He's also played less games than any of those quarterbacks


6 touchdowns and 4 interceptions in 10 games, so yeah.

Chicago Tribune, BEFORE the game....

If Kurt Warner doesn't get in Hall of Fame, it's a shame
Is the Cardinals quarterback a Hall of Famer? In a word: Yes



TAMPA — If Kurt Warner is not a lock for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, it is because of the NFL's failures—not his.

NFL teams failed to see his ability when he came out of Northern Iowa in 1994 so he wasn't drafted.

The Green Bay Packers signed him as a free agent, but failed to coach him properly or develop him. Or see his potential. They gave up on him without ever allowing him to throw a pass in a game.

Five years later the Rams finally drew the best from Warner, harnessing his magic in two Super Bowl trips. But when he struggled with injury, they failed to stick with him, benching him after the 2003 season opener and cutting him the following June.

The Giants signed him, but failed to make a commitment to him—coach Tom Coughlin later admitted he thought he should have played Eli Manning ahead of Warner from the start. They also failed to give Warner the kind of offensive system he needed to be successful.

The rest of the NFL failed Warner again after the Giants cut him in 2005. The best he could do was a one-year, $4 million contract from the Cardinals.

Then the Cardinals failed to realize what they had in Warner, trying repeatedly to replace him with Matt Leinart.

But coach Ken Whisenhunt had the good sense to trust the game tape and give the ball to Warner at the start of this season. The result: Warner is in the Super Bowl for the third time in his career.

Some people still think Warner is not worthy of the Hall. He is, in my opinion, and no one would even be able to contest it if the NFL had not failed to realize what he is over and over again.

The argument against Warner being a Hall of Famer is he only has had five outstanding seasons. He has not been consistently great for as many seasons as many in the Hall. But I would contend a lot of that has been out of his control.

It is true Warner went through a five-year dark period in his career where his production was below average. But this was largely the result of injuries, being misused and not being trusted. It was as if the NFL thought the clock had struck midnight and the Cinderella story was over. The logic went something like this: see, we were right on this guy all along.

NBC's Cris Collinsworth wasn't surprised Warner struggled with the Giants.

"He was in the wrong offense," he said. "Think about it. Where has he been successful? Where they spread it all out, fight the blitz, let Kurt read it, get it out of his hands and make plays. The Giants are a running team, they want to use play action, throw it 20 yards downfield. When he plays in that style of offense, it doesn't work."

Warner always has been at his best in domes, where his career passer rating is 103.4 compared to 83 outdoors. So what was he doing playing in Giants Stadium, which is notorious for being one of the most difficult places to throw the ball?

If NFL teams ever had realized what Warner was and enhanced what he does best, Warner very well could have had 10 or 12 great seasons by now.

"He needed to find a place where they knew what he was and just trusted him," former Rams coach Mike Martz said. "That's what happened [in Phoenix]."

Martz believes Warner affects the Cardinals more than any other player affected his team in the postseason. And he is right. When Warner has been at his best, no quarterback I have seen has been better.

There are a lot of ways the Steelers can end up holding the Lombardi Trophy. There is only one way for the Cardinals to do it—with Warner having a dominant performance against the best defense in football.

"Getting here with this football team was enough for Kurt Warner to make the Hall of Fame," said Collinsworth, a former Pro Bowl receiver. "Maybe if he would have gotten here with the New York Giants I would have not said that's a lock. But to take the Arizona Cardinals to a Super Bowl? I think most people would admit they are not here without him. He's kind of put them on his back and carried them."

And if you didn't believe he was a Hall of Famer before, you should now.

Steve young

PCT64.3 yrds33,124 TD232 INT107 QB Rating 96.8

65.4 28,591 182 114 93.8


These are extremely comparable, particularly considering Kurt Warner isn't retiring yet. I guess it depends on what you think deserves to be in the hall of fame. Do you want a player who is a little better than average, but puts in consistant performances, year after year.. or do you want to reward truly excellent players, even if their longevity isn't as great.


