What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

Who is the better HOF candidate right now? (1 Viewer)

Does McNabb belong in the HOF right now

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Warner over McNabb easily. Warner would get in if he retired today.

Warner is Dan Fouts reincarnated. He has a better playoff record, SuperBowls, MVP's and probably better numbers then Fouts who is already in Canton, but I'd have to check on that. He would have earned himself another MVP if he didn't flame out this December.

McNabb is a very good QB, I just can't get passed his inability to make medium range throws and throwing up the Superbowl. Granted, he never had any remotely good receiving weapons other then TO for one year. With TO he was amazing. It makes you wonder what he could do with anybody even close to his (TO's) talent level, but you can't play what if's when it comes to stats.

 
the correct answer is neither
I was never a fan of this response -- I think when you ask "who of these two is a better candidate", you can think neither should touch the hall and still be able to answer as to which is closer (even if he is miles away). :shrug:
 
Warner is a much better story without even considering any of the statistics. He is a Disney movie waiting to happen.

 
buster c said:
the correct answer is neither
Really? So what does a QB have to do to earn the HOF in your opinion?
Have more than 3 or 4 good/great seasons? I don't see how anyone can think Warner gets in right now. 99, 01 and 08. Outside of those years, Warner was average to above average. Granted, those first 2 years were ridiculous, but I think it should take more than that to make the hall.
 
buster c said:
the correct answer is neither
Really? So what does a QB have to do to earn the HOF in your opinion?
Have more than 3 or 4 good/great seasons? I don't see how anyone can think Warner gets in right now. 99, 01 and 08. Outside of those years, Warner was average to above average. Granted, those first 2 years were ridiculous, but I think it should take more than that to make the hall.
I'm not directing this at you jasvic, but this does bring up a good question. How many years of 'great' has to happen before HOF is considered? 5? 6? 7?
 
buster c said:
the correct answer is neither
Really? So what does a QB have to do to earn the HOF in your opinion?
Have more than 3 or 4 good/great seasons? I don't see how anyone can think Warner gets in right now. 99, 01 and 08. Outside of those years, Warner was average to above average. Granted, those first 2 years were ridiculous, but I think it should take more than that to make the hall.
I'm not directing this at you jasvic, but this does bring up a good question. How many years of 'great' has to happen before HOF is considered? 5? 6? 7?
Good question. What bothered me about Warner specifically, was people thinking he should get in BEFORE his recent success in Arizona. This is after the average and bad seasons he had in various places after his good 3 year run. With his recent resurgence, I think he can still build a case for the hall.If he had strung together 3000ish yards and 20ish TDs from '02-'06 I'd be on board...but he didn't. At that point to me, it looked like he was a bit of a fluke or product of the system and surrounding talent or whatever.

 
I bleed Eagles green, but voted Warner and it's not really close. Others have said it...2 SB appearances, 1 SB ring, 1 SB MVP, 2 league MVPs, and his success the last two years in Arizona obviates the idea that he was in the right place at the perfect time in STL.

 
buster c said:
the correct answer is neither
Really? So what does a QB have to do to earn the HOF in your opinion?
Have more than 3 or 4 good/great seasons? I don't see how anyone can think Warner gets in right now. 99, 01 and 08. Outside of those years, Warner was average to above average. Granted, those first 2 years were ridiculous, but I think it should take more than that to make the hall.
Warner was awesome in '00 and pretty good in '07. Can't discount those years, IMO.
 
buster c said:
the correct answer is neither
Really? So what does a QB have to do to earn the HOF in your opinion?
Have more than 3 or 4 good/great seasons? I don't see how anyone can think Warner gets in right now. 99, 01 and 08. Outside of those years, Warner was average to above average. Granted, those first 2 years were ridiculous, but I think it should take more than that to make the hall.
Warner was awesome in '00 and pretty good in '07. Can't discount those years, IMO.
3400 yards, 21 TD and 18 INT is not what I consider awesome. But those are the kinds of years I'd like to have seen between 02-06 to give him consideration.
 
buster c said:
the correct answer is neither
Really? So what does a QB have to do to earn the HOF in your opinion?
Have more than 3 or 4 good/great seasons? I don't see how anyone can think Warner gets in right now. 99, 01 and 08. Outside of those years, Warner was average to above average. Granted, those first 2 years were ridiculous, but I think it should take more than that to make the hall.
Warner was awesome in '00 and pretty good in '07. Can't discount those years, IMO.
3400 yards, 21 TD and 18 INT is not what I consider awesome. But those are the kinds of years I'd like to have seen between 02-06 to give him consideration.
I'm guessing 3400 yards and 27 TD and 3400 and 21 from 2000 would be considered better than pretty good when you consider Warner only started 11 games in each of those seasons.
 
