Elected as one of 18 finalists.
12 Yrs, 208 TD, 128 INT, 32,344 Yds, 93.7 QBR
1 Super Bowl, and single post-season records.
12 Yrs, 208 TD, 128 INT, 32,344 Yds, 93.7 QBR
1 Super Bowl, and single post-season records.
Is Kurt Warner a Hall of Famer?
- Thread starter FL4WL3SS
- Start date
No but the media loves his story. HOF QBs don't lose their job to Mark Bulger or Eli Manning.FL4WL3SS said:
I didn't put it in my initial post, but I agree, not a hall of famer. He won't get in on the first ballot, for sure, but you're right, the media loves him.
He basically had 3 great season in St. Louis with a stacked Rams team, a bunch of mediocre seasons and then finished his career with a couple strong seasons in Arizona.
He basically had 3 great season in St. Louis with a stacked Rams team, a bunch of mediocre seasons and then finished his career with a couple strong seasons in Arizona.
I'm going to say "no".
His career was too short and his numbers look better than a lot of historical comparisons due to the era.
There are two hall of famers who played ~120 games like Warner did:
Roger Staubach, probably the best quarterback of his era, won two superbowls and had an 85-29 regular season record.
Joe Namath, famous for being Joe Namath.
I'm excluding George Blanda, who was a different story entirely.
His career was too short and his numbers look better than a lot of historical comparisons due to the era.
There are two hall of famers who played ~120 games like Warner did:
Roger Staubach, probably the best quarterback of his era, won two superbowls and had an 85-29 regular season record.
Joe Namath, famous for being Joe Namath.
I'm excluding George Blanda, who was a different story entirely.
Yes. He took two historically terrible teams to the super bowl. He won one. Both those teams fell apart since he left. The Rams have never been back and Arizona is only starting to recover. Plus, his story is one the media loves. From stocking shelves to running the best offense on turf. That carries some weight.
I think he deserves to get in. He was legit and losing the job to Eli Manning was neither Warner's fault nor problem. One, he was hurt during his Giant years. Two, he was a placeholder. If he disappeared from the NFL at that point, I would say he was blatantly not a Hall of Famer. But what he did with the Cards was impressive.
I think he deserves to get in. He was legit and losing the job to Eli Manning was neither Warner's fault nor problem. One, he was hurt during his Giant years. Two, he was a placeholder. If he disappeared from the NFL at that point, I would say he was blatantly not a Hall of Famer. But what he did with the Cards was impressive.
The Cards revival is what gets him in the conversation. Tho I still remember the beat down the Pats put on them that year – only for the team to turn it on in the playoffs.
I think he's just short of it but intangibles matter. If Santonio Holmes doesn't pull that circus catch in the back of the end zone in, he's in for sure.
I think he's just short of it but intangibles matter. If Santonio Holmes doesn't pull that circus catch in the back of the end zone in, he's in for sure.
johnmd20 said:
To add a little on: The Steelers that year ranked #1 in defensive DVOA (-29.0%). The Harrison interception was huge, but Warner torched them in the 2nd half (31/43, 377 yards, and 3 TDs overall).
The writers love him. That he's already a finalist is telling. He's going to get in, just a question of when.
Compare him to someone like Aikman.
Warner threw TDs nearly 50% more frequently, made more 1st Team All Pro teams, threw 20+ TDs in a season 6 times as often, won more MVPs, has a passer rating 12 points higher, and had a higher winning percentage, but went 1-2 in the Super Bowl, while Aikman was 3-0.
I'm not trying to pump up Warner or crap on Aikman, but there's no doubt to me which one was a better QB, even accounting for differences in how the game was played, and no doubt which one got to play with Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin and a top 10 defense for 7 seasons.
Warner threw TDs nearly 50% more frequently, made more 1st Team All Pro teams, threw 20+ TDs in a season 6 times as often, won more MVPs, has a passer rating 12 points higher, and had a higher winning percentage, but went 1-2 in the Super Bowl, while Aikman was 3-0.
I'm not trying to pump up Warner or crap on Aikman, but there's no doubt to me which one was a better QB, even accounting for differences in how the game was played, and no doubt which one got to play with Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin and a top 10 defense for 7 seasons.
