Kurt Warner: HOFer or Not

[miami_fan]

Poll to come

Seems like one of the main topics of the day.

85 regular season starts
65.4% completion pct.
28591 yards
182 TD
114 INT

3 time Pro Bowler. Two time All Pro. Three times in the Super Bowl with a possibility of 2 rings

What says you FOFC?

[bob]

Two time NFL MVP. You forgot that.

[miami_fan]

Poll to come

Seems like one of the main topics of the day.

85 regular season starts
65.4% completion pct.
28591 yards
182 TD
114 INT

3 time Pro Bowler. Two time All Pro. Three times in the Super Bowl with a possibility of 2 rings

What says you FOFC?

[Anthony]

yup. he's got more rings than Jim Kelley. not many starting QB's have gone to the SB with 2 different teams.

[Danny]

Not great longevity, but I think especially after this season, he's a HOFer

[gstelmack]

I think a key issue will be "85 regular season starts". Although taking the Arizona Cardinals to the Super Bowl has to be a huge plus...

[miami_fan]

Not sure what happened. Somehow I double posted, one with a poll and one without. The poll is in the other thread.

[SirFozzie]

Yeah. Even without the Grocery bagger-NFL QB storyline, his stats support it.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I think a key issue will be "85 regular season starts". Although taking the Arizona Cardinals to the Super Bowl has to be a huge plus...

Who says he's done? Sure, he's older now, but I can see Warner getting another two years in with someone (and that's even assuming at some point the Cards just decide they must go with Leinart because of the money they're paying him).

[GoSeahawks]

Originally Posted by Anthony

yup. he's got more rings than Jim Kelley. not many starting QB's have gone to the SB with 2 different teams.

Who are the other QB's that have taken more than one team to a Super Bowl? I'm drawing a blank on this one.

[MrBug708]

The NFL has always been about the impact you made in the NFL during your time there. I'd say Warner has certainly made an impact on the NFL. I think if Arizona wins it, he's a lock for the HOF. He's one of the best QB's in NFL history in regards to passing timing

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by GoSeahawks

Who are the other QB's that have taken more than one team to a Super Bowl? I'm drawing a blank on this one.

He's the third QB to take two teams to a championship as a starter. Can't remember the other two off the top of my head but I've seen that stat mentioned a few times today.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by GoSeahawks

Who are the other QB's that have taken more than one team to a Super Bowl? I'm drawing a blank on this one.

Hint: He played for Dallas and Denver...

[cartman]

Originally Posted by GoSeahawks

Who are the other QB's that have taken more than one team to a Super Bowl? I'm drawing a blank on this one.

Craig Morton is the only I can think of off the top of my head. He took over for Staubach when he got hurt one season, then QB'd the Broncos to their first Super Bowl.

[Danny]

Morton lost both times though.

[Hannibal Lecter]

2 time MVP only what 45 MVPs in history. Cant stand the guy but its a no brainer.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Hannibal Lecter

Cant stand the guy but its a no brainer.

Heh...this is the first time I have seen someone say he can't stand him. So I am curious how you can not like a guy like that? Too preachy?

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

So I am curious how you can not like a guy like that? Too preachy?

Titans fan maybe?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Heh...this is the first time I have seen someone say he can't stand him. So I am curious how you can not like a guy like that? Too preachy?

Take a look in the archives when the Cards signed him.

[Tasan]

In the NFL its a no-brainer. They let just about everyone who ever had any kind of success in, especially QBs.

[Young Drachma]

Given he's a two-time MVP and now only the 2nd QB ever to take two different teams to the Super Bowl -- especially previously moribund franchises like the Rams and Cardinals -- yeah, I gotta say you have to let him in.

[RainMaker]

I think it's a no-brainer. Not huge longevity but his accomplishments are solid. If he played for a major market like New York, this wouldn't even be a conversation.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think it's a no-brainer. Not huge longevity but his accomplishments are solid. If he played for a major market like New York, this wouldn't even be a conversation.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

...especially previously moribund franchises like the Rams and Cardinals...

To be fair, the moribund stretch by the Rams was because She Who Will Not Be Named tanked the team for 4-5 years to get them out of LA, and she kept the morons she hired to do the tanking (Shaw & Zygmunt) in place with her in St. Louis, allowing the team to continue to struggle after the move. Most of the history of the Rams is not moribund.

That said, point taken.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Ha! Good response.