Football isn't baseball, or basketball. In baseball, it's pretty much about career stats.. but in Football, eras are so different, and the game is so violent, that you can't just consider career numbers.

I think Kurt Warner has 4 truly great seasons ( not 3 as Donalason is maintaining) and he had 3 other seasons where he started over half the games and had a QB rating over 85.

But what really puts him over the top is his play off numbers that put him over the top. He is one of the greatest Play off quarterbacks I've ever seen, and If i had to win one play off game, I'd take a peak Kurt warner over a peak any QB in the league right now, except brady. This includes Brett Farve and Peyton Manning. I think that, if nothing else, makes him fame worthy.

I'd like to know where those 2 other 'outstanding' seasons are. As far as injuries, every player has injuries, Warner is no exception.

Warner needs at least two more good years to make it.

From MMQB on si.com...

John Elway played in five Super Bowls. Joe Montana played in four. Kurt Warner has played in three -- and has thrown for more yards than both Montana and Elway.

In 12 quarters, Warner has passed for 1,156 yards, the most in Super Bowl history. In 16 quarters, Montana threw for 1,142. In 20 quarters, Elway threw for 1,128.

I'd love to bet anything you wanted to wager that Warner is going into the hall.


his other two great seasons....

2000 (the year in between his superbowl years) he had a QB passer rating of 99 and lead the rams to a 10-6 record and a play off app.

and last season, with the cardinals, he started 11 games, and had a passer rating of 90 ( and was the number 1 Fantasy QB in the second half of last season ( yes, including Tom Brady)). Just because you weren't paying attention last season, doesn't mean he wasn't excellent.


Also, the fact that Warner has taken two of the NFL's worst franchises to superbowls isn't something that you should just blow off. The Cardinal's last won a playoffgame in the Turman administration.

I think after this season he is in, before that it was questionable.

I am pretty sure we already discussed this, but what about Terrel Davis?

I had to take a screen shot because the copy/paste fucks up the alignment. You think playing 11 games and throwing 21 TDs and 18 INT in 11 games in 2000 is great? An 89.9 rating in 2007 is 'excellent'? Those are average numbers, I don't know what you're looking at.

As far as him actually making the hof, I think he will, though I don't think he should.

After he retired, I was more inclined to put him in than I am now. He had a very truly spectacular seasons, leading the broncos to the superbowl twice. However, as I see Shannahan play mix and match with running backs over the years, plugging in jouneymen backs into his system, and all of them doing well, I wonder how much of his production was based on the offensive blocking scheme. That said, he's peak was so high, that if he's even close to getting in, I think he should get in.

a 98 passer rating with 311 yards per game is not average, you're ****ing high on crack, and just blindly hating now.


And a 90 percent passer rating is not average either. I don't know what league you think you watch, where average QB's put up 350 yard, 30 TD-10 Int seasons, but it's not the NFL.

Sample size too small, that has been my argument the whole time, and I don't blindly hate on anything.

he and fitzgerald were the reason they even made it to the superbowl this year. definitely wasnt Edge. i say he makes because of "character" and a few great seasons. dont think he should though. hes like the jim rice of football.

so if Warner isn't hof worthy how is this guy:


games 140
Att 3762
Comp 1886
Comp % 50.1
Yards 27663
TD 173
Int 220
Rating 65.5


He has one superbowl title.

Bolded numbers are not HOF worthy, but I am guessing this is someone already in based on the way you have done this.

But he guaranteed a win !

LOL


When you pick two stats you don't like from a season ( and 21-18 over 10 games isn't bad, btw) but ignore the stats that show Warner's excellence (311 YpG and a 98 passer rating), you might not be blind, but you certainly need vision correction.

and then he hit on suzi kulber

In 11 playoff games, Warner averages 306 yards, 2.4 TD's, 1.2 INT's, and a passer rating of 98.9. That's pretty much all I have to say about the issue.

Joe Naimith is an excellent example of a QB who is in the Hall of Fame for considerations beyond statistical ones. He deserves to be in the hall, btw.

