Does Kurt Warner belong in the HOF?

[Seek]

Share your thoughts. 1st ballot, 2nd ballot, etc.




Bowe's dropped 13 balls over the past two years. That isn't great, but it isn't as bad as people are implying.

Fitzgerald had a HOF QB throwing him the ball the past two seasons. Bowe had a journeyman, a has-been, and a never-was.

Fitzgerald had a real HC and WR coach. Bowe didn't.

Nevertheless, the production of the two in their first two years is nearly identical. Bowe had more drops, certainly. But he didn't have Fitz's advantages either.

Bowe was one of our very few bright spots in 2007 and 2008. There are 20 other starters to blame before we start blaming Bowe for our 6-26 record.

You are kidding right. Warner a HOF Qb. No way. He is a system Qb nothing less nothing more. Calling Warner a HOB QB is almost the same as Calling Trent Green a HOF Qb. Trent had a much better career minus the superbowl start.

I am not blaming Bowe for anything and really like him. But he is NO Fitzgerald. It is event close. The whole discussion to think so is absurd and highly unrealistic. He just does not have the hands like Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald works and works and works on catching the ball. One handed, two hands, upside down, on his back. It is why he almost always comes down with a jump ball.

[yashi]

You are kidding right. Warner a HOF Qb. No way. He is a system Qb nothing less nothing more. Calling Warner a HOB QB is almost the same as Calling Trent Green a HOF Qb. Trent had a much better career minus the superbowl start.

I am not blaming Bowe for anything and really like him. But he is NO Fitzgerald. It is event close. The whole discussion to think so is absurd and highly unrealistic. He just does not have the hands like Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald works and works and works on catching the ball. One handed, two hands, upside down, on his back. It is why he almost always comes down with a jump ball.

Kurt Warner is absolutely a HOF QB. I actually can't believe anyone would say he isn't. He was one drive from becoming only the 2nd QB to win Super Bowls as the starting QB for 2 different teams. That's ridiculous to call him a system QB man. Is Brady a system QB?

[jmlamerson]

You are kidding right. Warner a HOF Qb. No way. He is a system Qb nothing less nothing more. Calling Warner a HOB QB is almost the same as Calling Trent Green a HOF Qb. Trent had a much better career minus the superbowl start.

I am not blaming Bowe for anything and really like him. But he is NO Fitzgerald. It is event close. The whole discussion to think so is absurd and highly unrealistic. He just does not have the hands like Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald works and works and works on catching the ball. One handed, two hands, upside down, on his back. It is why he almost always comes down with a jump ball.

Kurt Warner's a two-time NFL MVP. He won one Super Bowl and started in two others. He's one of only two QBs to start in the SB with two separate teams. He brought the Arizona Freakin' Cardinals to the Super Bowl. His stats in every conceivable category are better than every QB of his era except Favre, Manning, and Brady. What are you talking about? A system QB? I'm not sure you know what that means. Warner's a lock for the HOF at least by the 2nd ballot.

EDIT: What Yashi said

Bowe isn't as good of an athlete at Fitz (or Moss or Burress for the matter). But he can be at least as good as Owens, Torry Holt, or any other number of great WRs of his era. What he lacks in athleticism he makes up for in toughness and instincts. With the exception of Calvin Johnson, there's not another WR under 25 that I'd rather have on this team.

[DrunkHillbilly]

You are kidding right. Warner a HOF Qb. No way. He is a system Qb nothing less nothing more. Calling Warner a HOB QB is almost the same as Calling Trent Green a HOF Qb. Trent had a much better career minus the superbowl start.

I am not blaming Bowe for anything and really like him. But he is NO Fitzgerald. It is event close. The whole discussion to think so is absurd and highly unrealistic. He just does not have the hands like Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald works and works and works on catching the ball. One handed, two hands, upside down, on his back. It is why he almost always comes down with a jump ball.
Kurt Warner = HOF........LOCK!!!! Would bet all you got on it!!!!

[Seek]

Kurt Warner's a two-time NFL MVP. He won one Super Bowl and started in two others. He's one of only two QBs to start in the SB with two separate teams. He brought the Arizona Freakin' Cardinals to the Super Bowl. His stats in every conceivable category are better than every QB of his era except Favre, Manning, and Brady. What are you talking about? A system QB? I'm not sure you know what that means. Warner's a lock for the HOF at least by the 2nd ballot.

EDIT: What Yashi said

Bowe isn't as good of an athlete at Fitz (or Moss or Burress for the matter). But he can be at least as good as Owens, Torry Holt, or any other number of great WRs of his era. What he lacks in athleticism he makes up for in toughness and instincts. With the exception of Calvin Johnson, there's not another WR under 25 that I'd rather have on this team.

Yes a system QB. Yes he has played in two superbowls. The last time I checked, his stint with Rams included Marshal Faulk one of the best all purpose running backs, two star receivers with Bruce and Holt and a stud offensive line. The defense wasn't bad either.

If he is truly a HOF QB. There is no way Marc Bulger pushes him out of St. Louis by out performing him. Warners performance since leaving the Rams was nothing but a joke, until He finds another team with a great system and the type of talent as what you saw years ago with the rams.

I am sorry. It was obvious in Kurts off years that his previous sucess was greatly contributed to the talent around him. Not him. Just as Marc Bulgers early success now failing.

He is a great cinderella story, but if he is a true HOF Qb. The value of the HOF isn't that great in my opinion.

[yashi]

Yes a system QB. Yes he has played in two superbowls. The last time I checked, his stint with Rams included Marshal Faulk one of the best all purpose running backs, two star receivers with Bruce and Holt and a stud offensive line. The defense wasn't bad either.

If he is truly a HOF QB. There is no way Marc Bulger pushes him out of St. Louis by out performing him. Warners performance since leaving the Rams was nothing but a joke, until He finds another team with a great system and the type of talent as what you saw years ago with the rams.

I am sorry. It was obvious in Kurts off years that his previous sucess was greatly contributed to the talent around him. Not him. Just as Marc Bulgers early success now failing.

He is a great cinderella story, but if he is a true HOF Qb. The value of the HOF isn't that great in my opinion.

