner is a HOFer

[Addict]

even though the Cards didnt win I think Warner is a HOFer

he could be... it really just depends if the hall of fame voters are up for it. For now, I think it'll take Warner at least a decade, maybe two, to get in. Especially since there are so many names just waiting to get in.

[Lions2342]

I think that Warner will be in the HOF. Obviously, he won't be a slam dunk first ballot, but I think he will get in. He has two MVP's, 1 Super Bowl MVP, and been to the SB 3 times. He is two 2 minutes drives away from having two more Super Bowl titles (that's gotta hurt). I think it will take a while, but eventually I think he gets in.

[Addict]

He'll get in eventually because history sands off the rough edges on a player.

[Geo]

Is Warner's postseason career, on average, Top 5 statistically among QBs? I think it just might be.

It's probably better than Peyton's. Got to call it like I see it. There are circumstances involved, but it is what it is. Warner has performed.

I think he needs two more great regular seasons though, to really help his chances of the HOF, and I think he'll achieve that. All this free agent/retirement talk, I think he re-signs with the Cards for at least two more years.

[broth223]

How many QBs take two teams to the Super Bowl? Warner wasn't just a cog in the wheel either he was an important part of that team. A Super Bowl MVP multiple pro bowl seasons and made it to the big game with two different teams. Also one of the greatest stories in sports. I don't think he is first ballot HOFer but he should be there.

[Smooth Criminal]

I'm torn on this. He had some amazing years but he didn't consistenly dominate the league like I think a HoF QB should.

I think he'll get in eventually.

[Geo]

How many QBs take two teams to the Super Bowl? Warner wasn't just a cog in the wheel either he was an important part of that team. A Super Bowl MVP multiple pro bowl seasons and made it to the big game with two different teams. Also one of the greatest stories in sports. I don't think he is first ballot HOFer but he should be there.
Two teams doesn't do it justice.

The St. Louis Rams and the Arizona Cardinals. There's an incredible emphasis there.

[Geo]

I'm not really on the Warner for HOF bandwagon, didn't really think about it though. But beyond what was already noted ...

1. He just passed Joe Montana for most career Super Bowl passing yards. Montana played in 4 SBs obviously.

2. And think about it, he put his team in position to win all three Super Bowls. Except the defense could only hang on once to make it happen, 1999. That is tough, but it's not like he plays defense.

[LonghornsLegend]

3 highest passing totals in Super Bowl history, and he played very well in all 3 games...Not that it's the final say but a very impressive footnote on his resume.

[someone447]

I think this game gets him in. It obviously won't be first ballot, but I do believe he will end up in the HOF. He is averaging over 300 yards a game in the playoffs. That is absolutely amazing. He had the lead in the final two minutes in all three Super Bowls. His defense let two of them slip away. He deserves the HOF.

[XxXdragonXxX]

If so, Hall of fame class 2013: Kurt Warner, Shaun Alexander



Can we get Kenny Easley in on that class too?

[broth223]

Steve Young isn't the worst QB to be in the HOF I'd take Warner over Namith.

[TheGM]

Kurt is in for several reasons:
1: his story is a classic and reporters love him
2: The numbers and awards do add up to the hall of fame on paper
3: he led the Arizona Cardinals to the Superbowl....think about it
4: St. Louis let a franchise QB go so there is an explanation for the 4 year falloff. By the way ask a Rams fan how the move to let Warner go has turned out.

[Saints-Tigers]

Just some food for thought, Kurt Warner has been less than mediocre unless he has the top receiving core in the NFL.

[Gay Ork Wang]

If joe namath makes it, Kurt Warner should.

He has #1, #2 and #3 for most passing yards in the superbowl.

[tony77]

Kurt is in for several reasons:
1: his story is a classic and reporters love him
2: The numbers and awards do add up to the hall of fame on paper
3: he led the Arizona Cardinals to the Superbowl....think about it
4: St. Louis let a franchise QB go so there is an explanation for the 4 year falloff. By the way ask a Rams fan how the move to let Warner go has turned out.