DrewDawg said:
Let's take that a step further:
Ken Anderson had nearly the same QBR+ as Warner, playing in ~60 more games than Warner did (or 150%).
Tony Romo's career is already longer than Warner's was, and his adjusted numbers (QBR+, AYA+, etc.) look nearly identical to Warners'
Same goes for Philip Rivers.
Obviously, Anderson will never be a Hall of Famer, and barring some spectacular postseason performances, I doubt Romo or Rivers will be, either.
The postseason obviously matters, which is why Aikman makes it (even as a relatively marginal candidate).
For me Aikman is one of those guys you had to see to really appreciate. He had gobs of talent around him on both sides of the ball (you don't win 3 SBs in 4 years without it). But he was tremendous. They didn't ask him to throw a ton, and why would you with Emmitt Smith on your team? But he was an outstanding leader and thrower of the football.
Warner had the strangest career imaginable for a great player.
whenever-1998 - stocking shelves to a backup QB
1999-2001 - Unbelievable, insane numbers: 67.2%, 12,612 yds, 98 td, 53 int, 103.4 rating, 2 MVPs, 2 NFC championships, 1 SB championship, incredible playoff numbers
2002-2006 - NFL wasteland with the Giants and Cardinals, played in just 35 g over 5 seasons, throwing for 7,940 yds, 27 td, 30 int, 82.1 rating
2007-2009 - Tremendous QB again, with Arizona: 65.4%, 11,753 yds, 83 td, 45 int, 93.6 rating, 1 NFC championship, more incredible playoff numbers
First full season in the NFL (1999, age 28): 325-499 (65.1%), 4,353 yds, 41 td, 13 int, 109.2 rating
Last full season in the NFL (2009, age 38): 339-515 (66.1%), 3,753 yds, 26 td, 14 int, 93.2 rating
Pretty good bookends to his roller-coaster career.
I'd say…..yes, hall of famer. I can totally see the arguments against him and they're legit. He doesn't have longevity and his career arc is weird, but his peak (a double peak actually) was insanely good.
Warner had the strangest career imaginable for a great player.
whenever-1998 - stocking shelves to a backup QB
1999-2001 - Unbelievable, insane numbers: 67.2%, 12,612 yds, 98 td, 53 int, 103.4 rating, 2 MVPs, 2 NFC championships, 1 SB championship, incredible playoff numbers
2002-2006 - NFL wasteland with the Giants and Cardinals, played in just 35 g over 5 seasons, throwing for 7,940 yds, 27 td, 30 int, 82.1 rating
2007-2009 - Tremendous QB again, with Arizona: 65.4%, 11,753 yds, 83 td, 45 int, 93.6 rating, 1 NFC championship, more incredible playoff numbers
First full season in the NFL (1999, age 28): 325-499 (65.1%), 4,353 yds, 41 td, 13 int, 109.2 rating
Last full season in the NFL (2009, age 38): 339-515 (66.1%), 3,753 yds, 26 td, 14 int, 93.2 rating
Pretty good bookends to his roller-coaster career.
I'd say…..yes, hall of famer. I can totally see the arguments against him and they're legit. He doesn't have longevity and his career arc is weird, but his peak (a double peak actually) was insanely good.
trekfan55 said:
3 best performances in history? How was the 2001 Super Bowl even a GOOD performance?
(SMALL SAMPLE SIZE ALERT)
Yeah really. His Super Bowl numbers: 83-132 for 1156 yards, 6 TD, 3 INT, a 96.7 rating. Over 16 games that's 442-703 for 6165 yards, 32 TD and 16 picks.
Just think about that -- his numbers in the biggest game, with some great defenses -- he would have broken the single-season passing yards record by almost 700 yards.
Postseason numbers, for three players, averaged over 16 games.
Player A: 363-584, 3953 yards, 27 TD, 13 INT and a 87.5 rating.
Player B: 377-568, 4860 yards, 38 TD, 17 INT and a 102.8 rating.
Player C: 397-618, 4853 yards, 26 TD, 17 INT and a 89.2 rating.
