This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I don't think he had too many injuries during that stretch, at least not in 2004, 2006, and 2007. It was more the case in those years that teams decided they wanted to go with their young QBs of the future over Warner - Eli and Leinart. That Leinart decision obviously was a mistake, and I'm sure if the Cards had it to do over, knowing what they know now, they would have played Warner full time in 2006 and 2007. The Eli decision has worked out, but Warner was actually playing reasonably well when they pulled him for Eli... the team didn't have a good record and wasn't going to the playoffs, so the Giants decided to get Eli some experience down the stretch that season.
depends how you define high level of success.Kerry Collins - Pro Bowl with Carolina and Tennessee, did fairly well as a GiantVinny Testaverde - Pro Bowl with Baltimore and NY JetsThere are others, these came to mind immediately. If the HOF was just about elite production over a short period of time or "best years", this wouldn't be a discussion. As it is, it's very much debatable.Lets not forget just how bad Warner looked in 2005 and 2006 while in AZ. His problem wasn't injuries there, he didn't have the protection he was accustomed to in St. Louis - don't forget he not only had the premier RB and two elite WRs, he also had one of the premier LTs of the time and an otherwise strong OL. Bottom line on Warner, give him time and great WRs and he's one of the best QBs ever. Give him lesser WRs and less time and he struggles. You can say the same about most QBs, but he seems to be more extreme.Brock Middlebrook said:
AAFC counts, too. See Marion Motley.Doug B said:
He put up QB ratings of 85.8 in '05 and 89.3 in '06. I would say that you have to be a pretty damn good quarterback for someone to say that you looked really bad in those years.Warner is a lock.
Really?
FIXED
Warner had 11 games of 250+ yards in 15 starts between 05 and 06. I would hardly call that "bad."
Agree on the fumbling. Do you have a good source for fumbles lost? PFR shows Warner with 93 career fumbles, but doesn't show how many were lost. ESPN's player page shows him with just 27 career fumbles, with 9 lost... obviously those numbers are wrong (too low). Regardless, we know he fumbled a lot.On the other points, it depends on what you are doing. If you are making an all time list of QBs, those things certainly may come into play. But in general we are discussing Warner's HOF candidacy, and I don't think that necessarily requires slotting him into an all time list.We can see that his performance compares favorably to others of his own era... no era adjustment required.As for SOS, unless compiling all time ranks, I don't think it matters much. This goes back to a point I make often in HOF discussions. Players are judged for what they accomplished, not for what they might have accomplished (whether better or worse) under different circumstances. Warner played the schedule he was given and performed extremely well in doing so. It is nothing but speculation to suggest that he would have done better or worse with a different schedule.
You of all people should know that's hardly what makes a QB good.
Do Comp%, YPA, and QB rating make a QB good?
So pick something else instead of yards.His passer ratings were 85.8 and 89.3.
I looked up the AP OPOY award, and I believe there have been 4 players who won multiple times: Campbell, Sanders, Faulk, and Davis. Obviously, the first three are in the HOF or will be in the HOF. I agree, this is a very strong point in Davis's favor.However, I think the MVP is the premier award in the NFL. IMO 2 MVPs > 1 MVP and 2 OPOYs. I'll just agree to disagree on this point.Chase Stuart said:
From NFL.com: 93 fumbles, 40 lost.By comparison, Favre has 157 fumbles (63 lost), Brees has 50 fumbles (19 lost), Manning has 53 fumbles (17 lost) and Brady has 67 fumbles (31 lost).
But you have to recognize that the MVP is given out to QBs on a hugely disproportionate basis. So when comparing Warner to Davis, that must be considered.