I think you're severely mistaken. Look at the stats. Warner has had just two seasons that were "bad", and they were a result of a nagging thumb injury that affected his ability to hold the ball. He was effectively on the shelf for two seasons, playing only 9 games in those years combined.

Bulger didn't push anyone out of St. Louis. Warner's thumb pushed Warner out of St. Louis.

Also Marshall Faulk. He wasn't that great with the Colts. He goes to the Rams and is immediately the best RB in the league. Why? Warner forced defenses to play conservatively, leaving Faulk with plenty of room to work with. His career sure went downhill fast after Warner was out of the picture.

Then with the Giants, it was clear from day 1 he was just buying time for Eli to start. After a couple bad games, they put in Manning and didn't look back.

Take a look at some career QB ratings.

John Elway - 79.9
Joe Montana - 92.3
Tom Brady - 92.9

Kurt Warner 93.8.

Also note that Leinart has never looked anything less than unspectacular with the exact same offense Warner's playing in now. Seriously, the guy led the Cardinals to the Super Bowl and almost beat the Steelers. They have a below average defense, no running game, and mediocre offensive line (which was abysmal a few years ago). Yes, they have Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin, but great WRs can't help a team if the ball doesn't get to them.

[jmlamerson]

Yes a system QB.

I don't think you know what that term means.

Peyton Manning's always had Marshall Faulk/Joseph Addai/Marvin Harrsion/Reggie Wayne/Dallas Clark and other superstars. That doesn't mean he's a "system QB."


Yes he has played in two superbowls.

No, he has played in three Super Bowls. And he won two MVP awards.


The last time I checked, his stint with Rams included Marshal Faulk one of the best all purpose running backs, two star receivers with Bruce and Holt and a stud offensive line. The defense wasn't bad either.

The Rams were a great team. They wouldn't have won anything without Warner at QB. Look at what they descended to with the likes of Bulger.


If he is truly a HOF QB. There is no way Marc Bulger pushes him out of St. Louis by out performing him.

Warner was injured, and the Rams, thinking they're smarter than they were, cut him in a pathetic attempt to duplicate Montana/Young. As is obvious, it backfired terribly.


Warners performance since leaving the Rams was nothing but a joke, until He finds another team with a great system and the type of talent as what you saw years ago with the rams.

Warner had the Giants at 6-2 before Coughlin benched him for Manning. In those eight games, he had a better statline than Eli ever has with the Giants.

He next went to the Cards, where he has posted phenomenal numbers. Do you think it's an accident that he can post Pro Bowl numbers in Arizona when QBs like McNown, Leinert, and the other goobers who have played QB there couldn't?


I am sorry. It was obvious in Kurts off years that his previous sucess was greatly contributed to the talent around him. Not him. Just as Marc Bulgers early success now failing.

What off years? Except for the two years he was battling injuries, he's put up great numbers. He leads all active NFL QBs not named Peyton or Brady in almost every possible statistic. He took the Rams to two Super Bowls. He took the Cards to a Super Bowl. And he had the Giants winning in his brief tenure there.


He is a great cinderella story, but if he is a true HOF Qb. The value of the HOF isn't that great in my opinion.

Did Kurt Warner rape your dog or something? That's the only reason I can come up for why you're ignoring Warner's career. In every statistical category, including TDs, passer rating, passing yards, and passing efficiency, Warner is one of the top-5 QBs of his generation. He's been to more Super Bowls than either Peyton Manning or Brett Favre. He won more MVPs than Tom Brady.

This really isn't debateable. Your belief that he's just a "system QB" isn't backed up by any facts.

EDIT: What yahsi wrote

[Pro_Angler]

ybe not his first attempt but never the less..YES he will get in!

[DrunkHillbilly]

1st Ballot NO DOUBT!!!!!!

[Vanilla Garilla]

Kurt Warner is a no brainer for the HOF! Duh!

[Seek]

I guess I just don't see it. I never really see him making a plays or doing something electric to win a game. I just see him as a manager of the game and lets his team mates win the games. I understand, that is what his job is, but when you talke about HOF Qb. I think of a QB who fights off a sack, scrambles around and makes a oustanding play when his team is down.

I can't recall watching a game and thinking that Kurt Warner is the reason they won. I can recall them losing a superbowl, because they chose to throw the ball with a lead and used Marshall Faulk only 4 times the entire second half afte he destroyed the Pats the first half.

Maybe My standard of HOF QB is much higher, but Warner is no Elway, Marino,Farve or Montana. Not even close. You can put career stats up all you want, but he does not compare.

No he didn't rape my dog. I just don't see it the love for him. I don't hate him, but he just doesn't do anyting for me. He is a product of having great talent around, just as Trent Green was in KC. Yes, he was stocking grocery stores one year and in the superboowl the next. I truly believe his history has skewed peoples opinions of him.

[Seek]

I just don't get it. Kurt Warner a first ballot for sure!!!!! Yet, Derrick Thomas failed for years.

[jmlamerson]

I guess I just don't see it. I never really see him making a plays or doing something electric to win a game. I just see him as a manager of the game and lets his team mates win the games. I understand, that is what his job is, but when you talke about HOF Qb. I think of a QB who fights off a sack, scrambles around and makes a oustanding play when his team is down.

I can't recall watching a game and thinking that Kurt Warner is the reason they won. I can recall them losing a superbowl, because they chose to throw the ball with a lead and used Marshall Faulk only 4 times the entire second half afte he destroyed the Pats the first half.

Maybe My standard of HOF QB is much higher, but Warner is no Elway, Marino,Farve or Montana. Not even close. You can put career stats up all you want, but he does not compare.

No he didn't rape my dog. I just don't see it the love for him. I don't hate him, but he just doesn't do anyting for me. He is a product of having great talent around, just as Trent Green was in KC. Yes, he was stocking grocery stores one year and in the superboowl the next. I truly believe his history has skewed peoples opinions of him.

If Warner doesn't belong in the HOF, why does Peyton Manning? Why does Favre? Both annually choke(d) in the post-season. Both went to the big game fewer times. Both had some significant down years.