In the other thread that started this one, people dismissed McNabb's shortened seasons. I don't see why Warner is made an exception for that. He missed time and didn't have a complete season, so I don't reward him for it.

As for last season, while he started 11 games, he had significant playing time in 13 of them, so saying only 11 games is misleading.

 
In the other thread that started this one, people dismissed McNabb's shortened seasons. I don't see why Warner is made an exception for that. He missed time and didn't have a complete season, so I don't reward him for it.As for last season, while he started 11 games, he had significant playing time in 13 of them, so saying only 11 games is misleading.
So count him for 3700 yards and 27 TD in 13 games if you want. Those passing totals (in 13 games) are better than every single McNabb season except for his 2004 campaign.
 
I'm not trying to compare the two. I voted no to both and that Warner is closer if they both retired today. I'm just saying, if people want to dismiss McNabb's shortened seasons, then do the same for other players.

 
I'm not trying to compare the two. I voted no to both and that Warner is closer if they both retired today. I'm just saying, if people want to dismiss McNabb's shortened seasons, then do the same for other players.
Counting all of their seasons equally for both players and using completions, passing yards, passing TD, passer rating, and YPA as categories.Top 10 seasons in those categories for McNabb:3 + 2 + 4 + 5 + 2 = 16Top 10 seasons in those categories for Warner:3 + 3 + 5 + 5 + 5 = 21And that's with McNabb playing in 24 more games.
 
Again.

I'm not trying to compare the two. I voted no to both and that Warner is closer if they both retired today. I'm just saying, if people want to dismiss McNabb's shortened seasons, then do the same for other players.
 
Again.

I'm not trying to compare the two. I voted no to both and that Warner is closer if they both retired today. I'm just saying, if people want to dismiss McNabb's shortened seasons, then do the same for other players.
I am aware of your particular position, but for the benefit of others that MAY BE comparing the two (since they were grouped together in this thread) I pointed out some pertinent information for the rest of the masses. My point was that counting Warner's shortened seasons and playing in a season and a half fewer games he still was able to rank in the key passing categories more times than McNabb did.To be fair to McNabb, he certainly has had better rushing numbers than Warner and McNabb's winning percentage as a starter trumps Warner.

 
Warner/Warner/No/No

Only one I missed according to groupthink was Warner's HOF membership. I think the guy's good and all, but not sure he gets my fictional vote to the Hall.

 
I don't get it. McNabb has significantly more yards & TD's and fewer Int's than Warner. He has always been in a way tougher division than Warner. Mcnabb has never had a receiver where as Warner went from Bruce & Holt to Boldin & Fitzgerald. McNabb is the better player and IMO a better HOF candidate.

Not only does McNabb have better (and more consistent) passing numbers, he has also rushed for over 3000 yards and 31 TD's to Warner’s 250 and 3. McNabb has also fumbled almost 20 times less than Warner.

The one year he had a decent receiver to throw the ball to he took the eagles to the SB. The fact that he lost to one of the NFL's most elite franchises ever does not tarnish his accomplishment IMO.

The way I see it Warner has had 3-4 HOF quality seasons and he has the hardware (MVP & SB) as a result. McNabb is the more deserving candidate if you look at overall career impact.

 
I don't get it. McNabb has significantly more yards & TD's and fewer Int's than Warner. He has always been in a way tougher division than Warner. Mcnabb has never had a receiver where as Warner went from Bruce & Holt to Boldin & Fitzgerald. McNabb is the better player and IMO a better HOF candidate.

Not only does McNabb have better (and more consistent) passing numbers, he has also rushed for over 3000 yards and 31 TD's to Warner’s 250 and 3. McNabb has also fumbled almost 20 times less than Warner.