Werewolf Moderator Fan said:
I know we can't play the IF game, but he is a time expiring 48yds FG and an amazing 38 seconds left to go TD catch away from sitting on 3 Super Bowls RINGS.2 OUTSTANDING pressure packed last seconds plays to hand him 2 super bowl losses.He essentially walked of the field on both losses, giving his team the win.Not like he got to the biggest game on the biggest stage,and laid a goose egg.24/46 414yds 97.1 rating 2 TD's 0 INT WIN28/44 365yds 78.3 rating 1 TD 2 INT +1rushing TD LOSS 31/43 377yds 112.3 rating 3TD's 1 INT LOSSI am the 1st to say, he was stacked with talent around him, he sucked for a good portion of his career, etc....As far as I go, I am just giving him his due.
Here's the thing, you can't say that about Peyton Manning because aside from his rookie year he's never had a truly bad year or looked lost for any stretch of time. Sure he had Marvin most of his career, but even without Marvin he's done well. Warner's stats look okay for the most part but if you watched those games the QB I saw did not warrant HOF discussion. Brett Favre struggled a few years but he still didn't look as bad as Warner did during that time - and he's done it a lot longer.
Your bolded statement seems kind of strange. Seems like you are either saying Davis is definitely top 2, and hence ahead of all those guys other than Emmitt, or you're saying he could be as low as 8th best. Which is it?Second, it isn't necessarily a given that the top postseason RB of all time is as good as or better than the top nth postseason QB of all time. The positions aren't necessarily equal in impact. But that seems to be what you imply with your "push at best" statement.Chase Stuart said:
PFR has fumbles recovered, which is almost as good. Fumbles lost = fumbles - fumbles recovered - fumbles recovered that were the result of another player's fumble. You might even prefer to use (fumbles - fumbles recovered) to look at how Warner's fumbling hurt his teams, because this at least gives him credit for recovering a fumble by Marshall Faulk, too. I think an era adjustment is still required. The NFL is not static -- you can't compare Warner to Steve Young or Warner to Brett Favre or Warner to whomever without an era adjustment. The 2008 season was quite a bit different than the '02 season. Also, it's unfair to use career per game stats for guys who had ugly early seasons while Warner was out of the league, to Warner. It's certainly not as egregious as when comparing him to older QBs, but I think a era adjustment is always worth it.As for SOS and weather, I disagree. It's not about speculation that he would have done worse with a different schedule; it's that if another QB does nearly as well against a tougher defense, that QB deserves more credit than Warner. Similarly, someone who plays well in the cold outdoors deserves a bit more credit than Warner.
they indicate success. Are you saying Warner produced HOF worthy stats using those during 2002-2006?
I understand that. But I also consider the fact that the QB position is more important on the field than the RB position. I'm sure there have been cases where QBs have undeservedly won MVPs, but, in general, I think it makes sense that they have won the most. And, more specifically, I think Warner deserved his MVPs. Do you think he didn't deserve one or both?
If Peyton Manning and Brett Favre are the standards for HOF then there's an entire wing at Canton that they need to start clearing out, and there will only be about 5 QBs left in the HOF when they're done. Kurt Warner doesn't have to match Favre and Manning to cement his place in the HOF. He compares favorably to both comtemporaries and existing HOFers alike. I don't know why you are so hung up on the few years where Warner's numbers were just above average instead of all world. His accomplishments are so other-wordly that a few 'down' years aren't going to sabotage his bid to make the HOF. As David and I tried to point out to you, the most telling metrics for QBs are YPA, Comp%, and QB rating, and Warner's are among the best of ALL time. And he has done it with multiple teams and over a long enough period of time now to make the stat compiler crowd happy as well. We're not talking about a guy who just did it for a couple seasons and then stopped. His resume is solid.
Not really.Warner has 93 fumbles and 19 fumbles recovered. He's had 3717 passes and 244 sacks. That's 1.9 net fumbles per dropback; Brady is at 1.3; Favre 1.2; Brees 1.0; Manning 0.6.