In his ten year career, Warner has a 93.8 passer rating,
3 Super Bowls, and 2 MVPs. Warner won several big games just on his arm. Against the Eagles in the NFC championship (twice). Against the Bucs in the NFC Championship. Against the Titans in the Super Bowl. Against the field in the 2008 playoffs. You're acting like Warner called the plays in the Rams/NE super bowl.

If anyone could do what he did, why didn't they? Why did guys like Leinert, Bulger, McNown, and Rattay all fail with exactly the same guys Warner had?

What did you want him to do that he didn't do? He accomplished everything a QB in the NFL can. If nothing else, besides Favre, Manning, Brady and maybe Rothlisberger, has there been a better QB in the past ten years?

And Green was awesome for KC. We won games on his arm, not because of the talent we surrounded him with. Tony G., Priest Holmes, and a half-year of Larry Johnson were the only talented skill players he had. Was our OL great? Sure. But KC's WR corps was the worst in the NFL while Green was our QB. As much as I respect Kennison, he's a 3WR on any other team. You can't really believe that Green could have been easily replaced and we could have still racked up a 13-3 season, can you?

[Sn@keIze]

Kurt Warner is a no brainer for the HOF! Duh!
Its not easy to lead your team to SB with different teams.

And you know what else, (and someone might want to check this out for certain). Kurt Warners been to the SB 3 times. Guess who owns the top 3 passing yd. performances in a SB.......thats right, Im pretty sure its Warner.

[Seek]

If Warner doesn't belong in the HOF, why does Peyton Manning? Why does Favre? Both annually choke(d) in the post-season. Both went to the big game fewer times. Both had some significant down years.


I just don't see it. On paper he is a good Qb, but on the field. I just don't see it.

Where did I mention anything about Peyton Manning? Well other than the astronomical amount of TD's that he he throws, and watching him read a defense call and audible and then pick the defense apart would be something, I haven't seen Warner do.

I personall don't care for Peyton, but he is a dang good QB. Just watching him, he looks like he levels above Warner.

I have seen Brett Farve single handely take a team that was struggling and took it upon himself to get the job done by running the ball, and getting first downs or a TD, knowing that he is going to be hit hard. It energized the whole team and they started playing better. And when you guys make excuses for Warner having bad years because of an injury. Farve still played on and stil put up good numbers. He also holds the record for most interceptions.

[kcallin]

Maybe My standard of HOF QB is much higher, but Warner is no Elway, Marino,Farve or Montana. Not even close. You can put career stats up all you want, but he does not compare.


How many SB did Marino go to?:sign0161:

[jmlamerson]

I just don't see it. On paper he is a good Qb, but on the field. I just don't see it.

Where did I mention anything about Peyton Manning? Well other than the astronomical amount of TD's that he he throws, and watching him read a defense call and audible and then pick the defense apart would be something, I haven't seen Warner do.

I personall don't care for Peyton, but he is a dang good QB. Just watching him, he looks like he levels above Warner.

I have seen Brett Farve single handely take a team that was struggling and took it upon himself to get the job done by running the ball, and getting first downs or a TD, knowing that he is going to be hit hard. It energized the whole team and they started playing better. And when you guys make excuses for Warner having bad years because of an injury. Farve still played on and stil put up good numbers. He also holds the record for most interceptions.

You think you see something in the way that Warner plays that outstrips his two MVPs,three SBs, winning records, and terrific stats. My bringing up more facts is obviously not going to change your opinion.

[AkChief49]

How many SB did Marino go to?:sign0161:

he went to one. Against the 49ers. Someone help me out here. Was it '84,'85?

[AkChief49]

How many SB did Marino go to?:sign0161:

SB XIX played on 1/20/85 Montana took him to school!

[Seek]

How many SB did Marino go to?:sign0161:

It isn't about Superbowls. That is my point. Football is a team sport. Just watching the QB's play and how they play is what I am basing my opinion from.

Yes Kurt Warner is a good QB, but the talent around him is making him better.

Take Kurt Warner put him on a average offense like the Giants and he looks average. If you put Kurt Warner on the Miami Dolphins teams instead of Marino and do you think we have this discussion.

[Seek]

You think you see something in the way that Warner plays that outstrips his two MVPs,three SBs, winning records, and terrific stats. My bringing up more facts is obviously not going to change your opinion.

Yes, I see Pro-bowlers making the pro bowl, for other reasons than their play. It does become a popularity contest. If you don't think that Kurt Warner gets any edge up on another player for an MVP vote because of his cinderella story and being an over all oustanding guy. Then you need to open your eyes. I call it the Boomer syndrom. Boomer Grigsby was an instant fovorite and people judged him a stud/winner before even seeing him on the field and stuck with him even after he continued to fail.

Now I am not saying Warner failed, but there is distinct favortism towards him because he was stocking groceries in the off season.

Facts on paper don't show all variables. If you put Warner on the Lions team the last 10 years, I bet those facts don't look as good.

[jmlamerson]

Yes, I see Pro-bowlers making the pro bowl, for other reasons than their play. It does become a popularity contest.

I didn't mention Pro Bowls, specifically for that reason. I mentioned Super Bowls and MVPs.


If you don't think that Kurt Warner gets any edge up on another player for an MVP vote because of his cinderella story and being an over all oustanding guy. Then you need to open your eyes. I call it the Boomer syndrom. Boomer Grigsby was an instant fovorite and people judged him a stud/winner before even seeing him on the field and stuck with him even after he continued to fail.

This is where you're going wrong. Fans don't vote for MVPs. Writers do. Warner's popularity with the fans and his Cinderella story had nothing to do with them. His massive passive passing and TD numbers did.


Now I am not saying Warner failed, but there is distinct favortism towards him because he was stocking groceries in the off season.

Again, with fans there are. Not with AP writers. And certainly not with the other teams Warner beat to get to the Super Bowl three separate years.


Facts on paper don't show all variables. If you put Warner on the Lions team the last 10 years, I bet those facts don't look as good.

Put Montana, Elway, Marino, or Favre on those teams and I bet they don't look as good either. Every Super Bowl QB is at least partly a product of his supporting cast.

Again, I understand that facts are probably not going to overcome your opinions, but you have to know that your opinions are not based on any facts.

[chief31]

Again, I understand that facts are probably not going to overcome your opinions, but you have to know that your opinions are not based on any facts.