Agreed. He also never had a running game. Don't tell me Marshall Faulk during this time. He was a backfield receiver/all-purpose guy who was a decent runner

[Philliez01]

Probably will be one of the more "debated" players upon entering.

One will see the stats, the ring, the awards and such and remember how he may have been the best in the late-90s. Actually he was the best. He was one Vinatieri kick away from possibly being a two-time Super Bowl champion.

Then the others will see the Martz system, the short length of his career and a couple miserable seasons thrown in with STL and NYG.

Then again, plenty o' HOF'ers have had terrible seasons.

Is it possible he could be the Terrell Davis of QBs? Sure, but I think he will at least consistently make the final cut. But if somehow leads ARZ to a Super Bowl win? It should be a very fun debate.

I have to quote myself here now and revisit this.

Usually I hear people use the same arguments for different players because there is a nice sized line between very good and Hall of Famer. The "guidelines" so to speak tend to be:

1)-Dominance Over A Period Of Time
Warner's absolute dominance in the NFL, where he was considered a top or one of the top QBs, was over a nice three-year window from 1999-2001. Yes, his 2000 season (if memory serves) was injury riddled but he did put up 21 TDs with a 98.3 passer rating (thank you ESPN.Com Stats). So yes, Warner does have his own era of dominance, albeit short.

2)-Playoff Performances
Warner has had amazing playoff success that continued with this run with the Cardinals. In 10 games, he is close to 3,000 playoff passing yards and is 1-3 in Super Bowls. Three SB appearances helps his cause a lot and the fact that he had stellar games in the losses also helps him. He does have this trait.

3)-Can you skip his name when discussing the history of the NFL?
This is debateable. Yes he had his era of dominance, but where does he fit in NFL history? Will we be telling our kids about him? The Greatest Show on Turf in 1999 was one of the most amazing runs in history. 41 TD seasons in your first full year is amazing. I'd say you can't skip his name.

Now, I don't feel like looking at stats but we might have to compare him to other "late bloomers" like Young, Moon, Jake Delhomme (though Warner's far, far, better there stories are a bit similar), etc. His storybook rise will also aid him. He's a popular player, most casual fans should know of him. But we'll see if 4 great seasons help him.

[Gay Ork Wang]

Kurt Warner prolly loves Rodney Harrison

[Menardo75]

I really think he should be a guy that has had as many "Firsts" as he has.

[princefielder28]

Kurt is in for several reasons:
1: his story is a classic and reporters love him
2: The numbers and awards do add up to the hall of fame on paper
3: he led the Arizona Cardinals to the Superbowl....think about it
4: St. Louis let a franchise QB go so there is an explanation for the 4 year falloff. By the way ask a Rams fan how the move to let Warner go has turned out.

Marc Bulger was successful during a 3-4 year stretch where Holt and Bruce were a solid duo and the offense still relied heavily on a passing attack.

Just some food for thought, Kurt Warner has been less than mediocre unless he has the top receiving core in the NFL.

Yeah, he's always been surrounded with two all-pro caliber WRs and the offense has been pass heavy with little reliance on the running game.

[Canadian_draft_fan]

I would have to say no. It was correctly pointed out in our local paper today that Warner has had 4 very good years (1999-2001 & 2008) and a 13-29 W/L record in his other seasons. Similar to Terrell Davis - some good years but not the track record of longevity & production.

[holt_bruce81]

I'm saying Yes now.

2-time MVP, Super Bowl winner. Has a 93.8 career QB rating which ranks him 3rd on the all-time list. 2nd all time in completion% and 4th in yards per completion (8.04).

He's passed for more yards than many Hall of Famers......Staubach, Namath, Van Brocklin, Terry Bradshaw, Bart Starr, Bob Griese, Bobby Layne, Sammy Baugh, George Blanda and Y.A. Tittle. Also Warner has more Touchdown passes than Aikman, Namath, Staubach and Van Brocklin.

And Warner's story is just amazing, going from bagging groceries to being a Super bowl MVP. Warner lifted two of the league's bottom teams to the highest level of achievement. I mean the Rams were horrible before Warner got there and so were the Cardinals.

