Can K. Warner get any respect?

[The Hood 9]

Man... talk about delusional. Before Warner got there Fitz was a rookie that raked up 700+ yards....

But he's a stud so what should being a rookie matter? Torry Holt was a rookie their Superbowl year yet you seem to think he helped make Warner that year too right? So explain how Fitz has made Warner when he didn't do anything before he was there? What just because it was his 2nd year he became a phenom?

 

Why did you fail to address the facts that like 90% of his great games are with Warner and his numbers do taper off without him as the QB despite your claims?

[BunnysBastatrds 2,440]

I am not even going to address your entire post.... Are you honestly comparing Aikman and Manning to Warner? Why don't you add Montana and Young in the for s**ts and giggles.

 

 

You just did stoooopid!!!! Warner is a better QB, a pure QB, than Aikman ever was! Hall Of Fame worthy if he wins the Super Bowl this year!

[BunnysBastatrds 2,440]

I am not even going to address your entire post.... Are you honestly comparing Aikman and Manning to Warner? Why don't you add Montana and Young in the for s**ts and giggles.

 

Warner has done more with less than the two you bring up! If Warner had a Ronnie Lott or anyone of his calliber on the defense, Warner would would have had more championships! Warner is a better QB than Aikman or Manning! Montana had Rice and Taylor. So did Young! And Montana had had great defenses, as did Young! Warner had sh*t! If the Saints wouldn't have recovered that Hakkem fumble in the last seconds of the fourth quarter, the Rams would have gone all the way in '00! I was there for the Saints first playoff win. everyone knew that Warner was going to come back and win that game if it weren't for that fumble! And if you remember, the greatest game leading into the NFC playoffs was that game against the Bucs that same year! The year Shaun King was the rookie QB against the Rams! Warner and King lit it up for what was one of the best games I ever witnessed! Remember that game? Of course you don't! It happend before your first period, and all that has happend before that is forgotten!

 

Warner belongs in the Hall Of Fame! We will see two to three, maybe four, for the last decade get in! Favre is a no brainer. Brady is also. Who's next? Peyton Manning? Probably! Warner won't be first or second ballot. But he deserves it if the likes of Aikman get in! This coming from a Saints fan!

 

And since you replied to my post, yes you idiot! I saw first hand what Montana and Young did, year after year to the Saints! It was the defense that Mora used year after year that caused us to fail Give me Kurt Warner over Bobbie Hebert, and we would have won at least one championship with that defense! But who cares about offense when it's all about the scheme and players?

[NewbieJr 541]

Just like you can't penalize Aikman for being surrounded by talent, you also can't penalize arner for being thrown into perfect condistions for most of his career.

 

I think it can be said, without a doubt, that Warner would have sucked in Green Bay or Chicago or Philly or New England. Warner's great years came when he played in the warm, dry, coziness of St Louis and teh perfect 75 and sunny Arizona. Anytime he travelled East and teh weather was cold, he looked like a high school kid thrown out there. In his stint with the Giants, he couldn't even hold off a rookie. His stats in New York were very, very average. It looked like his career was finished, but teh truth was, he just had to get back indoors or into perfect weather. But, like Aikman, you can't hold that against him. He did play in great condistions and he did put up great numbers.

 

Of course, having Holt, Bruce, Faulk, Fitzgerald, and Boldin can pad stats a great deal, too.

 

Bottom line is, I think a Super Bowl trip this year, win or lose, is going to get him in. There's too many accomplishments not to.

[Fumbleweed 547]

Just like you can't penalize Aikman for being surrounded by talent, you also can't penalize arner for being thrown into perfect condistions for most of his career.

 

I think it can be said, without a doubt, that Warner would have sucked in Green Bay or Chicago or Philly or New England. Warner's great years came when he played in the warm, dry, coziness of St Louis and teh perfect 75 and sunny Arizona. Anytime he travelled East and teh weather was cold, he looked like a high school kid thrown out there. In his stint with the Giants, he couldn't even hold off a rookie. His stats in New York were very, very average. It looked like his career was finished, but teh truth was, he just had to get back indoors or into perfect weather. But, like Aikman, you can't hold that against him. He did play in great condistions and he did put up great numbers.