Yeah really. His Super Bowl numbers: 83-132 for 1156 yards, 6 TD, 3 INT, a 96.7 rating. Over 16 games that's 442-703 for 6165 yards, 32 TD and 16 picks.
Just think about that -- his numbers in the biggest game, with some great defenses -- he would have broken the single-season passing yards record by almost 700 yards.
Postseason numbers, for three players, averaged over 16 games.
Player A: 363-584, 3953 yards, 27 TD, 13 INT and a 87.5 rating.
Player B: 377-568, 4860 yards, 38 TD, 17 INT and a 102.8 rating.
Player C: 397-618, 4853 yards, 26 TD, 17 INT and a 89.2 rating.
Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, Peyton Manning
CaptainLaddie said:
First off, Joe Montana.
It's a good thing you didn't extrapolate Phil Simms' 1986 Superbowl appearance, where was good for a nearly perfect 150.9 passer rating.
Now, here's the thing. Only twelve quarterbacks have appeared in 3+ Superbowls.
Of those, you have Montana and Bradshaw (!) with the most exemplary performances. Aikman did very well, but the Cowboys mostly ran/blew out their opponents.
After those guys, Warner stands out ahead of Brady, Elway, Tarkenton, and Manning (among others). But that's a short list and, as you pointed, a small sample.
Go down to two appearances, and you have Steve Young and Jim Plunkett who were dominant in the Superbowl. Bart Starr was great (for his era), too.
Drop it down to individual Superbowls and you have amazing performances by Simms, Doug Williams, Delhomme, and *sigh* Jim McMahon in the Bears' obliteration of the Patriots.
His numbers in Arizona were insane in the Post Season.CaptainLaddie said:
Edit: Ofcourse Fitzgerald accounted for almost 40% of his passing yards in four of six games.
2008:
G1 - Total: 271 - Fitz: 101 - 37.2%
G2 - Total: 220 - Fitz: 166 - 75.4%!!!
G3 - Total: 279 - Fitz: 152 - 54.4%
G4 - Total: 377 - Fitz: 127 - 33.6%
2009:
G1: Total: 379 - Breston: 125 - 32.9%
G2: Total: 205 - Fitz: 77 - 37.5%
You pointed out small sample size and I think Warner benefits from not just the fact that it is a small sample size but with the weapons he had. This makes me wonder what Fitzgerald could have done for most of his career if he had even solid qb play.
Warner threw a pick 6 in the 2001 Super Bowl, as well as a pick-almost 6 that cost his team 3 points. His team lost by 3.
He also threw a pick 6 in the Pittsburgh Super Bowl, and his team lost by 4.
On what planet does that make him one of the greatest Super Bowl QBs of all time?!?!
He also threw a pick 6 in the Pittsburgh Super Bowl, and his team lost by 4.
On what planet does that make him one of the greatest Super Bowl QBs of all time?!?!
No. He shouldn't get in although he might.
Three points are really relevant here.
1. Just as in baseball, the logic of comparing candidates to the worst guy you can think of at that position already in the HoF is fundamentally flawed. Its a recipe for watering down the HoF and really just entails compounding one mistake with another. Whether Warner is better than Joe Namath or Troy Aikman isn't really relevant.
2. Total production matters in football just like in baseball. And no position is more important to stay healthy than QB, because if you get hurt, the dropoff is often huge for your team. Kurt Warner started 12+ games in four years. Not only did he have a big stretch in the middle of his career that he didn't perform well, but in several other years his frailty and penchant for holding the ball too long (which led to taking many hits) hugely undercut his team's chances of success.
3. Numbers are almost impossible to compare over time in football, so performance vis-a-vis competitors in the same era is critical. Looking at the more modern era of football, there are 5 QBs in the HoF that played most of their games and made their greatest mark in the 1970s (Staubach, Namath, Tarkenton, Bradshaw, Griese), 4 who did so in the 1980s (Fouts, Montana, Marino, I'll count both Elway and Moon as half in this decade), and another 4 for the 1990s (Kelly, Young, Aikman, half of Elway/Moon).
So where would Kurt Warner fall in the list of the best QBs that primarily made their mark in the 2000s?