The one year he had a decent receiver to throw the ball to he took the eagles to the SB. The fact that he lost to one of the NFL's most elite franchises ever does not tarnish his accomplishment IMO.

The way I see it Warner has had 3-4 HOF quality seasons and he has the hardware (MVP & SB) as a result. McNabb is the more deserving candidate if you look at overall career impact.
That hardware goes a lot farther for me than it seems to do for you. McNabb's career impact is zilch. His career numbers may be better, but without the title he's on the outside looking in.
 
buster c said:
the correct answer is neither
Really? So what does a QB have to do to earn the HOF in your opinion?
Have more than 3 or 4 good/great seasons? I don't see how anyone can think Warner gets in right now. 99, 01 and 08. Outside of those years, Warner was average to above average. Granted, those first 2 years were ridiculous, but I think it should take more than that to make the hall.
:goodposting: pretty much sums it up.

oh, and if you ever held a clipboard for Matt Leinhart, you're automatically inelligible :bye:

 
I don't get it. McNabb has significantly more yards & TD's and fewer Int's than Warner. He has always been in a way tougher division than Warner. Mcnabb has never had a receiver where as Warner went from Bruce & Holt to Boldin & Fitzgerald. McNabb is the better player and IMO a better HOF candidate. Not only does McNabb have better (and more consistent) passing numbers, he has also rushed for over 3000 yards and 31 TD's to Warner’s 250 and 3. McNabb has also fumbled almost 20 times less than Warner. The one year he had a decent receiver to throw the ball to he took the eagles to the SB. The fact that he lost to one of the NFL's most elite franchises ever does not tarnish his accomplishment IMO. The way I see it Warner has had 3-4 HOF quality seasons and he has the hardware (MVP & SB) as a result. McNabb is the more deserving candidate if you look at overall career impact.
Personally I would probably not vote for either of these guys for the HOF, but Warner would be higher on my list. But comparing them:However, Warner ranks 1st ALL TIME in passing yards per game. What makes that stat even more incredible is that he's only started 101 of the 110 games he's played in. His totals include games with 0, 2, 2, 2, and 9 attempts along with 5 others in the 10-15 attempts range.Warner's other ALL TIME ranks include 5th in YPA, 3rd in Adjusted YPA, 2nd in Completion %, and 4th in passer rating.McNabb in the same all time categories ranks 18th in passing yards per game, 120th in YPA, 22nd in Adjusted YPA, 41st in Completion %, and 18th in passer rating.I am sure people will point to Holt, Bruce, Boldin, and Fitgerald as to why Warner has done so well, but the same argument could be made in reverse . . . that Warner has been the driving force as to why these guys put up such lofty numbers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My "superficial" response is that Warner's ability to get "it" back in 07/08 has a significant impact on how I look at him. Otherwise he's just a guy that found some magic for three years.

 
I can see why some say neither. McNabb has had some very good seasons and a few, mainly due to injury, fairly poor. Warner, 2 great years and another very good one in 2008. Warner`s other seasons have been so/so. Guess if you had to chose one it comes down to consistancy (McNabb) or shooting star years(Warner).

 
I am sure people will point to Holt, Bruce, Boldin, and Fitgerald as to why Warner has done so well, but the same argument could be made in reverse . . . that Warner has been the driving force as to why these guys put up such lofty numbers.
That is a common argument. But, I think just watching the games offers a good argument against it. Warner is extremely accurate. Combining Warner's amazing accuracy with quality receivers who will catch anything leads to great numbers.Everyone raves, rightly so, about Fitz's TD catch last week but few mention that it was pretty much a perfect pass; anywhere else and that ball's incomplete or intercepted.In Warner's 5 great seasons (99, 00, 01, 07, 08) he averaged 323-488-4122-31-17 (that's a 66.2 completion %). And he only stared 11 games in 2000 and 11 in 2007. His 16-game average in those seasons is 354-535-4518-34-18. He made 4 PBs in those 5 years and was All Pro twice (assuming he doesn't make AP this year). Not to mention the 2 MVPs, SB ring, and SB MVP.That's a five-season average that compares favorably to anyone in his era. Five seasons won't be enough for some and for others it will. It's a shame he had so many wasted years, both before the NFL and in the NFL.
 