 

Of course, having Holt, Bruce, Faulk, Fitzgerald, and Boldin can pad stats a great deal, too.

 

Bottom line is, I think a Super Bowl trip this year, win or lose, is going to get him in. There's too many accomplishments not to.

 

Warner had good road games in St. Louis in some of the places you mention and he did a lot better with New York than you're giving him credit for. It's not that he couldn't "hold off" Manning....they wanted Eli in there. The Giants did much poorer that year post-Warner. Go back and take a look.

 

I would contest that Warner, while a different type of QB, can be placed in a category with Aikman. But, not Manning. Manning's done incredible things for over a decade now...EVERY YEAR. Peyton Manning is a better QB than Kurt Warner.

[roroco 75]

Warner had good road games in St. Louis in some of the places you mention and he did a lot better with New York than you're giving him credit for. It's not that he couldn't "hold off" Manning....they wanted Eli in there. The Giants did much poorer that year post-Warner. Go back and take a look.

 

I would contest that Warner, while a different type of QB, can be placed in a category with Aikman. But, not Manning. Manning's done incredible things for over a decade now...EVERY YEAR. Peyton Manning is a better QB than Kurt Warner.

I am not a Cowboys fan and I do think Aikman was overly-blessed to be on a great team which led him into the Hall of Fame, but...

 

Aikman was 97 - 71 over his 12 years

- Has 6 ProBowl appearances (I know they are popularity contest, but the HoF does look at that)

- 3 Super Bowl rings

 

Warner is 48 - 37 over his 11 years

- Has 3 ProBowl appearances

- 1 SuperBowl ring

 

These guys were both put in the right place at the right time, but Aikman did it for many more games and was much more consistent. I don't think Aikman is anywhere near a top 10 QB historically, but his numbers make it hard to deny him a HoF spot. You can speculate all you want about if he played for other teams, but there is no proof of how he would have played.

 

You don't have to speculate with Warner... He did play on other teams and has had several very poor years. While his scenario looks similar to Aikman, you can make the case for NOT voting him into the Hall of Fame.

[Stewburtx8 67]

Just like you can't penalize Aikman for being surrounded by talent, you also can't penalize arner for being thrown into perfect condistions for most of his career.

 

I think it can be said, without a doubt, that Warner would have sucked in Green Bay or Chicago or Philly or New England. Warner's great years came when he played in the warm, dry, coziness of St Louis and teh perfect 75 and sunny Arizona. Anytime he travelled East and teh weather was cold, he looked like a high school kid thrown out there. In his stint with the Giants, he couldn't even hold off a rookie. His stats in New York were very, very average. It looked like his career was finished, but teh truth was, he just had to get back indoors or into perfect weather. But, like Aikman, you can't hold that against him. He did play in great condistions and he did put up great numbers.

 

Of course, having Holt, Bruce, Faulk, Fitzgerald, and Boldin can pad stats a great deal, too.

 

Bottom line is, I think a Super Bowl trip this year, win or lose, is going to get him in. There's too many accomplishments not to.

 

 

Good post. My argument has never been whether Kurt Warner should or could be in the HOF. His numbers, awards, and a 2nd Super Bowl could definitely support his claim. My argument is that his numbers are inflated by playing with great players in great systems. But this can be true with many QB's that were considered good or great over the years. But like you said, his numbers outside of friendly confines, are very average. He is not a complete QB. He lacks mobility and when pressured, can be very erratic.

 

The numbers that matter: Kurt Warner against the Philadelphia Eagles and a Jim Johnson defense:

 

2-4 record

7 TD's versus 9 interceptions

Sacked 20 times

[Gepetto 1,368]

I am not a Cowboys fan and I do think Aikman was overly-blessed to be on a great team which led him into the Hall of Fame, but...

 

Aikman was 97 - 71 over his 12 years

- Has 6 ProBowl appearances (I know they are popularity contest, but the HoF does look at that)

- 3 Super Bowl rings

 

Warner is 48 - 37 over his 11 years

- Has 3 ProBowl appearances

- 1 SuperBowl ring

 

These guys were both put in the right place at the right time, but Aikman did it for many more games and was much more consistent. I don't think Aikman is anywhere near a top 10 QB historically, but his numbers make it hard to deny him a HoF spot. You can speculate all you want about if he played for other teams, but there is no proof of how he would have played.