I think Rainmaker stretched a bit there, although, to be fair, Warner's time with the Giants was sabotaged from the start, since everyone knew he was only brought on to hold the spot until Eli was ready.

[Izulde]

Eh, I'm a little iffy because of the longevity issue, but it's not like it'd be a horrible thing if he was admitted.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah, I have no problem with Warner getting in but would have at least a minor problem with him not getting in.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Crap, I forgot all about that. Still, if he did what he did in St. Louis in New York, this wouldn't even be a discussion. The guy would be the Tom Brady of New York minus the dating of supermodels.

The thing with Warner is that he's been in positions where he's got a young guy pushing him out a lot. I believe that if Arizona hadn't stuck with Leinert so long last year, they would have been a nice playoff team.

[Warhammer]

In one of the few intelligent statements Colin Cowherd has ever said, if you can sum up a player's case in one sentence for the HoF he should be in.

You can do that with Warner, he took two teams to three Super Bowls, and was the QB of the NFL's most prolific offense, the Greatest Show on Turf.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Heh...this is the first time I have seen someone say he can't stand him. So I am curious how you can not like a guy like that? Too preachy?

exactly, hes a used car salesman selling you jesus.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Tasan

In the NFL its a no-brainer. They let just about everyone who ever had any kind of success in, especially QBs.

That's the argument I'll buy. Warner's the new benchmark for low achievement.

The asterisk is that he's only had three full seasons as starter. He has been benched four times in his career having nothing to do with injury for three different teams. How many Hall of Fame quarterbacks get benched for Josh McCown?

Other stats to consider: Warner is up there with Marino as one of the most immobile quarterbacks in history. Warner has one of the highest sack numbers in NFL history at 2.75 per start. He also fumbled the ball at a record rate -- if he played as many games as Moon, Krieg and Elway did, he would hold the all-time record for most fumbles in a career and most sacks in a career, and it wouldn't be close. If he played as long as Favre, Warner would be second all-time in interceptions Anyone think sacks, fumbles and interceptions are key for a quarterback?

I think he's a great story and he's a great inspiration. But for a guy who had such bad luck getting a break in the NFL for such a long time, he's been fortunate to fall into a great situation in St. Louis and now has caught lightening in a bottle with a 9-7 team that's made it to the Super Bowl because the defense suddenly woke up.

I don't think he's had the longevity of success to justify being in the HOF, but as noted by Tasan that doesn't matter in football.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Hannibal Lecter

exactly, hes a used car salesman selling you jesus.

I have never viewed him as "selling Jesus". He displays his spirituality more openly than most, but other than thanking God and all that in post-major-game or award interviews (like most players), I don't recall him pushing the religious line on anyone else. If anything, it's the media that jumps on it and gets him to talk about it, because they know how much meaning it has to him.

His wife, on the other hand, well, you got one there. She's a borderline nutcase (as if that wasn't obvious from the Howie Long haircut).

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

That's the argument I'll buy. Warner's the new benchmark for low achievement.

The asterisk is that he's only had three full seasons as starter. He has been benched four times in his career having nothing to do with injury for three different teams. How many Hall of Fame quarterbacks get benched for Josh McCown?

Other stats to consider: Warner is up there with Marino as one of the most immobile quarterbacks in history. Warner has one of the highest sack numbers in NFL history at 2.75 per start. He also fumbled the ball at a record rate -- if he played as many games as Moon, Krieg and Elway did, he would hold the all-time record for most fumbles in a career and most sacks in a career, and it wouldn't be close. If he played as long as Favre, Warner would be second all-time in interceptions Anyone think sacks, fumbles and interceptions are key for a quarterback?

I think he's a great story and he's a great inspiration. But for a guy who had such bad luck getting a break in the NFL for such a long time, he's been fortunate to fall into a great situation in St. Louis and now has caught lightening in a bottle with a 9-7 team that's made it to the Super Bowl because the defense suddenly woke up.

I don't think he's had the longevity of success to justify being in the HOF, but as noted by Tasan that doesn't matter in football.

I agree with everything you say here, except for the part about Marino being immobile. Sure, his 40 time was probably 100.9, but he was very mobile in the pocket. He was only sacked 1.2 times per start.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I have never viewed him as "selling Jesus". He displays his spirituality more openly than most, but other than thanking God and all that in post-major-game or award interviews (like most players), I don't recall him pushing the religious line on anyone else. If anything, it's the media that jumps on it and gets him to talk about it, because they know how much meaning it has to him.

His wife, on the other hand, well, you got one there. She's a borderline nutcase (as if that wasn't obvious from the Howie Long haircut).