See for me the only true thing I can see are number, being that I wasn't alive when Naimith played. Growing up hear these stories about Naimith and I thought he was better than sliced bread. however you take a step back and look at his stats and you really have to wonder. Did he have that extra intangible thing? Was it just because he was MR. Hollywood?

No, it's not just that.. but I mean, being a star is part of it.

Joe Naimith was the first qb to throw for 4000 yards in a season (and these were 14 game seasons) QB ratings, for all quarterbacks, were much lower during that era. But, most importantly, the jet's win in superbowl 3 completely legitimized the AFL. It's still the greatest upset in superbowl history. Some moments are just so big, that they carry a person to greatness. Naimith's career was injury plagued, and his stats are probably the worst of any QB in the hall. But he was bigger than the game, and I think players like that should be in the hall.


Honestly, for the same reason, I think Bo Jackson should be in the hall of fame. His statistics don't capture what a dominant player he was when he was on the field.

See with bo jackson I agree with you because he was one of the most dominant players while he played. And its just too bad that injury stopped him from playing longer

That's BigD's whole point, Bitch. He is saying that Kurt Warner is absolutely dominant in his position. Can you imagine if Kurt was playing for the Steelers? 62-3 would have been the final.

I completely disagree with Bo. Not only did the injury limit him to only 4 seasons, he never played more than 11 games a year because of baseball.

Rushing Receiving
Year Age Tm Pos G GS Att Yds TD Lng Y/A Y/G A/G Rec Yds Y/R TD Lng R/G Y/G YScm RRTD Fmb
1987 25 RAI FB 7 5 81 554 4 91 6.8 79.1 11.6 16 136 8.5 2 23 2.3 19.4 690 6 2
1988 26 RAI FB 10 9 136 580 3 25 4.3 58.0 13.6 9 79 8.8 0 27 0.9 7.9 659 3 5
1989 27 RAI RB 11 9 173 950 4 92 5.5 86.4 15.7 9 69 7.7 0 20 0.8 6.3 1019 4 1
1990* 28 RAI 10 0 125 698 5 88 5.6 69.8 12.5 6 68 11.3 0 18 0.6 6.8 766 5 3
Career 38 23 515 2782 16 92 5.4 73.2 13.6 40 352 8.8 2 27 1.1 9.3 3134 18 11

dang.. its SO sucky that he got hurt. 1000 yards in 11 games is so awesome.

He was just one insane athlete. Some of the things he did in baseball were crazy too. And that is besides the whole running up the wall and breaking bats over his knee and helmet.

When he was on KC I remember a play were he dove for a ball, was almost parallel to the ground, landed on his feet, and threw out the runner tagging up on a b-line shot to the catcher.

It is on highlight films, I will try and find it.

Not true. Warner always had great WRs and a great system to play in (other than Giants). He would not be as dominate in Pitt because we focus on the run more than the pass and our WRs dont compare. His huge numbers were put up during the greatest show on turf and with the spread offense in Arizona with Fitz and Boldin.

But as I think about it more...if we had Warner, Fitz and Boldin....I agree with your score.

1. I didn't expect any Steelers fans to agree with that.

2. Everyone said that about the Rams receivers and as soon as Warner was gone they were average at best.

3. If Warner and Fitz and Boldin were all on the Steelers the final would have been like 100-0.

Warner doesn't fit within the Steeler offense. With our O-line issues, Warner would be a sitting duck. Ben's size and mobility made what could have been a bigger liability just a bit more manageable.

Brady vs. Warner

Category----- Brady----- Warner
Years----- 9----- 11-----
GS----- 110----- 85-----
Comp----- 2301----- 2327-----
Attempt----- 3653----- 3557-----
Pct.----- 63----- 65.4-----
TD----- 197----- 182-----
Int----- 86----- 114-----
Rating----- 92.9----- 93.8-----
4000+----- 2----- 3-----
30+ TD----- 1----- 3-----

Age------31-----37-----
Titles-----3------1------

Oops. I do think Warner is a HOF'r though, but I don't think it's a sure thing.