 

You don't have to speculate with Warner... He did play on other teams and has had several very poor years. While his scenario looks similar to Aikman, you can make the case for NOT voting him into the Hall of Fame.

 

Try looking deeper into the stats. The passing stats. Warner didn't have poor years, he wasn't even playing.

[roroco 75]

Try looking deeper into the stats. The passing stats. Warner didn't have poor years, he wasn't even playing.

So do you want to condense his stats over 5 years (total games played / 16) instead of 11? He wasn't playing most of the time because there were better options or prospects available on his teams - and no I am not buying the mysterious thumb injury stories, they always conveniently popped up after bad games.

 

I honestly don't know - but I can guess - has there ever been a QB put in the HoF that has only had 5-6 successful years - regardless of total time in the NFL?

[roroco 75]

So do you want to condense his stats over 5 years (total games played / 16) instead of 11? He wasn't playing most of the time because there were better options or prospects available on his teams - and no I am not buying the mysterious thumb injury stories, they always conveniently popped up after bad games.

 

I honestly don't know - but I can guess - has there ever been a QB put in the HoF that has only had 5-6 successful years - regardless of total time in the NFL?

Here is a list of all the Modern Era Hall of Fame QBs for reference...

 

Troy Aikman 1989-2000

George Blanda (Also PK) 1949-1958, 1960-1975

Terry Bradshaw 1970-1983

Len Dawson 1957-1975

John Elway 1983-1998

Dan Fouts 1973-1987

Otto Graham 1946-1955

Bob Griese 1967-1980

Sonny Jurgensen 1957-1974

Jim Kelly 1986-1996

Bobby Layne 1948-1962

Dan Marino 1983-1999 Joe Montana 1979-1994

Warren Moon 1984-2000

Joe Namath 1965-1977

Bart Starr 1956-1971

Roger Staubach 1969-1979

Fran Tarkenton 1961-1978

Y.A. Tittle 1948-1964

Johnny Unitas 1956-1973

Norm Van Brocklin 1949-1960

Bob Waterfield 1945-1952

Steve Young 1985-1999

 

 

I just don't see how you can say Kurt Warner is in that class....

[RoadLizard 73]

He's a great story and I have a lot of respect for his perseverance and talent. However, we can't forget that he also went through a major tailspin/downtime in St.Louis, NY and yes in Arizona where he was a turnover/sack production line before he got his act back together again in the middle of last year.

 

If he wins another SB, I think he's a lock for the HOF but I do think there's some that will say his career might have had a few too many peaks and valleys. I'm not one of them though. I'm just playing the debil's advocate.

 

This about sums it up. If he finishes this year and maybe next year on ahigh note, I say hes a first ballot HOFer. Otherwise, its borderline. Still....I'd take Warner over 80% of the QBs in the NFL right now.

[NewbieJr 541]

This about sums it up. If he finishes this year and maybe next year on ahigh note, I say hes a first ballot HOFer. Otherwise, its borderline. Still....I'd take Warner over 80% of the QBs in the NFL right now.

If I owned a team that played in a dome or in a warm-weather city, I'd take Warner over a lot of other QBs (I don't knpow about 80% though).

 

If I'm the owner of Denver, Green Bay, Chicago, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Baltimore, Washington, Philadeklphia, the Jets, the Giants, and New England, there are probably very few current NFL starters who I'd take Warner over. Hell, Matt Leinart outperformed him in New England this year. Matt Leinart!

[berven 0]

A few additonal points about future HOFer, Kurt Warner:

 

1) As Phil Simms often says, "You can't be a good quarterback on a bad team." You're always facing third-and-long and playing from behind. You're hurried while your bad line tries to block defenders who know passes are coming, trying to get the ball to WRs who can't catch it. It's misguided to diminish Warner's achievements because he has had talent surrounding him. If he hadn't, well...ask Archie Manning.