I know this thread is about right now, but I think there is still a chance Warner will be Arizona's starter next season, and maybe even beyond that. If so, he will presumably continue in the same kind of offense, with the same high caliber targets. So for those who are thinking Warner has only had a few great seasons, he may still add to that total.

 
SP getting it right :thumbup:

Better HOF candidateIf their careers ended this year, who is more deserving for the HOF?Kurt Warner [ 99 ] ** [86.84%]Donovan McNabb [ 15 ] ** [13.16%]When their careers are over (assuming McNabb's will be longer), who do you think will be more deserving for the HOF?Kurt Warner [ 85 ] ** [74.56%]Donovan McNabb [ 29 ] ** [25.44%]Does Warner belong in the HOF right now?Yes [ 77 ] ** [67.54%]No [ 37 ] ** [32.46%]Does McNabb belong in the HOF right nowYes [ 14 ] ** [12.28%]No [ 100 ] ** [87.72%]
 
The problem I have when factoring in WR's in the picture is this.

There are QB's in the HOF that didn't have elite WR's. They still made it in.

There are QB's not in the HOF who had elite WR's. Fitz, Boldin, Bruce, and Holt are not the only elite WR's to play. Not every QB that has quality WR's can put up the #'s Warner did.

Warner may have lucked into some of his situations that created a perfect environment to put up big #'s. That shouldn't be held against him because the fact is he took full advantage of it and put up eye-popping #'s. And let's not go crazy here about him and how good his situation is in Arizona. If it were that easy to do it with Fitz/Boldin, then Leinart would be the starting QB. Sure, you could put in quite a few starting NFL QB's in Arizona and they could do well, but Warner was elite. What else is he supposed to do?

In the 2nd half of 2007, Warner threw for more TDs than Brady in his record breaking season. He threw for 27TDs last year (and 21 TDs in the last 8 games) despite only starting 11 games all year. He followed that up with another 4600/30/14 year. McNabb's best seasons pale in comparison to Warner's. His accomplishments in terms of hardware (MVP's, SB ring, etc) don't even compare. And aside from a couple pretty good seasons, McNabb has been essentially "above average".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure either is a HOFer, but I'm guessing McNabb on turf or in AZ for all these years and we'd be talking about a sure-fire HOFer. Warner playing in the cold against the NFC East on a yearly basis, on the other hand, would produce much different results. As a matter of fact, it did, when Warner threw for 6 TDs and 2000 yards (with 12 fumbles) in 10 games for the Giants in '04. His YPA, completion %, and QB rating were all well below his career average, and he was healthy and 5 years younger than he is now.

 
Interesting debate here. The Cardinals MB has a topic in which I've weighed in basically asking "Is Warner a HOF now?".

My vote is no. My vote is no for McNabb as well. But with that said, McNabb is 32 and I'm not sure how many QB's will secure HOF membership by that age. he still could have 4-5 years of good career left to make his mark.

I think the Warner HOF question could be one of the best in history though. Before I look at his credentials though, let's look at the QB's who are in the HOF who played in the last 25 years, their records & winning percentage:

Aikman (94-71, 57%)

Bradshaw (107-51, 68%)

Fouts (86-84-1, 51%)

Kelly (101-59, 63%)

Marino (147-93, 61%)

Montana (117-47, 71%)

Moon (102-101, 50%)

Young (94-49, 66%)

Let's also include the 3 shoo-ins from this generation.

Favre (169-100,63%)

Manning (117-59, 66%)

Brady (87-24, 78%)

For one, there seem to be two rules of QB's in the HOF that have been established.

1) If you are QB of a dynasty, you're in. Fact is, people already are punching Tom Brady's ticket and his stats are not HOF yet. It's prettyt much the reason Aikman is in. His career was good and he was a solid QB, but the 3 SB's in 4 years and being the man under center for those

2) You have to be extraoridinarily prolific over a long period of time. Alot of people question Fouts, but he retired as the #2 passer in NFL history (yardage) and ranked 4th in TD's thrown. He was Marino before Marino. Along with Bradshaw, he's also the longest of tooth on this list.

