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.

[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 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



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.