 

2) It's not fair to exclude Warner because he's not as good as Montana or Unitas. Nobody is, including Moon and others already enshrined. That's like saying Reese or Rizzuto don't belong in the baseball HOF because Honus Wagner and Ernie Banks were their superiors. Actually, the HOFs are too selective anyway. It's the fault of journalists who foreget about players who retired more than a decade ago, and current HOFers who don't want their exalted status diminished by allowing lesser mortals in. I think cases can be made for Stabler, Cunningham and many others.

 

3) Although Warner is no sanctimonious prig, he makes the press edgy because he likes to credit his faith in God for helping him weather the ups and downs. Media types often shift from one foot to the other when athletes start to talk like this. If Warner instead credited "Marshall Faulk, my gay lover," he would be hailed as a pioneer and get much more media attention.

[Stewburtx8 67]

This about sums it up. If he finishes this year and maybe next year on ahigh note, I say hes a first ballot HOFer. Otherwise, its borderline. Still....I'd take Warner over 80% of the QBs in the NFL right now.

 

I think it's fair to say that Kurt Warner is one of the 6 or 7 best QB's in the NFL right now, or in the top 20%. Brady, Manning, Brees, McNabb, maybe Rivers...I don't think anyone is disputing that? But agree that he could still be a HOF with another super bowl or a few more good years.

[KSB2424 3,148]

He's the Bert "be home" Byleven of Football

[Fumbleweed 547]

Here is a list of all the Modern Era Hall of Fame QBs for reference...

 

Troy Aikman 1989-2000

George Blanda (Also PK) 1949-1958, 1960-1975

Terry Bradshaw 1970-1983

Len Dawson 1957-1975

John Elway 1983-1998

Dan Fouts 1973-1987

Otto Graham 1946-1955

Bob Griese 1967-1980

Sonny Jurgensen 1957-1974

Jim Kelly 1986-1996

Bobby Layne 1948-1962

Dan Marino 1983-1999 Joe Montana 1979-1994

Warren Moon 1984-2000

Joe Namath 1965-1977

Bart Starr 1956-1971

Roger Staubach 1969-1979

Fran Tarkenton 1961-1978

Y.A. Tittle 1948-1964

Johnny Unitas 1956-1973

Norm Van Brocklin 1949-1960

Bob Waterfield 1945-1952

Steve Young 1985-1999

I just don't see how you can say Kurt Warner is in that class....

 

I think you can. He's better than Namath for sure and Griese as well. Can't compare him with the older guys as I never saw them play.

[Fumbleweed 547]

Good post. My argument has never been whether Kurt Warner should or could be in the HOF. His numbers, awards, and a 2nd Super Bowl could definitely support his claim. My argument is that his numbers are inflated by playing with great players in great systems. But this can be true with many QB's that were considered good or great over the years. But like you said, his numbers outside of friendly confines, are very average. He is not a complete QB. He lacks mobility and when pressured, can be very erratic.

 

The numbers that matter: Kurt Warner against the Philadelphia Eagles and a Jim Johnson defense:

 

2-4 record

7 TD's versus 9 interceptions

Sacked 20 times

 

You do realize that there are very, very few "complete" quarterbacks, right? Dan Fouts was far from a "complete" quarterback. Bradshaw as well.

 

I can name the guys who I have considered to be "complete" quarterbacks in my lifetime on 1-2 hands.

[Stewburtx8 67]

You do realize that there are very, very few "complete" quarterbacks, right? Dan Fouts was far from a "complete" quarterback. Bradshaw as well.

 

I can name the guys who I have considered to be "complete" quarterbacks in my lifetime on 1-2 hands.

 

 

I agree with you. I just hold really high standards for what I think a Hall of Fame player should be. I don't think they should just let anybody in. Seeing Jim Rice make the baseball Hall of Fame was one of the worst I've seen.

[NewbieJr 541]

I agree with you. I just hold really high standards for what I think a Hall of Fame player should be. I don't think they should just let anybody in. Seeing Jim Rice make the baseball Hall of Fame was one of the worst I've seen.

Boston, which is a huge baseball market, has been whining about his omission for years. You knew it was going to happen.

[Stewburtx8 67]

Boston, which is a huge baseball market, has been whining about his omission for years. You knew it was going to happen.

 

 

Oh yeah no doubt, I agree completely. If Jim Rice played in a city other than Boston, NY, or maybe Chicago, he never would of made it past the first year ballot.

