75% of the people that have voted as of this posting disagree with you.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).the correct answer is neither
Really? So what does a QB have to do to earn the HOF in your opinion?buster c said:the correct answer is neither
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.Really? So what does a QB have to do to earn the HOF in your opinion?buster c said:the correct answer is neither
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?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.Really? So what does a QB have to do to earn the HOF in your opinion?buster c said:the correct answer is neither
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'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?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.Really? So what does a QB have to do to earn the HOF in your opinion?buster c said:the correct answer is neither
Warner was awesome in '00 and pretty good in '07. Can't discount those years, IMO.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.Really? So what does a QB have to do to earn the HOF in your opinion?buster c said:the correct answer is neither
So we're talking about the Hall of Disney now?Warner is a much better story without even considering any of the statistics. He is a Disney movie waiting to happen.
No . . . it's the Hall of FAME. Certainly Warner's story carries a lot of fame. What has McNabb going for him off the field besides soup commercials?So we're talking about the Hall of Disney now?Warner is a much better story without even considering any of the statistics. He is a Disney movie waiting to happen.
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.Warner was awesome in '00 and pretty good in '07. Can't discount those years, IMO.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.Really? So what does a QB have to do to earn the HOF in your opinion?buster c said:the correct answer is neither
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.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.Warner was awesome in '00 and pretty good in '07. Can't discount those years, IMO.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.Really? So what does a QB have to do to earn the HOF in your opinion?buster c said:the correct answer is neither
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Really? So what does a QB have to do to earn the HOF in your opinion?buster c said:the correct answer is neither
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.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 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 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.
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%]
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.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.
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.There are QB's in the HOF that didn't have elite WR's. They still made it in.
But he's probably, along with Emmitt Smith, the greatest post season RB in the SB era. Not one bad, or even average, game.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.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.
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 SBModern 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.There are QB's in the HOF that didn't have elite WR's. They still made it in.
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.
Related to this aspect of the debate, I agree with this statement.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.