I really didn't like Warner's involvement in the stem cell debate during the 2006 midterm elections.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Tasan

In the NFL its a no-brainer. They let just about everyone who ever had any kind of success in, especially QBs.

QB's I can understand slightly, but overall the NFL Hall of Fame is probably the most stringent of the 4 major sports.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

That's the argument I'll buy. Warner's the new benchmark for low achievement.

The asterisk is that he's only had three full seasons as starter. He has been benched four times in his career having nothing to do with injury for three different teams. How many Hall of Fame quarterbacks get benched for Josh McCown?

Other stats to consider: Warner is up there with Marino as one of the most immobile quarterbacks in history. Warner has one of the highest sack numbers in NFL history at 2.75 per start. He also fumbled the ball at a record rate -- if he played as many games as Moon, Krieg and Elway did, he would hold the all-time record for most fumbles in a career and most sacks in a career, and it wouldn't be close. If he played as long as Favre, Warner would be second all-time in interceptions Anyone think sacks, fumbles and interceptions are key for a quarterback?

I think he's a great story and he's a great inspiration. But for a guy who had such bad luck getting a break in the NFL for such a long time, he's been fortunate to fall into a great situation in St. Louis and now has caught lightening in a bottle with a 9-7 team that's made it to the Super Bowl because the defense suddenly woke up.

I don't think he's had the longevity of success to justify being in the HOF, but as noted by Tasan that doesn't matter in football.

That would have been my arguement. I say no, but won't be surprised if he gets in. Thankfully he will try to keep playing and then there are 5 years between retirement and eligibility for the HoF. The emotion and 'coolness' of this season will have long been washed away and people can look at him with a clear mind.

[MizzouRah]

Yes, for sure.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

QB's I can understand slightly, but overall the NFL Hall of Fame is probably the most stringent of the 4 major sports.

By almost any standard you want to apply, the opposite is true.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Crap, I forgot all about that. Still, if he did what he did in St. Louis in New York, this wouldn't even be a discussion. The guy would be the Tom Brady of New York minus the dating of supermodels.

Yes. If there's anything that could ever be universally agreed on at FOFC, it's that Brenda Warner != supermodel.

She actually looks very much like a friend of mine...we called him Brenda during the Rams first SB run. He didn't appreciate the comparison.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

By almost any standard you want to apply, the opposite is true.

Considering the number of players involved and the fact that there are only so many players inducted per year actually make it better than the other HoFs, in my opinion.

Each game, there are a minimum of 24 starters (includng kickers). Compare that to baseball in which you are talking about 9 guys, 13 if you are talking about a 5 man rotation. In baseball it becomes primarily about the numbers. If the guy takes 20 years to get 3000 hits, he's in. Why? Because that is one of the sacred baseball numbers. Look at Nolan Ryan, people actually questioned whether or not he should be in because his winning percentage was so low. Talk to an Angels fan from the 70s and they'll tell you that they basically had Tanana, Ryan, and few stiffs. Look at their ERA, and their run support. Look at how dreadful those Angel teams were and tell me that he wasn't a damn good pitcher. Heck, for position players it has become the Hall of the Stellar Offensive Numbers, not the Hall of Fame. Have a guy that was an awesome defensive player, the best of his generation that has terrible offensive numbers and the guy probably is not going to get in.

In baseball there is nothing that stops a player from being inducted on the first ballot. Well, aside from guys that won't vote someone in on the first ballot because some guy 50 years ago wasn't so therefore guy X can't be. For the football HoF, 5 guys go in. Now, are QBs over represented? Probably.

[adubroff]

Warner is such a tricky case. I imagine that he has to win this game to get in, or at least play very, very well. I think it's going to be very hard for people to look past how little he played(overall) and how bad he was in some of his down years.

I do think "taking two teams to the Super Bowl" is as much a dark mark as a positive. Tom Brady could probably take ten teams in the league to the Super Bowl if he was to go play for them, but he'll never do it because he'll never be allowed to go elsewhere, or if he is it will be at the very end of his career.

I also think that the reason this hasn't happened all that often thus far is that for the first 30+ Super Bowls, it was impossible for a QB to move to a new team.

[Young Drachma]

As for him selling Jesus.

Consider this.

He married a chick with two kids and he worked at a supermarket. He played ARENA FOOTBALL for goodness sakes. He'd gone to Europe a few times to get battered around in NFL Europe.