Good stuff, thanks.To be fair:
Warner - 93 fumbles, 40 lost in 113 games. Roughly 0.82 fumbles per game, losing .35 per gameFavre - 157 fumbles, 63 lost in 277 games. Roughly 0.57 fumbles per game, losing .23 per game
A pretty good case could be made that Faulk deserved them over Bruce.If you want to say QBs are more important, that's fine. Most people feel QBs are overrepresented in the Hall as it is, and I disagree. On a relative basis, though, I think TD is probably a more deserving HOF RB than Warner a HOF QB. But that's not inconsistent with saying Warner is a more deserving HOF candidate, so I agree with you there.
You've really twisted this around. You started this thread of the conversation by emphasizing that Warner was bad in 2005 & 2006. Now, when you've been called on it, you defend your statement by suggesting his play in those years was not HOF caliber. Guess what? There's a big spectrum between bad play and HOF caliber play.
I'm saying what you should already know:that Warner's career Comp% is over 65%! (2nd all-time and yes ahead of Manning-Young-Marino-Montana-Etc.)
Apparently you are ignoring Manning's postseason play.
Chase, I think the bottom line is that you attempt to distill everything into a number that can be compared. Most people don't approach everything that way. IMO your statement about SOS and weather is a great example. I don't think anyone who will be voting for the HOF will consider Warner and detract from his case because they think he faced an easier schedule or had better weather than other HOF QBs.Similarly, I don't think an era adjustment is required. One can look at the numbers and know he has been an all time great QB and know that he has been one of the few best of his era. No one needs to compare him to Steve Young or any earlier QBs to know these things, and it is perfectly fine IMO to compare him to Favre without worrying about an adjustment. This is an intuitive understanding that does not require distilling everything into a number for fair comparison.Again, I'll just agree to disagree with you on these things.
When the OP wants to make a QB a "lock", he has to be compared to the true locks and Warner clearly comes up short when compared to the true HOF locks - Peyton, Favre, and Brady. The locks are the guys no voter should even think twice about.
Warner's career completion percentage is also behind Chad Pennington's. And Warner also missed the "bad" years that many QBs have. If you adjust for era, he's 8th all-time in comp %: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/WGGsS
touche!I think this is where Warner has cemented his place in NFL history. He has performed at a high level in post season play on an unprecedented level. In this regard he has already surpassed or at the very least joined many of the all-time great QBs. Even if you don't look at the Super Bowl record stats, just the memory of Warner playing such a significant role in three of the greatest Super Bowls is firmly planted in our memories...
Isn't Favre the all-time leader in INTS? And he's a sure of a lock as anybody that's ever played.
Consider his contemporaries that are being discussed here as HOF locks (and deservedly so) and how they have played in the postseason. Warner has definitely been better than Favre and Manning. Brady has been great, but he and Warner are very close... Warner averages more yards and TDs per game and has a significantly better QB rating... but Brady has the extra rings and played very well under pressure. I think Warner's strong postseason play too often gets overlooked in these discussions.
this is a point I'm willing to concede. He's done well here and he probably gets in because of it. I would still like to see him do well without the elite talent around him, but perhaps I'm being picky and defining "lock" differently than it should be. IMO, a lock is one of the best all-time, a player who has extremely few flaws and has shown to be consistently among the best in the game. Warner lacks that consistency but the positives probably outweigh that and we need to think about Warner's career in a different way than most QBs. Also perhaps I'm remembering his play during that time as worse than the stats indicate because I watched quite a few of his games wondering what happened to the guy. I've been happy to see hi come back but I just can't list him as one of the QBs I'd rate in the top 10 all time despite what his stats show.Consider his contemporaries that are being discussed here as HOF locks (and deservedly so) and how they have played in the postseason. Warner has definitely been better than Favre and Manning. Brady has been great, but he and Warner are very close... Warner averages more yards and TDs per game and has a significantly better QB rating... but Brady has the extra rings and played very well under pressure. I think Warner's strong postseason play too often gets overlooked in these discussions.
god I wish that weren't so GD funny
Add:3rd best single-game comp -- 87.9% -- in a playoff game, actually the best among QBs with 30+ attempts.