[Little Big Head 6]

Man... talk about delusional. Before Warner got there Fitz was a rookie that raked up 700+ yards....

actually I think Fitz had a big sophmore season without Warner

[roroco 75]

I think you can. He's better than Namath for sure and Griese as well. Can't compare him with the older guys as I never saw them play.

Namath was a sporing icon that had the New York media behind him. Since the ballots are controlled by the media, that is why he is in. Plus, he was larger than his stats in terms of what he meant to the game.

 

Griese - while not a sexy player - was an 8 time Probowler and a 2 time MVP. Maybe he played in a decade that wasn't rich in superstars at QB, but it is hard to praise a guy so much during his career only to shut him down at the finish.

[Fumbleweed 547]

Namath was a sporing icon that had the New York media behind him. Since the ballots are controlled by the media, that is why he is in. Plus, he was larger than his stats in terms of what he meant to the game.

 

Griese - while not a sexy player - was an 8 time Probowler and a 2 time MVP. Maybe he played in a decade that wasn't rich in superstars at QB, but it is hard to praise a guy so much during his career only to shut him down at the finish.

 

No argument on your assessments. You just said Warner's not in the same class as all those guys and I pointed out two guys I think he's better than.

 

Warner is a fantastic story. Is he an icon? No, but his story is quite unique. If the Hall of Fame is about more than just stats, his rags to riches story is one of the all-time best. Just a thought.

[roroco 75]

No argument on your assessments. You just said Warner's not in the same class as all those guys and I pointed out two guys I think he's better than.

 

Warner is a fantastic story. Is he an icon? No, but his story is quite unique. If the Hall of Fame is about more than just stats, his rags to riches story is one of the all-time best. Just a thought.

Warner is no icon... Outside of football fans, nobody really knows who he is... much less his story. Everyone knew who "Joe" was. I know it is because Namath was in NY and Warner had his best moments in STL and ARI, but he did get his shot at NY and blew it. Warner's story and popularity is just not compelling enough to forgive the stats.

[NewbieJr 541]

Warner is no icon... Outside of football fans, nobody really knows who he is... much less his story. Everyone knew who "Joe" was. I know it is because Namath was in NY and Warner had his best moments in STL and ARI, but he did get his shot at NY and blew it. Warner's story and popularity is just not compelling enough to forgive the stats.

I got news for ya, if Warner gets another ring this year, he doesn't need to be an icon. He's in. Even getting to the Super Bowl may be enough. He's an MVP as well as a Super Bowl MVP. That stuff matters.

[Melissa Stark 1]

roroco

 

QUOTE(Fumbleweed @ Jan 14 2009, 03:13 PM)

No argument on your assessments. You just said Warner's not in the same class as all those guys and I pointed out two guys I think he's better than.

 

Warner is a fantastic story. Is he an icon? No, but his story is quite unique. If the Hall of Fame is about more than just stats, his rags to riches story is one of the all-time best. Just a thought.

 

Warner is no icon... Outside of football fans, nobody really knows who he is... much less his story. Everyone knew who "Joe" was. I know it is because Namath was in NY and Warner had his best moments in STL and ARI, but he did get his shot at NY and blew it. Warner's story and popularity is just not compelling enough to forgive the stats

 

 

You new some new lures for your fishing expedition

 

His story was well blabbed about leading up to both his superbowl appearances, his NY stint was just very short term as a fill-in, until Eli was ready. Forgive what stats??

[roroco 75]

You new some new lures for your fishing expedition

 

His story was well blabbed about leading up to both his superbowl appearances, his NY stint was just very short term as a fill-in, until Eli was ready. Forgive what stats??

The big one....

 

Warner is 48 - 37 over his 11 years... All the HoF QBs that I saw have at least 85 wins to their name. That is almost double Warner's.

[Stewburtx8 67]

I got news for ya, if Warner gets another ring this year, he doesn't need to be an icon. He's in. Even getting to the Super Bowl may be enough. He's an MVP as well as a Super Bowl MVP. That stuff matters.

