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'm also surprised ~70% of the community here feel Warner is already HOF material. I felt that way but figured I'd be in the minority. This last season and a half has done wonders for his chances.
While I agree in principle to the limited number of worthy QBs theory, remember that the NFL only allows for 5 players (through normal channels) to be voted in each year. And there's no shortage of players at other positions coming up for entry any time soon (with many deserving candidates still on the ballot). Long story short, I'm not sure that a brief respite from having several worthy QBs will help Warner's case all that dramatically. They'll just vote in more RBs . . . or DBs . . . or linemen . . . or whomever.
I'm not really a fan of either guy, but Namath had 3 winning seasons as a starting QB in 13 years and ended with exactly a .500 winning percentage (those 3 years were obviously very good).McNabb has had 5 years with 10 or more wins as a starting QB and has an 83-44-1 career record as a starter (do they actually have ties in the regular season?).You can say what you want about McNabb's mouth, but at least his teams have consistently won games.
Maybe this will allow Ken Anderson to get in? Or Boomer?
I still don't think that it will really help any other QBs. The voters will just induct guys from other positions. It's not like there's a quota for adding QBs every couple of years. I agree they should catch up on some guys they missed, but it's not like they are devoid of guys that are worthy at many other positions.
If the Super Bowl is the only game you consider to 'the big game', then you're right. However, a knowledgable fan would understand that to get to the Championship game or Super Bowl, you have to win a lot of big games. Just this year alone, the Eagles faced two playoff team (Arizona and the Giants) and a would-be playoff team (Dallas) in must-win games. McNabb and the eagles won them all. In fact, counting Minnesota, the Eagles have won 5 of 6 big games and McNabb has played excellently in all five wins. By ypour way of thinking, he could travel to New York and beat the Giants (as an underdog), travel to Carolina and beat the Panthers (underdog), andf then lose in teh Super Bowl and Mcnabb will still not be able to 'win the big game', despite the fact that he would have just won 7 of 8 big games.Mcnabb is 9-5 in playoff games including this year's win against a 'cheesy Minnesota team' who just happened to have homefield advantage (ask Indy and Atlanta if that matters or not).:threadobviouslystartedbyanEaglesFan:
just a question, but exactly when did McNabb ever become a candidate for the HOF, anyways?!
I mean, if they lost last week, would we still be talking about McNabb and Canton?!!
wow.you beat a cheesy minnesota team and suddenly they're making a bronze bust of your head..
he has never shown an ability to stay healthy, never won the big game, lost countless championship games,
and he just doesn't have the stats..
Certainly ahead of Ray Guy.
5-5 in the playoffs.
I don't really see this. Check out this thread: Who Will Be In the Next 10 HOF Classes?, Non Senior/Old Timer NomineesIn that thread, I came up with 35 guys I think will definitely be inducted in the next 10 HOF classes. That group does not include Warner, Terrell Davis, Shaun Alexander, Tiki, Andre Reed, Dermontti Dawson, Jason Taylor, Gradishar, Ronde Barber, Rodney Harrison, Brian Dawkins, John Lynch, any contributor other than Tags, any coach other than Parcells, or any specialist at all. And that's just a sampling. It doesn't include other players I assume won't retire fast enough to get in within that window, like Manning, Brady, McNabb, Owens, Moss, Holt, Champ Bailey, etc.
I feel you are a perfect 12-12 in your "won't get in" predictions.
Here's the problem with this. McNabb has a career QB rating of 81.1 in the playoffs. More specifically, look at his ratings in the 5 playoff losses: 59.1, 73.1 (NFC Championship), 58.5 (NFC Championship), 19.3 (NFC Championship), 75.4 (Super Bowl). I know QB rating isn't the be all, end all, but it is an approximation and I didn't feel like listing out his stats in those games. And he only added 1 rushing TD in those games, so he didn't overcome poor passing performances with rushing.IMO when people refer to big games for McNabb, they aren't talking about big regular season games or all playoff games. They are talking about conference championship games and the one Super Bowl. Especially since those are the games being watched by the highest number of fans every year. Unfortunately for McNabb, he has been in 5 such games, and he played poorly in 4 of them, which were all losses. (He played well in the NFC Championship game they won to get to the Super Bowl.)
But is that because of McNabb? I don't think so. A little bit is, of course. But I think he has benefitted from Westbrook and Jim Johnson's defense more than most think. And I thought that their record without him when he has missed time wasn't that bad. Am I wrong about that? Didn't AJ Feeley light it up for a couple of games several years back?
Joe Theismann has a better overall resume than White and won't come anywhere near the HOF. I think Theismann is the only QB to appear in back-to-back SBs and not be in the HOF.
Seasons in which McNabb missed more than a couple of games:In 2002, the Eagles were 8-4 (including 1-1 in the playoffs) with McNabb and 5-1 without him.In 2005, the Eagles were 4-5 with McNabb and 2-5 without him.In 2006, the Eagles were 5-5 with McNabb and 6-2 without him (including 1-1 in the playoffs).Overall, in these 5 seasons, the Eagles were 17-14 with McNabb and 13-8 without him. In 2 of those 3 seasons, the team had a better winning percentage without him, and in the only season that wasn't the case, McNabb himself had a losing record. At the very least, this would seem to underscore the fact that a strong reason for McNabb's high winning percentage has been the quality of the team around him.ETA: Fixed 2002, since McNabb returned for the two playoff games that season.