He will get in, no doubt in my mind.

[twista6002]

Yea but the guy absolutely sucked when he had average weapons.

[GB12]

I'm saying Yes now.

2-time MVP, Super Bowl winner. Has a 93.8 career QB rating which ranks him 3rd on the all-time list. 2nd all time in completion% and 4th in yards per completion (8.04).

He's passed for more yards than many Hall of Famers......Staubach, Namath, Van Brocklin, Terry Bradshaw, Bart Starr, Bob Griese, Bobby Layne, Sammy Baugh, George Blanda and Y.A. Tittle. Also Warner has more Touchdown passes than Aikman, Namath, Staubach and Van Brocklin.

And Warner's story is just amazing, going from bagging groceries to being a Super bowl MVP. Warner lifted two of the league's bottom teams to the highest level of achievement. I mean the Rams were horrible before Warner got there and so were the Cardinals.

He will get in, no doubt in my mind.
Save that crap for ESPN. That should have no influence what so ever on him making the Hall of Fame. It's for the best football players, not feel good stories.

[someone447]

Save that crap for ESPN. That should have no influence what so ever on him making the Hall of Fame. It's for the best football players, not feel good stories.

But it will be a factor, regardless of whether or not it should be one.

[holt_bruce81]

Save that crap for ESPN. That should have no influence what so ever on him making the Hall of Fame. It's for the best football players, not feel good stories.

It will be a factor. Take Joe Namath for example.....His stats are horrible. his career cmp% was 50%, had 173 TDs and 220 INTs.

He's in the Hall of Fame because of one game.

[tjsunstein]

ESPN fan vote on the sportsnation poll has him in the hall.
77% said yes.

[neko4]

It will be a factor. Take Joe Namath for example.....His stats are horrible. his career cmp% was 50%, had 173 TDs and 220 INTs.

He's in the Hall of Fame because of one game.
Everybody likes to bring up Broadway Joe, but he's the only example (atleast among modern QB's)
Alot of QB's back, back, back in the day had bad stats

[Bengalsrocket]

Everybody likes to bring up Broadway Joe, but he's the only example (atleast among modern QB's)
Alot of QB's back, back, back in the day had bad stats

Also, Namath should get a little bit of credit for being a pretty good play caller. Remember, in his time, QB's called the plays because coaches didn't have a mic to transmit into the player's helmet :P.

That takes all plays into account, not just the passing ones. Which means his job was not only to find weakness' in the passing defense, but also the rushing defense.

It's part of the reason I think Peyton Manning is such a good QB. His ability to call audibles at the right time is amazing.

[twista6002]

ESPN fan vote on the sportsnation poll has him in the hall.
77% said yes.

facepalm.jpg

[Hines]

Do I think he gets in? Yes. I do think it will take him a few years to get in though.

[P-L]

If the Hall of Fame lets guys like Terry Bradshaw and Joe Namath in, how can they leave Kurt Warner out?

A. 136 games: 27,663 yards, 50.1%, 173 TD, 220 INT
B. 168 games: 27,989 yards, 51.9%, 212 TD, 210 INT
C. 110 games: 28,591 yards, 65.4%, 182 TD, 114 INT

I'll give you one guess as to who's stats are represented by the letter "C."

[tony77]

P-L, I get what you are saying with this and I really have questions as to how Namath could get in because of one game. Bradshaw at least won two legit Super Bowl MVPs because he made outstanding plays in the 4th quarter to get his team over the top.

What I do not think is necessarily fair is to compare the completion percentages and turnovers from the 60s and 70s vs today. The fact is that the leaders in those categories were just not as good as today. The AFL's leader in Comp% was often in the 55% range, because it was so wide open and wild. Even the NFL leaders in that time frame topped at 62%. In the 70s, the best output was Stabler's 1976 season at 66.7%, but we mostly saw 62-64% in most years. Today we regularly have leaders in the 66-70% range.

