Comments on: Cold Water: Kurt Warner is NOT a Hall of Famer

By: romanwarhelmet

romanwarhelmet — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:29:15 +0000

Jay…Football Hall Voters are not supposed to look at off the field character just on the field…that being said I will give Warner total credit as an exemplary citizen…as for injuries…Injuries and what ifs are what separate Hall of Famers from good players…Terrell Davis was an extraordinary Running Back but not a Hall of Famer due to longevity…I could give you the same arguments as to why Phil Simms should be a HOF too…injures, coaching decisions etc etc..I am not saying Warner is a bum..I am saying he is not HOF…if he is Hall of Fame good not player out performs him for a starting job..period…

By: Jay Ensley

Jay Ensley — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:53:31 +0000

Warner has the fourth highest career QB rating (one of the three ahead of his is Tony Romo). He has the 2nd highest completion percentage in NFL history. He is 1st all time in yards per game, he has two MVP awards, and he is going to his 3rd Super Bowl with a career record of 10-2 in post-season play.
Many will say it doesn’t count, but since Arena Football and NFL Europe are regarded as professional leagues (comparable to Major League Baseball in Japan) I include the fact that he still holds many Arena League game and season records and twice led is team to the Arena Bowl and he QB’d his NFL Europe team to a league championship. He is also one of 10 players in the NFL Europe “Ring of Honor” (read as Hall of Fame) and the ONLY QB.
Last and certainly not least is the issue of character. In an age when old-time fans bemoan the loss of star athletes as role-models, Kurt Warner is the real deal. Hold any opinion you want about his commitment to Jesus Christ except the opinion that its fake. When I look at Warner’s accomplishments in the face of how many times he’s been shown his career to be a cul-de-sac, I find myself feeling more positive and hopeful about my own life and its possibilities. I wonder if Kurt Warner KNOWS something very few of the rest of us ever will.

By: fetch

fetch — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:39:16 +0000

that was a pretty legit rebuttal. +2 John Henry.

By: romanwarhelmet

romanwarhelmet — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:38:59 +0000

I counted 2000 as one of his 5 seasons and I took the onus off of 2004…that still leaves 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006…His prime years with no output..I am not saying Kurt Warner is Joe Flacco I am saying he is not a Hall of Famer

By: john henry

john henry — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:38:14 +0000

Warner’s second hand injury was thought by St Louis doctors to be career ending. You have an odd career because of the injuries, the near refusal of anyone even after two mvps to take him seriously and around it 3 1/2 years when he played as well as anyone has. How good were Holt and Bruce without Warner? They are good but had there best years with him. I bet that will be true of Boldin and Fitzgerald. Anyone who watched him regularly knows he has been unequaled in the ability to hit a receiver in stride. His time on the bench reflects more on the coaches judgment than Warner’s ability or on field performance. Had Green not been injured Warner may have never been given a starting shot.

By: john henry

john henry — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:16:34 +0000

your comments on Warner are inaccurate. In 2000 regular season Warner was undefeated and as good as he had been in 1999 until he broke his hand. the game he broke it in was instructive. he was coming back from a 4 touchdown deficit and broke it on a snap on the goal line about to tie the game. He was the superbowl mvp the next year. so that is three straight years at a very high level. having lived through the Bulger controversy it was highly disputed that Bulger should take over. Warner then had another injury. One game in Phila when Bulger was injured Warner played with a broken throwing hand and would have won if not for several dropped passes by his receivers. Many of us who followed him wondered why he received no respect But whenever he has been given the starting job he has won and played well. He as above 500 with the giants too but they went with Manning when Strahan was lost for the season. the problem has never been with his play but with how he is perceived.

By: spencer096

spencer096 — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 03:41:14 +0000

fetch…what i’ve been saying ALL THE FUCK ALONG was that flacco hasn’t shown a damn thing that he’s ever going to be an upper echelon QB…like you said.

he might be good, who the fuck knows, but what he’s shown us so far, and what last night confirmed, was that, RIGHT NOW, flacco is dogshit. notice the tense…not GOING TO BE dogshit, not WAS dogshit…IS dogshit. the ravens had no shot whatsoever to win last night and a lot of that was on flacco.

By: fetch

fetch — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:12:40 +0000

yeah spencer flacco was playing against the best defense in the league with a bunch of garbage around him. I’m shocked that a rookie QB didnt go 25-30 for about 375 yards and 3 TDs. Just astonished.

By: spencer096

spencer096 — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:08:17 +0000

oh, and flacco is dogshit.

By: spencer096

spencer096 — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:07:56 +0000

add me to the “aikman sucked” list…him and emmitt would’ve had awful careers if they didn’t have the greatest OL of all time and michael irvin.

but, to me, it comes down to expectations…we all know warner’s story, it’s fantastic, the american dream, and for that alone, his career is a remarkable success. but then couple that with the fact that, unlike almost every single QB in the HoF, he was saddled with a franchise that was beyond incompetence, regardless of WR talent, and he was the stabilizing force. tell me, was leinart playing this well with the same talent around him last year? what has changed since then? tim hightower?

is he HoF worthy? eh, probably not, but then again, neither is aikman. he’ll end his career as a fringe HoFer who had two highly successful stints for moribund franchises that were the slums of the league before he got there. whether or not that’s attributable to the team is not a factor because every QB is judged under that criteria.

let me tell you this though, big ben is going to get a lot of HoF calls when he retires, but is there any doubt that he’d be even remotely as successful without that outrageous D and reliable steeler running game that’s covered up his literally retarded playing style this far in his career? so who cares about the ‘team’ argument?

and one thing you didn’t mention were the years playing in the martz offense who’s ethos is downfield passing and INT’s don’t matter. i find it hard to hate on a dude where the scheme says throw deep all the time…risky throws the coach was willing to gamble with.