 

 

I just don't think he has done it long enough or had enough good consistent seasons to be a Hall of Famer. Obviously he has had some great ones, but then he has also had some poor ones. In the 2002 and 2003 seasons, after some of his great seasons with "the Greatest Show on Turf," he went 0-7 in 7 starts. He threw 4 TD's and 12 interceptions in those games. He also lost 14 fumbles in those 2 very short seasons. How many Hall of Fame QB's have seasons like that in the middle of their career, at ages 31 and 32? That should be his prime. Then he went 5-4 in 2004 with the Giants, throwing 6 TD's versus 4 interceptions. He was serviceable, but hardly great. Then in 2005 and 2006 he went 3-12 in his first 2 years with the Cardinals in 15 starts, he threw 17 TD's versus 14 interceptions and he lost 19 fumbles. Again I'll ask, how many Hall of Fame QB's have gone 8-23 over a 5 year stint right in the middle of their careers? I think the problem I have with Warner's candidicy is the inconsistency and the fact that he got much too late of a start in the NFL. I just don't think he has enough good seasons on his resume, despite some great ones, to outweight the inconsistent and below average seasons he had, right in the middle of his career. He is a very good NFL QB, I just have a problem with labeling him a Hall of Famer. A Super Bowl this year and another good seasons or two, maybe I'd change my mind...

[Melissa Stark 1]

Might as well throw Favre into this with all his picks, most think he's a lock for HOF.

How many SB wins does he have?

[jgcrawfish 232]

Might as well throw Favre into this with all his picks, most think he's a lock for HOF.

How many SB wins does he have?

 

gawd i love it when you post

 

[NewbieJr 541]

Might as well throw Favre into this with all his picks, most think he's a lock for HOF.

How many SB wins does he have?

Hey Muggs. How's Nazareth, PA treating you?

[Melissa Stark 1]

In Catty now Newbie, middle of divorce..oh well.

 

Moving along ok. Was up at Detzi's about 2 weeks ago.

[roroco 75]

Might as well throw Favre into this with all his picks, most think he's a lock for HOF.

How many SB wins does he have?

He is a lock for the HoF. First ballot... Not not even close to being debatable...

[Durtee 0]

I just don't think he has done it long enough or had enough good consistent seasons to be a Hall of Famer. Obviously he has had some great ones, but then he has also had some poor ones. In the 2002 and 2003 seasons, after some of his great seasons with "the Greatest Show on Turf," he went 0-7 in 7 starts. He threw 4 TD's and 12 interceptions in those games. He also lost 14 fumbles in those 2 very short seasons. How many Hall of Fame QB's have seasons like that in the middle of their career, at ages 31 and 32? That should be his prime. Then he went 5-4 in 2004 with the Giants, throwing 6 TD's versus 4 interceptions. He was serviceable, but hardly great. Then in 2005 and 2006 he went 3-12 in his first 2 years with the Cardinals in 15 starts, he threw 17 TD's versus 14 interceptions and he lost 19 fumbles. Again I'll ask, how many Hall of Fame QB's have gone 8-23 over a 5 year stint right in the middle of their careers? I think the problem I have with Warner's candidicy is the inconsistency and the fact that he got much too late of a start in the NFL. I just don't think he has enough good seasons on his resume, despite some great ones, to outweight the inconsistent and below average seasons he had, right in the middle of his career. He is a very good NFL QB, I just have a problem with labeling him a Hall of Famer. A Super Bowl this year and another good seasons or two, maybe I'd change my mind...

 

Very good points. IMO I think if they lose to the Eagles and he decides to retire, then he would still probably get in. His stats are very solid for his career compared to the amount of games that he has played. If he wins the SB then he is a lock. I think the biggest obstacle Warner faces is that he hasn't played enough games. Look at his stats compared to a guy like Peyton Manning.

 

Warner- Comp % 65%, 28591 yds, 182 TD, 114 INT, 93.8 QB Rating..... 109 Games Played

 

Manning- Comp % 64%, 45629 yds, 333 TD, 165 INT, 94.8 QB Rating.... 176 Games Played

 

Both have won a SB and have both been MVP's and SB MVP's.