Using INTs straight up is a bit tough to do too. George Blanda had 42 INTs in one season in the AFL days, and he is in the Hall. Let's say we used INT % (INT / Pass Att.):

The leaders in the 60s were 4-5% in the AFL and about 3% in the NFL. After the merge, the 70s gave us 2.5-3.0%. Once we got into the 80s, it started to decrease significantly...we had guys finish sub-1% in this category a few times.

I think a couple of things led to this...

1. Bill Walsh as a head coach installed the high-pct West Coast offense that most teams copied or came up with derivatives of.

2. Coaches are more paranoid of losing their jobs than ever, the QB play controls their fate of W's and L's more than ever, so they need QBs who will complete a high percentage of passes AND not turn the ball over.

So to compare the QBs requires something that creates more common ground across the board. You really need to compare the QBs against their contemporaries. Pro Bowls, 1st-Team All-Pro, MVPs, Super Bowl Appearances (maybe even Conference Championship Appearances), and Super Bowl MVPs are good honors to use. Not everyone can win a Super Bowl, but if you do get there you should be rewarded for it.

Statwise, we should probably look at the individual components that go into QB rating: Yards/Pass Att., INT%, Comp%, and TD% and see how many times the QB led the league or finished in the Top 10.

Combining these factors also prevents ridiculous arguments like: "Well Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl and Marino didn't so that means he is better."

Warner should be compared to guys like Favre, Peyton Manning, Brady, McNair and the like. Not to Namath and Bradshaw.

[Bucs_Rule]

Being compared to the first 3 isn't fair as they are sure fire first ballot locks, only a tiny few HOFers are. That would be like comparing all backs to Patyon or receivers to Rice. He'll be compared with other guys that are on the fence like Shannon Sharpe or Junoir Seau and McNair too.

[DeathbyStat]

If he would have won sunday no question...but now Im not so sure

[vikes_28]

If he would have won sunday no question...but now Im not so sure

it wasn't really his fault that he lost.

[nfrillman]

Save that crap for ESPN. That should have no influence what so ever on him making the Hall of Fame. It's for the best football players, not feel good stories.

Well it's not called the Hall of Best Players, though that is primarily what it is. The Hall of Fame is for those that had significant impact on the NFL for the good. Joe Namath is not a HOFr because of his playing ability and stats, in fact he was a rather crappy QB. What he did though was guarantee a major upset that put the AFL teams on the same level as the NFL teams. People will be telling Warner's story for decades, it's an amazing story. I would also challenge anyone to name me 10 QB's that they would put above Warner, including current players. Just off the top of my head I can see an argument for Manning, Brady, Favre, Elway, Young, Montana, Marino, Moon, Fouts, Unitas, Simms, and Kelly...............most of those are stretches in my opinion as well, especially if you just look at how good they were at playing the game as opposed to simply how long they played.

[GB12]

.I would also challenge anyone to name me 10 QB's that they would put above Warner, including current players. Just off the top of my head I can see an argument for Manning, Brady, Favre, Elway, Young, Montana, Marino, Moon, Fouts, Unitas, Simms, and Kelly...............most of those are stretches in my opinion as well, especially if you just look at how good they were at playing the game as opposed to simply how long they played.
Montana, Elway, Favre, Manning, Brady, Marino, Young, Tarkenton, Unitas, Staubach. That's ten and I could keep going for a while.

[BBIB]

Gayle Sayers is the one guy I can think of who's in the HOF for being great for 5-6 years.

But he was a running back.

As a QB you have to have that sustained greatness for nearly a decade.

Warner does not have that. The middle of his career as a journeymen backup, that is something that should not be ignored.

He needs 3-4 more years to make up for that part of his career. It would not be right based on the precedent of the other QBs in the HOF to let that part of his career slide and allow him to make the HOF if he retired today

[MetSox17]

Gayle Sayers is the one guy I can think of who's in the HOF for being great for 5-6 years.

But he was a running back.

As a QB you have to have that sustained greatness for nearly a decade.

Warner does not have that. The middle of his career as a journeymen backup, that is something that should not be ignored.