The two most questionable names on this list IMO are Kelly & Moon. The interesting commonality about both QB's is that they had pro careers before they had NFL careers and starred in their respective leagues. if you take into account the production they put together on those stints, their careers stand out even more.

With Moon, I believe his career carries a degree social significance as well given he was not seen originally as being able to play QB in the NFL due in part because he's black. His journey of having to ply his trade in the CFL and ripping up that league for 5-6 years before being given the reins to an NFL team really bolstered his candidacy.

When you look at Warner now, here is what I see working against him:

1) Is he prolific? Yes. But his winning percentage as a starter in 56%. Only Aikman, Fouts and Moon are in the 50's. Aikman supporters could argue that his 0-11 rookie year is difficult to count against him. In all, Warner has won 57 regular season games. That's a real low number for someone you vote in to the HOF.

2) He went through a 5 year stretch in a 10 year career where his record was 8-23. He averaged 1.6 wins/season.

3) When I look at the profile of the types of QB's being voted into the HOF in the last 25 years and who'll be going in, they seem to be cut & dry choices. QB's don't linger on the ballot long. It's the easiest position to make a firm determination of someone's inclusion or exclusion. If you find yourself debating too hard and too long on a QB, that's usually a signal that he won;t get in. I suspect Warner is in this category. With that said, he could be the anamoly given his absolutely incredible story of how he got to where he is.

4) When people look at who Warner played with, they'll see Holt, Bruce, Faulk, Boldin, Fitzgerald as his weapons. Did he make them, or did they make him? The STL contingent are probably all HOF bound. It's too early to tell on Fitz & Boldin, but they certainly have the talent and career arc. While other great QB's had great talent around them too, they never allowed another QB to exploit that talent. All 5 of those guys were either playing at an elite level before or after Warner.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In a way, Warner's and Terrell Davis' careers are similar. Both, so far, have very few great years compared to others at their position. But, both had extremely high peaks and great post season success. I believe Davis has been in the 25 finalists the last two years, so I fully expect Warner (even without another good season) to get the same or better.

 
In a way, Warner's and Terrell Davis' careers are similar. Both, so far, have very few great years compared to others at their position. But, both had extremely high peaks and great post season success. I believe Davis has been in the 25 finalists the last two years, so I fully expect Warner (even without another good season) to get the same or better.
I was going to mention Davis as a comparison, but didn't realize how short of a peak and career he had. In 4 years he had good, very and really good, and awesome...then crap and retired. If he could have stayed healthy he would have been a lock, but since he couldn't, I don't think he's even close to HOF.
 
There are QB's in the HOF that didn't have elite WR's. They still made it in.
Modern era HOF QBs and their HOF receivers (whether WR, TE, or a great receiving HB):Troy Aikman - Michael IrvinGeorge Blanda - HOFer for more than just his QB playTerry Bradshaw - Lynn Swan, John StallworthLen Dawson - noneJohn Elway - Shannon Sharpe is a lockDan Fouts - Charlie Joiner, Kellen WinslowOtto Graham - Dante LavelliBob Griese - Paul WarfieldSonny Jurgensen - Charley Taylor, Bobby MitchellJim Kelly - James Lofton, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed has a shot one dayBobby Layne - noneDan Marino - noneJoe Montana - Jerry Rice is a lockWarren Moon - noneJoe Namath - Don MaynardBart Starr - noneRoger Staubach - Jackie SmithFran Tarkenton - noneY.A. Tittle - Frank Gifford, Joe Perry, Hugh McElhenneyJohnny Unitas - Raymond Berry, John Mackey, Lenny MooreNorm Van Brocklin - Tom Fears, Elroy HirschBob Waterfield - Tom Fears, Elroy HirschSteve Young - Jerry RiceI don't claim that this is all 100% correct or that these guys played together during significant portions of each others careers. But, it appears for the most part that HOF passers are linked with HOF receivers.
 