Of course it is based on facts.

The fact that Warner looks great in great passing offenses and bad in lesser offenses.

While I don't agree with Seek's opinion on Warner, I do recognize what facts he has presented as the basis of his opinion.


Fans don't vote for MVPs. Writers do. Warner's popularity with the fans and his Cinderella story had nothing to do with them. His massive passive passing and TD numbers did.

While fan bias may not be a major factor in the votes of writers, writers' bias does.

But again, I agree that his stat line was too impressive to not win it.

I agree that Warner is a shoe-in for the HOF. And may be a first ballot guy. But I certainly understand skepticism.

[jmlamerson]

Of course it is based on facts.

The fact that Warner looks great in great passing offenses and bad in lesser offenses.

While I don't agree with Seek's opinion on Warner, I do recognize what facts he has presented as the basis of his opinion.

That isn't a fact. Warner did great with both bad and good supporting casts.

A fact would be a statline, a record, something like that. And every stat, record, etc. disproves that
point.


While fan bias may not be a major factor in the votes of writers, writers' bias does.

But again, I agree that his stat line was too impressive to not win it.

I agree that Warner is a shoe-in for the HOF. And may be a first ballot guy. But I certainly understand skepticism.

Seek wasn't talking about writers' bias. He was obviously confusing how MVPs and Pro Bowlers were chosen.

While I could understand someone thinking Warner is a large product of his schemes and supporting casts, anyone who thinks Trent Green had as good of a career as Warner is nuts.

[chief31]

That isn't a fact. Warner did great with both bad and good supporting casts.

A fact would be a statline, a record, something like that. And every stat, record, etc. disproves that
point.



Seek wasn't talking about writers' bias. He was obviously confusing how MVPs and Pro Bowlers were chosen.

While I could understand someone thinking Warner is a large product of his schemes and supporting casts, anyone who thinks Trent Green had as good of a career as Warner is nuts.


Ok, stats then...

Between 2004 and 2005 (between The Giants and his first season with The cards) He had his two lowest QB ratings of his career as well as his lowest average gain per pass average. (Given at least 7 starts)

In 2004 (with The Giants) he had his only season throwing fewer TDs than games started. (Again, with at least seven starts)

Despite starting only 9 games in 2004, his career high in fumbles is 12, in 2004.

You want to say that he was playing injured? Fine. But there are facts that support the theory that he plays great with great circumstances, and average with average circumstances.

[jmlamerson]

Ok, stats then...

Between 2004 and 2005 (between The Giants and his first season with The cards) He had his two lowest QB ratings of his career as well as his lowest average gain per pass average. (Given at least 7 starts)

In 2004 (with The Giants) he had his only season throwing fewer TDs than games started. (Again, with at least seven starts)

Despite starting only 9 games in 2004, his career high in fumbles is 12, in 2004.

You want to say that he was playing injured? Fine. But there are facts that support the theory that he plays great with great circumstances, and average with average circumstances.

Yeah, Warner's worst years were in 2004 and 2005. His first years in his respective systems. But you are confusing his worst year with a bad year. Warner did better in his one year with the Giants than Eli Manning has ever done. His first year with the Cards wasn't great, but its certainly better than Elway's, Marino's, Montana's, or Favre's worst years.

He didn't do average. He was below his MVP highs. There's a difference.

Your comparing Warner to himself to prove he's been below average of other QBs. That's foolish.

[chief31]

Yeah, Warner's worst years were in 2004 and 2005. His first years in his respective systems. But you are confusing his worst year with a bad year. Warner did better in his one year with the Giants than Eli Manning has ever done. His first year with the Cards wasn't great, but its certainly better than Elway's, Marino's, Montana's, or Favre's worst years.

He didn't do average. He was below his MVP highs. There's a difference.

Your comparing Warner to himself to prove he's been below average of other QBs. That's foolish.

No need for the back-handed insults.

I am making an argument that I don't agree with, to show that it is arguable. And the fact that you keep arguing is proof-positive of that.

So, make all of the excuses you want to. But his numbers in '04 and '05 were unimpressive. Not bad. But unimpressive.

His QB Rating in '04 and in '05 ranked him at 14th. (Link not working.) That is very average, by comparison to the rest of the league's QBs. And that excludes the case of fumblitis he had for that stretch. Which was the inferred reason for his getting pulled.


there are facts that support the theory that he plays great with great circumstances, and average with average circumstances.

So, he's better than Eli Manning, Cade Mcnown and Matt Lienart. So is Damon Huard. That isn't saying alot.

Now, I want to re-reiterate that I think he is very good QB, who does belong in the HOF. No matter how good the talent and scheme that you are playing with, I think it takes an excellent player to perform at the level that he has.

I'm simply showing that there is evidence that he doesn't play well without talent and system. Despite how small and arguable the sample may be.

[Bike]

I'm simply showing that there is evidence that he doesn't play well without talent and system.
Not to interrupt your arguement, but who could?

[jmlamerson]

No need for the back-handed insults.

I am making an argument that I don't agree with, to show that it is arguable. And the fact that you keep arguing is proof-positive of that.

If you were arguing that Brodie Croyle were a better QB than Brett Favre because Favre set the INT record, I'd probably have to take exception to that as well. You're arguing something you know is false because you want to argue. Not because the issue has two sides to it.


So, make all of the excuses you want to. But his numbers in '04 and '05 were unimpressive. Not bad. But unimpressive.

His QB Rating in '04 and in '05 ranked him at 14th. (Link not working.) That is very average, by comparison to the rest of the league's QBs. And that excludes the case of fumblitis he had for that stretch. Which was the inferred reason for his getting pulled.

With below average supporting casts, Warner was still in the top half of the league as a QB. The 16th and 17th ranked QBs are average. The 14th ranked QB in the NFL is above average. Again, there is not a HOF QB that didn't have worse years than Warner's worst.


So, he's better than Eli Manning, Cade Mcnown and Matt Lienart. So is Damon Huard. That isn't saying alot.

1. Damon Huard was not and is not a better QB than Manning. In any way, shape, or form.

2. Warner's a lot better than the two dud QBs you named, and hundreds more. But your missing the point: his worst years are better than most QBs best years.