Brady
Manning
Favre
Roethlisberger
Brees
Romo
Rivers
Some of these guys split decades (Favre in the 1990s/2000s, Romo and Rivers the 2000s/2010s). Still, that's already seven guys right there. The first five are basically HoF locks. Romo and Rivers are going to end up with really strong cases as well. Those two are the #2 and #6 QBs of all time by passer rating, will likely eventually climb well into the Top 10 in counting stats like TD passes, and are likely to end their careers having started somewhere between 50-100% more games than Warner. They get a huge boost over him just from aggregate production.
Basically, if a guy like Warner is going to get into the Hall, you're talking about a significant expansion of the number of QBs in this era that make the grade - close to twice as many guys from the 2000s as in some previous decades. Even though the importance of the QB position has increased over time, I can't get behind that.
Three points are really relevant here.
1. Just as in baseball, the logic of comparing candidates to the worst guy you can think of at that position already in the HoF is fundamentally flawed. Its a recipe for watering down the HoF and really just entails compounding one mistake with another. Whether Warner is better than Joe Namath or Troy Aikman isn't really relevant.
2. Total production matters in football just like in baseball. And no position is more important to stay healthy than QB, because if you get hurt, the dropoff is often huge for your team. Kurt Warner started 12+ games in four years. Not only did he have a big stretch in the middle of his career that he didn't perform well, but in several other years his frailty and penchant for holding the ball too long (which led to taking many hits) hugely undercut his team's chances of success.
3. Numbers are almost impossible to compare over time in football, so performance vis-a-vis competitors in the same era is critical. Looking at the more modern era of football, there are 5 QBs in the HoF that played most of their games and made their greatest mark in the 1970s (Staubach, Namath, Tarkenton, Bradshaw, Griese), 4 who did so in the 1980s (Fouts, Montana, Marino, I'll count both Elway and Moon as half in this decade), and another 4 for the 1990s (Kelly, Young, Aikman, half of Elway/Moon).
So where would Kurt Warner fall in the list of the best QBs that primarily made their mark in the 2000s?
Brady
Manning
Favre
Roethlisberger
Brees
Romo
Rivers
Some of these guys split decades (Favre in the 1990s/2000s, Romo and Rivers the 2000s/2010s). Still, that's already seven guys right there. The first five are basically HoF locks. Romo and Rivers are going to end up with really strong cases as well. Those two are the #2 and #6 QBs of all time by passer rating, will likely eventually climb well into the Top 10 in counting stats like TD passes, and are likely to end their careers having started somewhere between 50-100% more games than Warner. They get a huge boost over him just from aggregate production.
Basically, if a guy like Warner is going to get into the Hall, you're talking about a significant expansion of the number of QBs in this era that make the grade - close to twice as many guys from the 2000s as in some previous decades. Even though the importance of the QB position has increased over time, I can't get behind that.
Devizier said:
Well, Anderson really should be in the HoF. He's by far the best eligible QB who hasn't been inducted, and his career compares favorably to a lot of guys already in. If Warner was as good as Ken Anderson, he should be an easy "yes" vote.
Looking at Warner's career rate stats will understate his value because his career had such an odd arc. His case is all peak value and career rates including his non-peak years won't properly show how high his peak was. Warner may have a similar career ANY/A+ to Romo, but the shape of the distribution is totally different. Warner had three seasons of 130 or better; Romo doesn't have any (highest is 127). Warner has 3 seasons in the Top 50 all-time by ANY/A+ (well, going back to 1969 when ANY/A data begins); Romo has one (69th--this year) in the Top 100. Warner has as many Top-50 ANY/A+ seasons as anyone except Peyton Manning. At his 99-01 peak he was a legit all-time great, and he tacked on enough good years in Arizona to give his career some more depth. It's a pretty unique case.