 

In 11 seasons Peyton has played 67 more games than Warner. Imagine if Warner would have the same amount of games. The stat line would look pretty comparable to Peyton's. By no means am I saying that Warner is a better player than Peyton. All that I am saying is that Peyton is a lock for the HOF right now and really the only difference on the resume is that he has played more games than Warner. I understand that is what makes Peyton so great is that he has never missed a game, but I just looking at the numbers here. Quick example: Say Warner averaged 200 yds, 1 TD and 1 INT for each of those 67 games.... Then his numbers would look like this. 41991 yds. 249 TD, 181 INT. Pretty moderate assessment and the numbers would be HOF worthy without question.

4x Pro Bowl Selection

2x MVP

SB Champ

SB MVP

2nd Highest Comp % for career

Highest average passing ypg for career

Most passing yds in a SB

Most consecutive games with 300+ yds passing

Most games with a perfect passing rating (tied with Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger)

Only QB to throw 40 TD's and win a SB in the same year.

3rd all time in career passing rating behind Steve Young and Peyton Manning

 

Pretty impressive resume. Would be pretty hard not to vote him in.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,440]

Here is a list of all the Modern Era Hall of Fame QBs for reference...

 

Troy Aikman 1989-2000

George Blanda (Also PK) 1949-1958, 1960-1975

Terry Bradshaw 1970-1983

Len Dawson 1957-1975

John Elway 1983-1998

Dan Fouts 1973-1987

Otto Graham 1946-1955

Bob Griese 1967-1980

Sonny Jurgensen 1957-1974

Jim Kelly 1986-1996

Bobby Layne 1948-1962

Dan Marino 1983-1999 Joe Montana 1979-1994

Warren Moon 1984-2000

Joe Namath 1965-1977

Bart Starr 1956-1971

Roger Staubach 1969-1979

Fran Tarkenton 1961-1978

Y.A. Tittle 1948-1964

Johnny Unitas 1956-1973

Norm Van Brocklin 1949-1960

Bob Waterfield 1945-1952

Steve Young 1985-1999

I just don't see how you can say Kurt Warner is in that class....

 

If Namath gets in, Warner is in!!! If Moon gets in, Warner is in!!! He is in that class! Jim Kelly went to four Super Bowls and lost them all. Warner has won one and been to two. If he makes it after this week, there is no argument left. Warner will be in the HOF!!! And deservingly so! To say otherwise is stooooopid! If the prerequisite is Super Bowls, he's in. He's also only the sixth player in NFL history to win the season MVP and the Super Bowl MVP. That includes your list above.

 

P Manning has one Super Bowl appearance with a win and he's in? I know what he has accomplished. But gettting wins to propel your team in the playoffs is more important than 10+ wins seasons year after year. Manning has lost more playoff games to get his team into contention. Warner has done more than Manning has. Warner is on the verge of sending his team, THE ARIZONA CARDINALS, into the Super Bowl. Name one QB above who can say the same? Those QB's were all on great teams that were around for decades on great teams, before the salary cap. The salary cap is another argument, but you get the picture!

[PackYourNut 47]

I see how that is relevant... Especially on a fantasy football forum.

 

It's relevant because you have no idea what you are talking about and no point of reference other then your ignorant opinion. If you had actually played the sport at high level you would realize that what he has done is EXTREMELY hard to do. To dismiss it as you have in your posts makes it evident you don't have a clue.

 

So far today he's looking like he will be going to his 3rd Superbowl. Another "stat" that not many QB's can lay claim to.

[DamageIncVacc 6]

Im sorry , love or hate Warner if he goes to his third superbowl and with all the other stats etc and 2 MVP's and Superbowl ring and Superbowl MVP and 3 superbowls including getting the Cards to the superbowl theres no way hes not passed this borderrline stuff. Thats absurd . what does a guy have to do. Again I said at the beginning of the year if he gets the Cards into the Superbowl , win or lose thats whould end this discussion. Only a true Warner hater can at that point say hes no hall of famer.

[PackYourNut 47]

1st ballot!

[DamageIncVacc 6]

Game over . Hes a hall of Famer now (in my opinion) . Not saying hesa lock but hes in. All fox commentqtors just said the same thing ( not saying there experts but thast the general opinioin out there, there calling him a hall of famer now. I ofcourse agree) .

[berven 0]

He looked like a Hall of Famer today. When it's do or die, the great ones do--and Warner did. He's absolute ice in the clutch.