Now, I want to re-reiterate that I think he is very good QB, who does belong in the HOF. No matter how good the talent and scheme that you are playing with, I think it takes an excellent player to perform at the level that he has.

I'm simply showing that there is evidence that he doesn't play well without talent and system. Despite how small and arguable the sample may be.

1. No QB plays well without talent or system. There is not an exception to that rule.

2. Being in the top half of QBs in your worst years isn't evidence that you don't play well. There is no way to stretch it as such.

Again, there is no argument that can be made to support this position that you know is false. To argue that Warner wasn't one of the top-5 QBs of the past decade requires a person's prejudices to outweigh facts.

[Coach]

Share your thoughts. 1st ballot, 2nd ballot, etc.

[Vanilla Garilla]

Kurt Warner is by far an at least 2nd ballot HOFer. This poll is kind of silly if you ask me, this guy has went from the European league to winning championships and MVP's. Its a lock.

[honda522]

Yes, Marino never won a superbowl and he is in there. DT never made it there either.

Its not about championships, its about how you play, and he plays(ed) well

[chief31]

If you were arguing that Brodie Croyle were a better QB than Brett Favre because Favre set the INT record, I'd probably have to take exception to that as well. You're arguing something you know is false because you want to argue. Not because the issue has two sides to it.



With below average supporting casts, Warner was still in the top half of the league as a QB. The 16th and 17th ranked QBs are average. The 14th ranked QB in the NFL is above average. Again, there is not a HOF QB that didn't have worse years than Warner's worst.



1. Damon Huard was not and is not a better QB than Manning. In any way, shape, or form.

2. Warner's a lot better than the two dud QBs you named, and hundreds more. But your missing the point: his worst years are better than most QBs best years.



1. No QB plays well without talent or system. There is not an exception to that rule.

Dan Marino. It's not a rule, unless there is an exception.

2. Being in the top half of QBs in your worst years isn't evidence that you don't play well. There is no way to stretch it as such.

Again, there is no argument that can be made to support this position that you know is false. To argue that Warner wasn't one of the top-5 QBs of the past decade requires a person's prejudices to outweigh facts.

The opinion of Warner being a product of great offenses, rather than a cause, is valid, if only because it is an oinion.

I have no idea why you would try and argue 14th out of the realm of average.

Let me use one of your back-handed insults... I don't think that you know the meaning of the word.

But you did argue it. And, as opposed to breaking out the dictionary for ya, is the word mediocre a better fit for you?

14th is in the top half. (The bottom of the top half) But it is both average and mediocre.

If one believes that Warner was merely a result, instead of a cause, then that would justify the opinion that he wasn't one of the best QBs, just in the best offenses.

Same as I believe that Emmitt Smith was not such a great HB, but lucky to have played with the team he did, when he did.

Also, you keep going back to the thumb injury that team doctors couldn't find, but that his wife diagnosed. Really?

Along with the average err.. mediocre passing numbers, he had severe fumblitis.

Ignore that all you want. But that, along with the average/mediocre passing numbers are the facts that can base an opinion.

Put Eli's best season against the only season Huard has to show, and Huard is better. And that was with Jordan Black covering his blind side. Or you could just compare career numbers...

Name - Comp.% - QB Rat - TD/INT ratio

Huard - 60.7% - 80.6 - 1.27 (33 TDs, 26 INTs)

Eli - 55.9% - 76.1 - 1.32 (98 TDs, 74 INTs)

Eli sucks.

I am making the Warner argument because, while I may not agree, I can see how one would be able to form that opinion.

But then, I guess telling someone that there are no facts behind their opinion is easier than actually trying to see things from someone else's perspective.

I agree that Warner is an excellent QB. But that doesn't mean that there are no facts behind an opposing opinion.

[jmlamerson]

The opinion of Warner being a product of great offenses, rather than a cause, is valid, if only because it is an oinion.

I have no idea why you would try and argue 14th out of the realm of average.

Let me use one of your back-handed insults... I don't think that you know the meaning of the word.

But you did argue it. And, as opposed to breaking out the dictionary for ya, is the word mediocre a better fit for you?

14th is in the top half. (The bottom of the top half) But it is both average and mediocre.

Average is the 50th percentile. If you want to make up your own definitions, let me know what those are. If the Chiefs finished 14th in offense and 14th in defense this season, would you say they were an average or medicore team? Of course not. Because that isn't what either term means.


If one believes that Warner was merely a result, instead of a cause, then that would justify the opinion that he wasn't one of the best QBs, just in the best offenses.

No. If one had proof that Warner was merely a result, not the cause, then that would justify such an opinion.


Same as I believe that Emmitt Smith was not such a great HB, but lucky to have played with the team he did, when he did.

I don't recall anyone ever putting forth an argument that Emmitt Smith didn't belong in the HOF, do you? That's because such an argument would have been endlessly mocked.

Anyway, can you name five better QBs from the last ten years? I'll spot you Petyon Manning and Tom Brady. I'd be willing to debate whether Warner was better than Favre or Rothlisberger. I don't see who else enters the conversation.


Also, you keep going back to the thumb injury that team doctors couldn't find, but that his wife diagnosed. Really?

Along with the average err.. mediocre passing numbers, he had severe fumblitis.

Ignore that all you want. But that, along with the average/mediocre passing numbers are the facts that can base an opinion.

I haven't kept going back to the thumb injury. You have. There's a difference.

In 2004, Warner played in 10 games before he was yanked for the Giants QBOTF. His stats:

86.5 passer rating
62.8% completion rate
4 FL
6 TDs
4 INTs
2000+ yards

His TDs weren't that high in the Giants run-based offense, but those aren't medicore or average numbers. Those are numbers of a great QB on a new team in a new system. They're better numbers than the majority of QBs in the league had in 2004.

In 2005, Warner played in 10 games before he was yanked for the Cardinals QBOTF. His stats:

85.8 passer rating
64.5% completion rate
5 FL
11 TDs
9 INTs
2700+ yards

Those are numbers of a great QB on a new team in a new system. They're better numbers than the majority of QBs in the league had in 2005.