Here's the problem with that list and this post that you're overlooking (yet again). You're fascination with his post-season record simply isn't enough to warrant HOF induction. It may be important to YOU, but it's not as important in HOF consideration unless you take it all the way.The 7 guys with a better win-loss percentage have the hardware. They have the rings (and most of them multiple rings). Thus, the rest of their stats don't matter as much. When you compare those 7 to McNabb, just ignoring career stats and regular season passing rankings, etc, they got it done when it mattered and he didn't. This is why they are in the HOF.JuniorNB said:
I'm not facsinated with post-season record. I'm fascinated with people saying he can't win teh big game. They overlook the regular season big-games that he had to win the make all those playoff appearences. They also pretend all the playoff wins weren't big games. They give me his passer rating in his big game losses (which are way fewer than his big game wins) to prove their point.As I've said, McNabb has been indisputedly great in the Eagles recent 5-1 run to get them where they are now. Perhaps someone can give his passer-rating and TD to Interception ratio in those games. Were they not big games? The Eagles were on the brink of elimination. Was Sundays' road playoff win a big game? He was 23-34 for 300 yards. If they can knock off the Giants in teh Meadowlands, would that be a big game? of course it would. And regardless if Mcnabb went 40-45 for 425 yards anfd three TDs, if he lost to Carolina the following week, they'd say he can't win teh big game.
Just to clarify, in '02 McNabb played both playoff games. He missed the last 6 games but came back in time for the playoffs.Just Win Baby said:ConstruxBoy said:Seasons in which McNabb missed more than a couple of games:In 2002, the Eagles were 7-3 with McNabb and 6-2 without him (including 1-1 in the playoffs).In 2005, the Eagles were 4-5 with McNabb and 2-5 without him.In 2006, the Eagles were 5-5 with McNabb and 6-2 without him (including 1-1 in the playoffs).Overall, in these 5 seasons, the Eagles were 16-13 with McNabb and 14-9 without him. In 2 of those 3 seasons, the team had a better winning percentage without him, and in the only season that wasn't the case, McNabb himself had a losing record. At the very least, this would seem to underscore the fact that a strong reason for McNabb's high winning percentage has been the quality of the team around him.
This misperception has persisted in the past for other great QB's who took a while to win a ring. Peyton Manning was constantly labeled as a choker until he got a ring. Elway was bashed exactly the same way for nearly a decade!Unfortunately, some guys will see ALL QB's as chokers until they get a ring.
Thanks. I fixed the original post. Fortunately, this doesn't affect the point of the post.Just to clarify, in '02 McNabb played both playoff games. He missed the last 6 games but came back in time for the playoffs.Just Win Baby said:ConstruxBoy said:Seasons in which McNabb missed more than a couple of games:In 2002, the Eagles were 7-3 with McNabb and 6-2 without him (including 1-1 in the playoffs).In 2005, the Eagles were 4-5 with McNabb and 2-5 without him.In 2006, the Eagles were 5-5 with McNabb and 6-2 without him (including 1-1 in the playoffs).Overall, in these 5 seasons, the Eagles were 16-13 with McNabb and 14-9 without him. In 2 of those 3 seasons, the team had a better winning percentage without him, and in the only season that wasn't the case, McNabb himself had a losing record. At the very least, this would seem to underscore the fact that a strong reason for McNabb's high winning percentage has been the quality of the team around him.
So what is the baseline for sneaking into the HOF vs entering more legitimately? I'm asking because I don't know the answer.As I cited earlier, Warner ranks #1 all-time in passing yards per game and is Top 5 all-time in completion %, QB rating, YPA, and several other adjusted metrics.Does the "sneaking in" part stem from not enough total numbers, not enough SB appearances, not enough good seasons, not ranking high enough in other career categoeis, or something else not covered here?What else has to happen for Warner to be considered more of a deserving candidate vs the sneaking in kind?
A good season in non-indoor or non-75 and sunny weather.
Do you think Dan Marino and Steve Young should be HOFers? I'm not aware that either of them ever had good seasons in the conditions you describe.
So McNabb should be in the HOF because his team has made it to the playoffs a lot (even though they can't ever seem to finish the job) and because McNabb can play in the cold and outside? Got it.Btw, in your other post above, you keep insisting on how McNabb can win the big games. That's great. I'm not even labeling McNabb a choker. He's definitely done his part to get his teams in position to make it that far. But, you're still ignoring the fact that that isn't enough. Just because he isn't a choker and has been in so many playoff games doesn't make him a HOF QB. The stats just aren't there. Again, the guys with similar playoff records to him actually won it all and the guys with worse playoff records had much more impressive stats. He has neither. He's not a HOF (yet).