The high school QB was probably treated better at work than Kurt was. After the big game, he packed his bags, went back home to Brenda to help her raise her kids and then went to the supermarket to stock more shelves.

To go from that to where he is and I'd be thanking Yahweh and anyone else, because there just aren't many people who could've performed how he did, the way he did, when he did.

And Mark Bulger would beg to differ on how easy it was to run the Greatest Show on Turf.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

By almost any standard you want to apply, the opposite is true.

Well, not the exact opposite, at least if you still count the NHL (and it's Hall of Not Bad) as a top four sport.

[Bad-example]

Too soon to tell. Not yet.

[ISiddiqui]

Have a guy that was an awesome defensive player, the best of his generation that has terrible offensive numbers and the guy probably is not going to get in.

What in the Hell are you talking about? Or did you miss Ozzie Smith and Bill Mazeroski getting in?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Other stats to consider: Warner is up there with Marino as one of the most immobile quarterbacks in history. Warner has one of the highest sack numbers in NFL history at 2.75 per start. He also fumbled the ball at a record rate -- if he played as many games as Moon, Krieg and Elway did, he would hold the all-time record for most fumbles in a career and most sacks in a career, and it wouldn't be close. If he played as long as Favre, Warner would be second all-time in interceptions Anyone think sacks, fumbles and interceptions are key for a quarterback?

I'd agree with everything except for this. Look at Mike Martz's QBs and they get sacked and throw INTs. They also get injured a lot. Fumbles come with getting hit. Is it a product of the system or was he just a better QB in the system?

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Considering the number of players involved and the fact that there are only so many players inducted per year actually make it better than the other HoFs, in my opinion.

The thing that will always devalue the football Hall of Fame is the four minimum to in. The line ever year in Kansas City is that Derrick Thomas will go into the Hall of Fame eventually in a year when there aren't a lot of guys that are automatic picks. Of course, the other thing that gets argued ever year is that the Chiefs do a horrible job of politicking for Thomas, and that the football HOF voting is almost entirely about politics.

Right now, to me Kurt Warner is Dale Murphy -- two time MVP,. If Dale Murphy won a ring and made two World Series, I don't think that adds a lot to his resume.

For another football comparison, how about Rich Gannon? Their career totals are very close (Warner is 38th and 40th all time in yards and TDs, Gannon is 36th and 43rd). Gannon was the consensus MVP in 2002 and won an MVP Award in 2000 (Gannon won the Bert Bell, Faulk won AP). Gannon was a four-time pro-bowler (Warner has three) and both were twice all-pro.

Both were late bloomers. Warner threw 11 NFL passes before he was 28, the year he became a starter. Gannon was 32 when he reemerged as a starter for KC.

My question is this -- would our opinion of Warner be different if instead of going undrafted and playing in the Arena league that he was a miserable failure for three years as a starter in Minnesota before working as a stock boy at Hy-Vee, then getting back into football and hitting the jackpot?

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I'd agree with everything except for this. Look at Mike Martz's QBs and they get sacked and throw INTs. They also get injured a lot. Fumbles come with getting hit. Is it a product of the system or was he just a better QB in the system?

That's a slippery slope because if we say the sacks, interceptions and fumbles are a product of the system, aren't the yards and touchdowns product of the system too? His best years were in St. Louis running an offense where Trent Green and Marc Bulger took over for him when he to hurt and the team didn't miss a beat. The current Arizona scheme isn't terrible different from what St. Louis did -- step back and throw timed passes quickly. When Warner ran more traditional offenses in New York and earlier in Arizona, he didn't fare well. Is he a product of a system?

Dan Fouts was a system QB too and he's in the Hall of Fame. But he didn't turn the ball over and take sacks with the frequency of Warner either.

[RedKingGold]

I think the interest in Warner is because of the story.

I know it's a shallow argument, but if it is the "Hall of Fame", then there is legitimate thought in letting Warner in because of his story combined with achievements where his achievements alone are not Hall worthy.

EDIT: A good case example would be Joe Namath. No way his stats alone are Hall-of-Fame worthy, but he had that "mystique" because of Super Bowl III

[RainMaker]

The tough part about Warner is that he's either a top flight QB or a horrible QB. He has never been consistent in his career. It's why he can go from an MVP to a guy getting benched for trash. It's one of the most unique cases for the Hall of Fame.

It would be like a baseball player having 3 great seasons, winning the MVP in them and leading his team to the World Series. Then in the rest of his seasons hitting .250 and being a borderline backup.