It's so sad that Warner is 37 with only 11 years. If only he had started when he was 21... wow.

Warner is a missed Vinateri field goal from having the same amount of titles. HE had 2 great games in losing efforts, which are in no way his fault.

I wouldn't say "in no way." This past Super Bowl he did commit 2 big turnovers. The first certainly as it was a 14 point swing. The 2nd was as he was trying to put together a miracle drive. He had a great game no doubt but those were kinda big plays in the game.

Anyway if you are going to compare the two players you certainly left out a couple big numbers. Hall of Fame credentials are certainly helped with titles. Winning a 2nd Super Bowl would put him in no doubt territory (90%) in my mind but as he stands now I think he's at around 70% likely.

While the turn over at the end of the second half hurt his team, Harrison's bringing that back for a touchdown is a complete fluke that would occur about on in 50 picks or so. Coupled with the fact that warner has like 377, brought the cardinals back to take the lead with 2 minutes left, and the fact that if Warner has broken his leg in the pre game, the cardinals would have lost by about 30 with Lienhart as QB, I find it hard to put blame on him. If ben doesn't engineer that drive, Warner is the MVP of that game.

I'm pretty sure you meant to type had instead of has in a couple places there.

I'm pretty sure Fitz was set to take home MVP honors before ben's drive.

I agree Warner should be in the HOF now. But no statistical analysis of Warner is complete without rows for "Fumbles" and "Sacks taken". His bad years were very very bad and when things were going poorly he would fumble if you breathed on him. Just saying. And he is not in the greatest ever debate either. He would need 4-5 more great seasons to even enter that discussion. Too many QBs did the things he did over long careers without any bad seasons.

He was playing with a broken hand then a broken thumb when the fumbling was occuring. All he's guilty of is trying to play through serious injuries. Broken ribs in the superbowl against the Pats, and a concussion in the playoff game against the Saints in '01. It's up to the coaches and doctors to not let a player play, not the players.

If time wasn't a factor, I would bet you up to $250 and give you 5-1 if you seriously only think he has a 70% chance that would be a no-brainer.



No way. Warner would have been the MVP easily.



this.

I think he'll get in eventually but if he retired today I certainly don't think he'll be a first ballot HOF'r. I'll be surprised if he can duplicate the season he had this year and I'm wondering if his stock will ever be higher than it is now.



What reasons do you have for this? Fitz having 7 catches for 127 for 2 touchdowns (including the 64 yard game winner) sounds worthy to me.

I gotta agree with you about Fitz being the MVP. I think if Warner had spread out his TD's and thrown one to each guy then he is the MVP however with two going to Fitz and just the way he took over the game in the second half I think there is no way he couldn't be the MVP.

If Warner comes back, and puts up one more impressive year, I think he is a first balloter at this point. Funny thing is, at the beginning of the year I questioned whether he deserved the hall or not.

taking the CARDINALS to the Super Bowl will do that. Warner definitely gets bonus points for taking two historically crappy teams to the Super Bowl (and demerits for only having success when his WR corps was outstanding).

Like I've said before I believe he's a Hall of Famer but I still think when he excelled it was largely due to the systems and players around him.

Serious question: does it matter?

Is the hall of fame supposed to be for the best players or the players who performed the best? Personally, I think any arguments about systems and supporting cast, etc. should be ignored and we should just focus on the results.

Now obviously, if you're trying to predict how a player will perform in the future, then you need to consider many other factors besides results, but when it comes to awards, all I care about is what actually happened.

Exactly. It is very rare that a player excelled for an extended period of time on a crappy team. Especially a QB who needs a lot of help, running game, good o-line and people that can actually get open, catch the ball, then run with it afterward.

Serious answer: When it comes to the Hall of Fame, no not really. But, I still think he needs another good year or two before I'd call him a surefire 1st ballot HOF'r.

So after he left the Rams, the receivers were still outstanding? The Rams were still good? The Cardinals would have gone to the Superbowl without Warner this year?