Kurt Warner a HOFer?

neko4 · 01-10-2009, 11:36 PM

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 · 01-10-2009, 11:37 PM

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 · 01-10-2009, 11:41 PM

http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/...ht=kurt+warner

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB12

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 · 01-10-2009, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 01-10-2009, 11:41 PM

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 · 01-10-2009, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB12

http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/...ht=kurt+warner

Thanks, i wasnt going on NFLDC alot at that time so i guess i missed the thread.

GB12 · 01-10-2009, 11:43 PM

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 · 01-10-2009, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neko4

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 · 01-10-2009, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Even if he got another ring?

MetSox17 · 01-10-2009, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Drew Bledsoe?

GB12 · 01-10-2009, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetSox17

Drew Bledsoe?

What about him?

MetSox17 · 01-10-2009, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB12

What about him?

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

Shiver · 01-10-2009, 11:58 PM

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 · 01-11-2009, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetSox17

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 · 01-11-2009, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB12

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 · 01-11-2009, 12:06 AM

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 · 01-11-2009, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetSox17

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 · 01-11-2009, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 01-11-2009, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB12

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 · 01-11-2009, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetSox17

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 · 01-11-2009, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetSox17

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.

01-11-2009, 12:35 AM

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 · 01-11-2009, 12:40 AM

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 · 01-11-2009, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illmatic74

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 · 01-11-2009, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illmatic74

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.