He needs 3-4 more years to make up for that part of his career. It would not be right based on the precedent of the other QBs in the HOF to let that part of his career slide and allow him to make the HOF if he retired today

You're making the argument for Warner.

Everyone knows that a runningback's career span is extremely short as it is, so why would less time of greatness be better in comparison to a quarterback?

[BBIB]

You're making the argument for Warner.

Everyone knows that a runningback's career span is extremely short as it is, so why would less time of greatness be better in comparison to a quarterback?

LOL what?

The lifespan of a running back not being high is why it is permissible for a running back to have 5-6 years of greatness and make the HOF.

The lifespan of a quarterback is considered much longer which is why 5 years of greatness is not enough.

The quarterback position is the one where the standard of longevity of greatness has been set to make the HOF.

It would be ridiculous to break that trend for Warner. It would really lower the requirements overall for making the HOF in the future where a guy could have half a dozen great years and the rest of his career could be disregarded completely.

The football HOF could just become the Hall of Very Good.

[broth223]

LOL what?

The lifespan of a running back not being high is why it is permissible for a running back to have 5-6 years of greatness and make the HOF.

The lifespan of a quarterback is considered much longer which is why 5 years of greatness is not enough.

The quarterback position is the one where the standard of longevity of greatness has been set to make the HOF.

It would be ridiculous to break that trend for Warner. It would really lower the requirements overall for making the HOF in the future where a guy could have half a dozen great years and the rest of his career could be disregarded completely.

The football HOF could just become the Hall of Very Good.

Wait aren't you the same guy who was making an argument for McNabb? The MVPless ringless McNabb. Over a Kurt Warner who has both

[Gay Ork Wang]

if Joe Namath made it Kurt Warner should

[BBIB]

Wait aren't you the same guy who was making an argument for McNabb? The MVPless ringless McNabb. Over a Kurt Warner who has both

The same guy who just said McNabb needs close to FOUR MORE YEARS of putting up numbers to make it?

[Whomecouldntbe]

if Joe Namath made it Kurt Warner should

That's a horrible argument. "Well, they messed up once and let in a crappy quarterback, now they should just let in every quarterback that managed to maintain his level of mediocrity."

Bah.

I think Warner has earned it, on a slow year. He won't get in quickly or anything, but his playoff performances, two regular season MVP's, overall completion percentage and passer ratings, along with a Superbowl and Superbowl MVP should get him in eventually.

[BBIB]

if Joe Namath made it Kurt Warner should

Joe Namath made it for the guarantee against the Colts in what at the time was the biggest upset in Super Bowl history.

The standard of making the HOF as a QB has been raised significantly since then which is why guys with numbers like those guys had back then would never make it in today's league.


The modern era QB of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the precedent has been set to make the HOF you better have near a decade of greatness or more or a handful of rings.

[Whomecouldntbe]

LOL what?

The lifespan of a running back not being high is why it is permissible for a running back to have 5-6 years of greatness and make the HOF.

The lifespan of a quarterback is considered much longer which is why 5 years of greatness is not enough.

The quarterback position is the one where the standard of longevity of greatness has been set to make the HOF.

It would be ridiculous to break that trend for Warner. It would really lower the requirements overall for making the HOF in the future where a guy could have half a dozen great years and the rest of his career could be disregarded completely.

The football HOF could just become the Hall of Very Good.

Longevity is meaningless. Compilers should not get into the Hall. People who dominate should get into the Hall. And for 2 straight years, Warner did just that, he dominated the league. You can be a solid player and get 3 000 yards and 20 TD's for 15 years. But to have 2 of the 10 best seasons ever for a quarterback is to dominate.

[Gay Ork Wang]

Warner has the 3 highest passing totals in Superbowl history.

[fenikz]

Warner has the 3 highest passing totals in Superbowl history.

and the last one was against "the greatest defense of all time"

[tony77]

I find this Warner/HoF discussion to be one of the most polarizing topics in the NFL right now.

Proponents point to the postseason performances and MVPs. Detractors point to the gap when he was essentially a seat-warmer for young QBs.