Again, let me know what your new definition of the term "average" means. Warner, in his worst years, was in the top half of the league. And again, his worst years were better than the worst years of Marino, Elway, Favre, etc. And better than the best years of most QBs.


Put Eli's best season against the only season Huard has to show, and Huard is better. And that was with Jordan Black covering his blind side. Or you could just compare career numbers...

Name - Comp.% - QB Rat - TD/INT ratio

Huard - 60.7% - 80.6 - 1.27 (33 TDs, 26 INTs)

Eli - 55.9% - 76.1 - 1.32 (98 TDs, 74 INTs)

Eli sucks.

If you want to get in a Manning/Huard debate, make another thread, and I'll explain how Huard's lack of postseason success, his inability to complete full seasons, and the fact that he spent most of his career as a backup disqualifies him from any comparison to Super Bowl-winning QBs who haven't missed a start since their rookie year.


I am making the Warner argument because, while I may not agree, I can see how one would be able to form that opinion.

But then, I guess telling someone that there are no facts behind their opinion is easier than actually trying to see things from someone else's perspective.

It isn't as easy as posting an opinion with nothing to back it up.


I agree that Warner is an excellent QB. But that doesn't mean that there are no facts behind an opposing opinion.

If there were facts to back up your opinion, you or Seek would have provided them by now. You haven't. Because you can't.

[chief31]

Average is the 50th percentile. If you want to make up your own definitions, let me know what those are. If the Chiefs finished 14th in offense and 14th in defense this season, would you say they were an average or medicore team? Of course not. Because that isn't what either term means.

Main Entry:av·er·age1 a: a single value (as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values b: mean (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mean) 1b

2 a: an estimation of or approximation to an arithmetic mean b: a level (as of intelligence) typical of a group, class, or series <above the average>


(Merriem-Webster)
average - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average)



No. If one had proof that Warner was merely a result, not the cause, then that would justify such an opinion.

Main Entry: opin·ion1 a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b: approval, esteem

2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledgeb: a generally held view

(Merriem-Webster)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion



I don't recall anyone ever putting forth an argument that Emmitt Smith didn't belong in the HOF, do you? That's because such an argument would have been endlessly mocked.

The case I am making is that there are facts that support an opinion that Warner doesn't belong in the HOF. And, just like Emmitt Smith, there are facts to support it.

Anyway, can you name five better QBs from the last ten years? I'll spot you Petyon Manning and Tom Brady. I'd be willing to debate whether Warner was better than Favre or Rothlisberger. I don't see who else enters the conversation.

No interest. Just interested in showing you that your opinion will never be the same as a fact.


I haven't kept going back to the thumb injury. You have. There's a difference.


In 2004, Warner played in 10 games before he was yanked for the Giants QBOTF. His stats:

86.5 passer rating
62.8% completion rate
4 FL
6 TDs
4 INTs
2000+ yards

His TDs weren't that high in the Giants run-based offense, but those aren't medicore or average numbers. Those are numbers of a great QB on a new team in a new system. They're better numbers than the majority of QBs in the league had in 2004.

Yes. There are plenty of ways to say average with a positive spin.

In 2005, Warner played in 10 games before he was yanked for the Cardinals QBOTF. His stats:

85.8 passer rating
64.5% completion rate
5 FL
11 TDs
9 INTs
2700+ yards

Those are numbers of a great QB on a new team in a new system. They're better numbers than the majority of QBs in the league had in 2005.

Again, let me know what your new definition of the term "average" means. Warner, in his worst years, was in the top half of the league. And again, his worst years were better than the worst years of Marino, Elway, Favre, etc. And better than the best years of most QBs.



If you want to get in a Manning/Huard debate, make another thread, and I'll explain how Huard's lack of postseason success, his inability to complete full seasons, and the fact that he spent most of his career as a backup disqualifies him from any comparison to Super Bowl-winning QBs who haven't missed a start since their rookie year.

Bard Johnson. Trent Dilfer. Being lucky isn't the same as being good.



It isn't as easy as posting an opinion with nothing to back it up.



If there were facts to back up your opinion, you or Seek would have provided them by now. You haven't. Because you can't.

You just have a major problem understanding the difference between opinion and fact.

Having an opinion that is based on fact is the reason for this discussion.

The fact that his numbers were so far below those of his seasons in ultra-pass-happy offenses, while with lesser QB-friendly situations, is the basis for the opinion.
Main Entry: fact 4 a: something that has actual existence

Fact: His numbers dropped.

Fact: He was removed from The Rams' future plans.

Fact: He was removed from The Giants' future plans.

Opinion: He is not as good as his great seasons indicate.

Opposing opinion: (Quick and easy version) You just don't accomplish as much as he has without being a great QB.

Fact: Seek's opinion has facts to support it.

Main Entry: fact

4 a: something that has actual existence

[jmlamerson]

You just have a major problem understanding the difference between opinion and fact.

Having an opinion that is based on fact is the reason for this discussion.

The fact that his numbers were so far below those of his seasons in ultra-pass-happy offenses, while with lesser QB-friendly situations, is the basis for the opinion.
Main Entry: fact 4 a: something that has actual existence

Fact: His numbers dropped.

Fact: He was removed from The Rams' future plans.

Fact: He was removed from The Giants' future plans.

Opinion: He is not as good as his great seasons indicate.

Opposing opinion: (Quick and easy version) You just don't accomplish as much as he has without being a great QB.

Fact: Seek's opinion has facts to support it.

Main Entry: fact

4 a: something that has actual existence

It seems that you are trying to start a new argument because you lost the last one. You're now trying to argue that Warner isn't as good with bad players as he was with good ones. That scheme and supporting casts make a difference. No s***.

The argument you lost is whether Warner is a HOF QB. Comparing him to every other HOF QB in terms of statistics and accomplishments, there is no argument to say that Warner does not belong in the HOF.

Someone's opinion that Warner doesn't belong in the HOF is as valid as someone's opinion that Brodie Croyle does. You can't hide behind either as an opinion.

[AussieChiefsFan]

Why do you always get into debates about Fact or Opinion?
Good point!!

[KristofLaw]

Here's my two-cents.

He'll probably get in, does he deserve a 100% shot because of what he's done in the league. No. There are many football players who have won a Superbowl who are not enshrined in Canton, as their are many who have not won any but have out-standing statistics and legendary game-heroics.