In a way, Warner's and Terrell Davis' careers are similar. Both, so far, have very few great years compared to others at their position. But, both had extremely high peaks and great post season success. I believe Davis has been in the 25 finalists the last two years, so I fully expect Warner (even without another good season) to get the same or better.
I was going to mention Davis as a comparison, but didn't realize how short of a peak and career he had. In 4 years he had good, very and really good, and awesome...then crap and retired. If he could have stayed healthy he would have been a lock, but since he couldn't, I don't think he's even close to HOF.
But he's probably, along with Emmitt Smith, the greatest post season RB in the SB era. Not one bad, or even average, game.
 
There are QB's in the HOF that didn't have elite WR's. They still made it in.
Modern era HOF QBs and their HOF receivers (whether WR, TE, or a great receiving HB):Troy Aikman - Michael IrvinGeorge Blanda - HOFer for more than just his QB playTerry Bradshaw - Lynn Swan, John StallworthLen Dawson - noneJohn Elway - Shannon Sharpe is a lockDan Fouts - Charlie Joiner, Kellen WinslowOtto Graham - Dante LavelliBob Griese - Paul WarfieldSonny Jurgensen - Charley Taylor, Bobby MitchellJim Kelly - James Lofton, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed has a shot one dayBobby Layne - noneDan Marino - noneJoe Montana - Jerry Rice is a lockWarren Moon - noneJoe Namath - Don MaynardBart Starr - noneRoger Staubach - Jackie SmithFran Tarkenton - noneY.A. Tittle - Frank Gifford, Joe Perry, Hugh McElhenneyJohnny Unitas - Raymond Berry, John Mackey, Lenny MooreNorm Van Brocklin - Tom Fears, Elroy HirschBob Waterfield - Tom Fears, Elroy HirschSteve Young - Jerry RiceI don't claim that this is all 100% correct or that these guys played together during significant portions of each others careers. But, it appears for the most part that HOF passers are linked with HOF receivers.
Off a little bit on your '70s QBs. Staubach didn't play with Smith (he didn't catch a pass for the Cowboys, including in the SB :D ) and Bradshaw played with one HOF WR and Lynn Swann.
 
I am sure people will point to Holt, Bruce, Boldin, and Fitgerald as to why Warner has done so well, but the same argument could be made in reverse . . . that Warner has been the driving force as to why these guys put up such lofty numbers.
Except that all of them have put up great numbers without Warner. Bruce's best season was with Tony Banks at QB, Holt's was with Bulger, Boldin's was with Jeff Blake and Josh McCown. Fitz's best is this year, but he already had two 1400+ yard, 10-TD seasons before this year, with a combo of McCown, Leinart, and Warner at QB. All four are significantly better than any receiver McNabb has had except TO.
 
I am sure people will point to Holt, Bruce, Boldin, and Fitgerald as to why Warner has done so well, but the same argument could be made in reverse . . . that Warner has been the driving force as to why these guys put up such lofty numbers.
Except that all of them have put up great numbers without Warner. Bruce's best season was with Tony Banks at QB, Holt's was with Bulger, Boldin's was with Jeff Blake and Josh McCown. Fitz's best is this year, but he already had two 1400+ yard, 10-TD seasons before this year, with a combo of McCown, Leinart, and Warner at QB. All four are significantly better than any receiver McNabb has had except TO.
Related to this aspect of the debate, I agree with this statement.
 
I voted yes for Warner and no for McNabb right now.

I think the raw numbers on Warner are borderline...the kind that keeps you on the ballot for a few years but not in. But the story behind Warner is so great, and the impact of the "greatest show on turf" so memorable, that I think when you throw in his other football success, Warner's resume' tips the scales and he gets in...barely.

McNabb is not really very close right now. He doesn't have the titles or the MVP awards. He doesn't have a single WOW season...although he was on pace for one that got derailed week 10 by injury. What he does have is a long looking career witha BUNCH of good to great years, without a single receiver of note (excepting ONE season with TO). One more strong post-season run (Super Bowl berth) and 3-4 more strong seasons from McNabb, and I think his career resume' will be too strong to deny. A Philly win this weekend may actually go a long way towards satisfying the first part of that last statement!

A realistic projection of McNabb's career path shows he's probably going to make it, and will probably have the more impressive NFL resume' (not necessarily HOF resume') at it's end.

 
I started a thread on HOF candidates for the QB position from the 2000s. Given the history of the position, both Warner and McNabb are starting to look like viable candidates.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top