He needs to return for the sake of the Cardinals receivers, or the success that Arizona has enjoyed will be short-lived. Leinart is not in the ballpark right now.

[yourfavestoner]

if Joe Namath made it Kurt Warner should

The circumstances that made Joe Namath a Hall of Famer are completely different than any other player in the Hall, and, thus, cannot be fairly compared to other players.

[Bucs_Rule]

He needs to return for the sake of the Cardinals receivers, or the success that Arizona has enjoyed will be short-lived. Leinart is not in the ballpark right now.

With Leinart still have 3 years left they can keep Warner for 2 more years and than Leinart start for 1 year and decide if they want to resign him long-term based on that. Like what the pack did with Rodgers.

[tony77]

Bucs_Rule:

That's fine, but what I am saying is that I do not think Leinart is going to pull it together. He lacks maturity. He had a nice start to his career with that wacky MNF game vs Chicago, but it says something when Arizona does everything possible to allow Leinart to win the job and he still can't do it.

[someone447]

Bucs_Rule:

That's fine, but what I am saying is that I do not think Leinart is going to pull it together. He lacks maturity. He had a nice start to his career with that wacky MNF game vs Chicago, but it says something when Arizona does everything possible to allow Leinart to win the job and he still can't do it.

Or it says something about Warner...

[GB12]

With Leinart still have 3 years left they can keep Warner for 2 more years and than Leinart start for 1 year and decide if they want to resign him long-term based on that. Like what the pack did with Rodgers.
If Leinart sits two more years he'll be 28. After Rodgers was done sitting on the bench he was still just 24.

[BBIB]

Longevity is meaningless. Compilers should not get into the Hall. People who dominate should get into the Hall. And for 2 straight years, Warner did just that, he dominated the league. You can be a solid player and get 3 000 yards and 20 TD's for 15 years. But to have 2 of the 10 best seasons ever for a quarterback is to dominate.

So dominating for two years warrants the HOF? Sorry that's just not the case with the QB position whether you want it to be or not.

Hell Daunte Culpepper could be in the HOF if all you had to do was be good for just a couple years and the rest of your career didn't matter.

The bottom line is that Warner has as many seasons as a backup or playing at a backup level as he does playing at a high level. That is not good enough to make the HOF based on the precedent that's been set by the guys who are in right now

[awfullyquiet]

warner > namath

that's as much as a litmus test as i need in this situation.

[tony77]

I never saw Culpepper go 8-3 in the postseason with 3 SB appearances (plus a MVP) or 2 regular season MVPs.

I am also not saying this makes Warner a lock for the Hall, but let's not use Daunte Culpepper's name since the comparison is not close.

[NY+Giants=NYG]

When someone talks Offensive systems in football, Warner's name along with Dan Fouts are the two poster players for the Air Coryell system. They ran that system as close to perfect. They are/were good Qbs, but that system is known for getting stats. Same with Rivers. Rivers, in SD, in is the name system. He is a good QB, but system is very, very strong when you got the right pieces. Actually that was the original WCO, before Walsh modernized it and won superbowls with it. Then the media dubbed HIS system the WCO. But Warner, Fouts, and Rivers are all from that system. That's why Mike Martz is considered an offensive genius among football coaches and people in the game. He modernized that system with Norv Turner and made it what it is. Dallas in the early 90s had that offense too.

[tony77]

SMS, that's right. And you have to give props to those who can execute properly. There were plenty of QBs who were failures in these systems, too.

[NY+Giants=NYG]

SMS, that's right. And you have to give props to those who can execute properly. There were plenty of QBs who were failures in these systems, too.

Yeah but how many were set up right? It's a system and therefore with the wrong coaches, personnel, and GM's drafting it can lead to failure. Not only that Mike Martz and Turner both were guys that modernized the system from Don Coryell. And both coaches had emmense success running it. Turner with Aikeman and the cowboys, and Martz with Warner. It's not suprised to see Rivers do well in this system. I actually would have been suprised if he failed in it, especially after developing under Cam Cameron who is developing Flacco. So all in all everything is related in some way.