Kurt Warner won a championship and lost two, plus he's placed some big numbers. We all know this, but this does not merit a sure-fire ballot into the hall. His heroics are, IMO, barely a Meh! In the clutch he's a loser and that's why I wouldn't want him in the hall but hey... in all likely-hood LaDanian Tomlinson will be there without a ring so... I just wouldn't visit their part of the hall at Canton if and when I go. :P

P.S. Don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings... I'm just not a fan.

[AussieChiefsFan]

Here's my two-cents.

He'll probably get in, does he deserve a 100% shot because of what he's done in the league. No. There are many football players who have won a Superbowl who are not enshrined in Canton, as their are many who have not won any but have out-standing statistics and legendary game-heroics.

Kurt Warner won a championship and lost two, plus he's placed some big numbers. We all know this, but this does not merit a sure-fire ballot into the hall. His heroics are, IMO, barely a Meh! In the clutch he's a loser and that's why I wouldn't want him in the hall but hey... in all likely-hood LaDanian Tomlinson will be there without a ring so... I just wouldn't visit their part of the hall at Canton if and when I go. :P

P.S. Don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings... I'm just not a fan.
Like TG!!

[jmlamerson]

Here's my two-cents.

He'll probably get in, does he deserve a 100% shot because of what he's done in the league. No. There are many football players who have won a Superbowl who are not enshrined in Canton, as their are many who have not won any but have out-standing statistics and legendary game-heroics.

Kurt Warner won a championship and lost two, plus he's placed some big numbers. We all know this, but this does not merit a sure-fire ballot into the is hall. His heroics are, IMO, barely a Meh! In the clutch he's a loser and that's why I wouldn't want him in the hall but hey... in all likely-hood LaDanian Tomlinson will be there without a ring so... I just wouldn't visit their part of the hall at Canton if and when I go. :P

P.S. Don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings... I'm just not a fan.

I respect your argument very much. It is intelligent, well thought out, and you back it up.

My response would be: Who? Who has produced on the level of Warner and is not in the HOF?

Can you think of any three SB QBs who aren't in the HOF? The only two-time (or more) MVPs not in the HOF Favre, Manning, and Warner. And Favre and Manning aren't in because they aren't eligible yet.

I could relate to an argument that the HOF needs tougher standards. But Warner's accomplishments equal or dwarf most very other enshrined QB.

What puts Warner in the "lock" category is 3 SBs and 2 MVPs. There is not a single QB in the NFL with those qualifications who isn't in the HOF. If you keep Warner out, you have basically said that MVPs and SBs aren't criteria for the HOF. And since they obviously are and have been for previous selections, you are basically asking the HOF to be something its not.

[-Scar-]

I Say Yes...

[KristofLaw]

I respect your argument very much. It is intelligent, well thought out, and you back it up.

My response would be: Who? Who has produced on the level of Warner and is not in the HOF?

Can you think of any three SB QBs who aren't in the HOF? The only two-time (or more) MVPs not in the HOF Favre, Manning, and Warner. And Favre and Manning aren't in because they aren't eligible yet.

I could relate to an argument that the HOF needs tougher standards. But Warner's accomplishments equal or dwarf most very other enshrined QB.

What puts Warner in the "lock" category is 3 SBs and 2 MVPs. There is not a single QB in the NFL with those qualifications who isn't in the HOF. If you keep Warner out, you have basically said that MVPs and SBs aren't criteria for the HOF. And since they obviously are and have been for previous selections, you are basically asking the HOF to be something its not.

Kurt Warner's stats are very good but also are somewhat deceptive, just like Tomlinson. He produced big-time stats in 4 of his seasons. He has consistently placed an average to above average passer rating. I just don't place him very high on big-games type of effectiveness, nor consistency on a year by year basis.

His win-loss percentage throughout his career isn't great. With the Rams he had phenomenal W/L stats but also was surrounded by a great team which went to two Super-Bowls and meritted his MVPs... then he declined with only his passer-rating remaining at par.

Had Eli Manning not taken away his initial second-comeback in NY this may not be up for debate, but that's history and as such his second come-back story was last season which started fantastic at 8-4, I believe, but tuckered out with a average W/L entering the playoffs... and we all know what happened from there.

Here's a link which provides a quick read on why he should not be enshrined:
Kurt Warner Is Not A Hall Of Famer | Bleacher Report (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/91074-kurt-warner-is-not-a-hall-of-famer)

Now having posted that, I'm fairly sure he'll be enshrined, I just don't think it should be first ballot. Maybe my opinions are simply because I'm not that big of a fan. I love the story of him making it to the NFL and he seems a class act, just not so-much the rest. :P

[chiefnut]

i'd say if he can play two more seasons w/out stinkin, then yes his career stats, complete body of work would warrant consideration to the HOF, just compare his career stats to bradshaw, otto graham, sammy baugh, y a tittle, fran tarkenton, bart starr, etc...you may be surprised at the comparrison.

[hermhater]

He does because of his inspirational story.

[jmlamerson]

Kurt Warner's stats are very good but also are somewhat deceptive, just like Tomlinson. He produced big-time stats in 4 of his seasons. He has consistently placed an average to above average passer rating. I just don't place him very high on big-games type of effectiveness, nor consistency on a year by year basis.

His win-loss percentage throughout his career isn't great. With the Rams he had phenomenal W/L stats but also was surrounded by a great team which went to two Super-Bowls and meritted his MVPs... then he declined with only his passer-rating remaining at par.

Had Eli Manning not taken away his initial second-comeback in NY this may not be up for debate, but that's history and as such his second come-back story was last season which started fantastic at 8-4, I believe, but tuckered out with a average W/L entering the playoffs... and we all know what happened from there.

Here's a link which provides a quick read on why he should not be enshrined:
Kurt Warner Is Not A Hall Of Famer | Bleacher Report (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/91074-kurt-warner-is-not-a-hall-of-famer)

Now having posted that, I'm fairly sure he'll be enshrined, I just don't think it should be first ballot. Maybe my opinions are simply because I'm not that big of a fan. I love the story of him making it to the NFL and he seems a class act, just not so-much the rest. :P

The thing is, you are absolutely correct in what you write. Warner had fantastical seasons and merely above average seasons. He did great with great supporting casts and/or schemes, and he didn't do as great when put on fairly untalented teams. But, I think you make a fundamental error in analyzing his HOF prospects.