Kurt Warner went to teh giants remember? How'd he do in those 'non-perfect' conditions? How did he do everytime Arizona played in bad weather this year? Terrible!A good example was the New England game. It was cold and snowy. Warner threw for about 40 yards in three quarters. Leinart came in and had over 100 yards in a quarter.Warner has had the luxury of playing on great offense with great receivers, either in a dome or in beautiful Arizona. When he tried venturing outside those conditions, he not only became average, he became a non-starter.
Peyton Manning would be in the HOF without his Super Bowl Ring See Marino.John Elway would be in the HOF without his Super Bowl rings. See Warren Moon.This misperception has persisted in the past for other great QB's who took a while to win a ring. Peyton Manning was constantly labeled as a choker until he got a ring. Elway was bashed exactly the same way for nearly a decade!Unfortunately, some guys will see ALL QB's as chokers until they get a ring.
Nice post. Maybe try answering the question posed now? Should Marino or Young not be in the HOF because they got to play in sunny weather? Apparently you're discounting Warner's accomplishments because of that, so should we do the same for Marino and Young since they benefited from the same type of conditions?
The two things missing from your post are explanations. When Warner went to the Giants he had various finger and hand injuries that dramatically impacted how he gripped and threw the ball. That had more to do with his so so numbers than anything else. In the Pats game, it made no difference to Warner or the rest of the Cardinals AT ALL. They already had made the playoffs and the game plan barely involved passing. Of course Leinart had A TON to play for (like A JOB), so to him the game was potentially life altering. Overall I agree that Warner is not a great cold weather QB, but that does not diminish what he's done the rest of the time.A friend of mine is a big advocate of making all teams play in domes to provide a level playing field for all teams. While impractical, it is a decent idea. It's tough having a team win or lose when the weather changes the outcome of games.
These types of comments can be very misleading. Testaverde and Bledsoe rank Top 10 in a lot of passing categories. Because they rank higher on careers numbers in key categories, does that make them more qualified to be HOFers?I personally think career totals are WAY overrated. To me, it's what players did in their peak years and on a per game basis that matters. IMO, a guy with 25,000 passing yards in 100 games is more worthy than a guy with 45,000 passing yards in 250 games.
Nobody (or very few anyway) is really disputing that last point. My point was that the "choker " label is not just unfair in McNabb's case, but has historicly been over-used and abused.Clearly, many of us are debating whether McNabb will make it assuming another 3-4 years of similar production. Some say he'd still need a ring.. "because he hasn't been clutch" to this point in his career. I'm simply pointing out that the ring alone is a poor/short-sighted indicator of a player's ability to perform in the clutch. I wonder if Elway would have been such an easy HOF choice if he hadn't played his last four seasons...had never gotten a ring or climbed so high in career totals. How do Elway's stats and career arch compare to McNabb at this point? I suspect (but don't know) there are a lot of similarities. McNabb will be very high (with another 4 years) in all of the career totals as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if half the teams had a dome or retractable roof in 20 years.
Not to mention that 34th in passing TDs isn't too far away from 10th for a 32 year old. 70 more TDs (3+ average seasons for McNabb) and he's top 10.
By sneaking in, I mean that some voters will be on the fence over his resume. I think a HOF finalist needs a minimum of 80% of the vote from the 44-person Selection Committee to get in. Warner will probably be closer to 80% than 100% and they only select around 5 guys each year. But all candidates who are elected into the HOF are deserving and worthy and I hope Warner makes it. I think he needs more career wins and one or two more very good seasons.
On the surface this is a very valid point, but there is something to be said for guys who perform "above average" for a long time. There are always statistical outliers, players who played a decade longer then most. Baseball is chock full of players like this. But there is certainly a balance. Twenty years starting would exceed the average HOF QB career by 30-40% or so, making those career numbers far less impressive. But at 15 years, career numbers would mean a lot, even if still a little bit longer then the average.
While I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular, if you assign names to the numbers given, PLAYER 1 is similar to Warner. Player 2 would be someone like Testaverde or Bledsoe. THe numbers work out very close to the same. Still want to induct PLAYER 2?
Nope, but aren't Warner's numbers a bit higher then your player 1? Plus some other unusual oddball things about Warner...like the unbelievable (and easily best in history) % of his starts that he went for 300 yards in?And nobody said the compilors should be nominated/in based on ONE statistic. McNabb will be high in several other significant categories, not the least of which is career winnning %, playoff win %, and TD's.
I was mostly speaking in glittering generalities, but since you asked . . .Warner: 285912 yards passing in 110 games with 101 starts
Holy ####! Why are we arguing this??!?!??
I pointed out Warner's career yards per game earlier today in this thread (or the other one). It's ridiculously high and is one of the greatest arguments one can make for him as a HOF QB.McNabb and Bledsoe have virtually identical ypg (230). If yards were the only yardstick used to measure McNabb, I agree he'd fall well short. Tell me, what else of significance did Bledsoe have going for him? (Or Testaverde?) You have only to look back over this thread to find a bunch of nice things to say about McNabb. How about the rushing yards and TD's? What about turnovers??????? Winning percentage? Post-season success? Pro-bowls? McNabb already eclipses both Bledsoe and Testaverde in many of these measurements.
Try again, smarty.