Scott Kacsmar wrote a lengthy article on this subject last summer, arguing the yes side: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/kurt-warner-hall-fame-case
Chase Stuart ranked Warner as the 34th best QB of all-time, which suggests borderline no: http://www.footballperspective.com/the-greatest-qb-of-all-time-v-part-ii-career-rankings/
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
It depends on how you weight peak vs career, but I'm a peak guy and I would take Warner over Roethlisberger, Romo, and Rivers in a heartbeat (based on career to date for the last three guys).. Warner only played 12+ games in four seasons, but in two of those seasons he won the MVP and in three of them he made the Super Bowl.
coremiller said:
Its definitely a unique case. The thing is that he had three great years but relatively few "good" ones and then a shockingly large number where he contributed little or even negative value to his team due to some combination of injury, poor play, or riding the bench.
Also notable: The Greatest Show on Turf was one of the most loaded teams of all time and other QBs had as much success running that offense as he did when given the chance. Warner's passer rating in 2000 was less than Trent Green's. His passer rating in 2002 was less (in fact, waaaaaay less) than Marc Bulger's.
coremiller said:
Given that both Trent Green and Marc Bulger had passer ratings over 100 (both higher than Warner in those respective seasons) when given the reins to the Greatest Show on Turf, what do you think Roethlisberger, Romo, or Rivers would have done with that offense?
Obviously these are hypotheticals. But I think the contextual offensive talent really matters in considering Warner's peak. Usually there's no way to assess how an average starting QB would fare with the same talent around him but in this case we actually can do that, because it happened twice.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]Green was an excellent QB in his own right, who had a lot of success in KC. He was much better than mediocre. Warner's issue in 2002 was that he played hurt a lot of the year.[/SIZE]
If there's a knock on Warner's 99-01 peak, it's that the NFC West sucked at the time and as a result the Rams played some very easy schedules, which padded Warner's stats. Football Outsiders ranks their the defensive schedule strength in 99-01 as 31st, 27th, and 23rd. That might be enough to knock down his peak from "all-time great" to merely "excellent", in which case his case starts to fall apart.
coremiller said:
Yeah, I previously edited that mediocre characterization, having forgotten how well Trent Green did in KC for a few years. Still, nobody is confusing Trent Green with a Hall of Famer and so if he and Marc Bulger could put up huge numbers akin to Warners with the Greatest Show on Turf (albeit in smaller samples), in my book that still pretty fatally undercuts a HoF argument that is based almost exclusively on peak production. I didn't know that about the defensive strength of schedule but that also seems relevant to me.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
That still underrates Green -- he was a Top 5 ANY/A passer four years in a row (2002-2005) in KC. He was basically as good as Romo/Rivers/Roethlisberger. He was just a late bloomer who didn't become a starter until 28, promptly blew out his knee and lost his job to Warner, and then didn't get his own team until he was 31. Then he was really good from ages 32-36 before injuries ended his career. He's not close to HoF level because his peak wasn't high enough to get in on peak value alone and he had no longevity, but if he had played for 10-12 years at his 02-05 level he probably would be an HOF candidate. His career is one of the great what-ifs in football history -- he might have had Warner's career if he didn't blow out his knee.
Bulger was a decent player who had some success, but he never came close to matching Warner's 99-01 run with the GSoT except in 02, when he only played in 7 games (SSS).
coremiller said:
Fair enough about Green having a good stretch for a few years. Still, if Warner's argument comes down to peak, yet he basically wasn't any better in the 1999-2002 window than Green (a guy who was maybe somewhere around the 4th-8th best QB in the league for 4-5 years but never had a really impressive peak) or Bulger, then I think his case is pretty weak.
Its hard to evaluate how much numerical success of QBs is due to contextual talent, but I think its one of the big questions that have to be asked, especially when thinking about "peak" seasons that might also just have coincided with a perfect storm around that QB of talent, coaching, schedule, health, and luck. Daunte Culpepper had a pretty sick statistical peak too, but I don't think it was really indicative of his ability.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
Hey, don't diss Culpepper. I know the CW is that basically he was a product of Randy Moss, but in Culpepper's best season, 2004, Moss missed three games and only had 49 catches for 767 yards (albeit with 13 TDs).. And the leading rusher was Onterrio Smith with 544 yards. Culpepper was by some distance the 2nd best QB in the league that season even without including his considerable rushing value (88/406), with the 24th best ANY/A of all time. It's just that nobody noticed because Manning had the best QB season of all time the same year.