You are comparing Warner to to himself, not to other enshrined QBs, to determine his HOF eligibility. QBs like Aikman, Jim Kelly, Terry Bradshaw, Elway, etc. all had fantastical seasons and merely above average seasons. All these HOF QBs did great with great supporting casts and/or schemes, and didn't do as great when put on fairly untalented teams.

Warner's worst years were leagues better than the worst years of Aikman, Unitas, Elway, etc. - and his worst years were better than most NFL QBs best years. Warner's best years were better than the best years of most HOF QBs. He certainly didn't have better personnel on the '99 Rams, '01 Rams, or '08 Cards than Bradshaw in Pittsburgh, Aikman in Dallas, Young in San Fran, Kelly in Buffalo, Elway in Denver, or Favre in Green Bay.

My point is: comparing Warner to almost every other HOF QB, he has equal or better accomplishments and statistics. If that is the case, how does it make any sense to say he's not a HOFer?

[hermhater]

Imagine Kurt and Dorsey running the wildcat?

I wonder if Kurt can catch?

[rbedgood]

Even as a 49er fan, I like Kurt Warner. I like who he is and for the most part his body of work in the NFL. However calling him HOF material is a stretch I am not ready to make.

Yes he won a Super Bowl...so did Trent Dilfer...he is certainly better than Trent Dilfer, but I can't put him in the category of a Montana, Marino, Elway, Moon or even Brady (who is younger, but on his way to HOF in my opinion)...

I would categorize Warner more along the lines of a McNabb...a good leader and better than average QB, that when placed on an excellent team will make things happen.

If he makes it I think it is somewhat on character pushing him over the top rather than a clear cut decision on his career.

[chief31]

It seems that you are trying to start a new argument because you lost the last one. You're now trying to argue that Warner isn't as good with bad players as he was with good ones. That scheme and supporting casts make a difference. No s***.

The argument you lost is whether Warner is a HOF QB. Comparing him to every other HOF QB in terms of statistics and accomplishments, there is no argument to say that Warner does not belong in the HOF.

Someone's opinion that Warner doesn't belong in the HOF is as valid as someone's opinion that Brodie Croyle does. You can't hide behind either as an opinion.

Oh stop it. I have made one argument. That there is fact to support the opinion.

That argument was over before it began, and you lost.

I have said all along that I think he belongs in the HOF and you know it.

All I have done is show that there is fact behind the opinion.

And the only reason I bothered with that is because I noticed you, with your BS back-handed insults, told someone that there is no fact behind their opinion.

You were as wrong as could be. And, even with proof, you still want to act all smug and insulting.

Telling someone that there are no facts behind their opinion is always going to be wrong, as long as the opinion is honest.

Well, the next time you have trouble with someone on these boards, don't point any fingers. Because you know exactly where it starts.

If you want to insult people, then expect them to be insulted.

I think you are a very smart guy.

You present alot of great arguments across this board.

But you seem so eager to act like a juvenile and start a fight when you do it.

It's just BS, with the only purpose being to try and get people angry.

I think you should stick with what you are good at, talking football, and leave the child's play to the children.

[dbolan]

Yes, he is.

[jmlamerson]

Oh stop it. I have made one argument. That there is fact to support the opinion.

That argument was over before it began, and you lost.

Did it really take you a month to come up with this comeback?


I have said all along that I think he belongs in the HOF and you know it.

I never said you didn't.


All I have done is show that there is fact behind the opinion.

And the only reason I bothered with that is because I noticed you, with your BS back-handed insults, told someone that there is no fact behind their opinion.

There wasn't. Look back at what Seek wrote. He was mostly wrong. He was mistaken about the number of SBs Warner played in. He was mistaken about how MVPs are selected. He was mistaken about Warner's stats. He was basing his opinion, not on facts, but on his opinion that he didn't like the Warner played when he watched him.

I didn't say his opinion was stupid. I didn't say he didn't have a right to it. I just said it wasn't factual. Because it wasn't. To my knowledge, he wasn't offended. That's because no reasonable person could be offended,

And you have a lot of balls to claim that I'm back-handing insults. I've read your posts, you know.


You were as wrong as could be. And, even with proof, you still want to act all smug and insulting.

Telling someone that there are no facts behind their opinion is always going to be wrong, as long as the opinion is honest.

This is where we'll never agree. My honest opinion might be that Herm Edwards was the greatest coach the Chiefs ever had, and was only brought down by bad luck. That doesn't make my honest opinion somehow right. My honest opinion might be that Brodie Croyle was better than Len Dawson because I really liked Brodie's throwing mechanics more. It doesn't make me right. Opinions actually can be wrong.


Well, the next time you have trouble with someone on these boards, don't point any fingers. Because you know exactly where it starts.

If you want to insult people, then expect them to be insulted.

Saying that someones opinion isn't supported by facts isn't an insult. There isn't a person thin-skinned enough in this world to be insulted by that.

And it seems every time I log on, you're fighting with someone (and it's not usually me). Do you really think your overall tone isn't responsible for that? You troll for fight a whole lot more than I ever thought of doing.


I think you are a very smart guy.

You are too. You were smart enough to hate Herm before it was popular.


You present alot of great arguments across this board.

Thank you.


But you seem so eager to act like a juvenile and start a fight when you do it.

I didn't start anything. You know this. Go to the front of the thread and check if you doubt.


It's just BS, with the only purpose being to try and get people angry.

I'd love to know exactly what I said that was insulting. Saying its foolish to compare Warner to himself in terms of stats? Saying that someone's opinion is based on things that are true? Are you really going to pretend that this is any worse than what you regularly post? Really?


I think you should stick with what you are good at, talking football, and leave the child's play to the children.

I've been talking football. I had one simple question that you never answered.

Is there anyone in NFL history that has Kurt Warner's accomplishments (MVPs, SBs, stats) and is not in the HOF? Anyone?

If not, I don't see why you're still debating this.