Kurt Warner headed for the Hall of Fame?

Originally posted by dryhump
George Blanda must be in the HOF because he was a quarterback for so long, his numbers certainly don't bear it out. Who knows why Namath is in there, personality I guess. I don't think you can hold the level of talent against him, that's all I'm saying. I've never heard anyone say that steve young shouldn't be there because he had Jerry Rice to throw it to.

You're correct, Blanda was inducted into the HOF in 1981.

Yeah, Namath was 63-63-4 as a starter over his career. Warner was 48-37-0 going into this season. If he started every game his record would go to 57-44-0.

Namath - 140 games, 130 starts
50.1 comp percentage 27,663 yards 173 TDs 220 Ints

Warner - 110 games - 101 as a starter (if he started all 16 this year)
65.4% comp percentage (played home games in a dome, though)
28,591 yards, 182 TDs 114 Ints

Namath - 5 pro bowls , 1 MVP
Warner - 3 pro bowls, 2 MVP

Namath retired after the 1977 season, and was inducted into the HOF in 1985, so he didn't have long to wait.

Warner has been up and down so much over his career, that people don't necessarily think "Hall of Fame" with him, but I also don't think he would be lowering the standards if he were to be inducted. I think he will probably be inducted eventually, but it may take a few years of eligibility.

Dan Marino is another hall of famer that never had exceptional talent around him, yet made it in his first year of eligibilty. I don't think any of the players that he threw to or handed off to are in the hall of fame, or, ever will be. He did benefit from some outstanding offensive linemen though, especially early in his career.

Originally posted by TheBloop
Warner has been up and down so much over his career, that people don't necessarily think "Hall of Fame" with him, but I also don't think he would be lowering the standards if he were to be inducted. I think he will probably be inducted eventually, but it may take a few years of eligibility.

Tony Romo would be lowering the standards, I think Kurt Warner is a fine pick.

Originally posted by TheBloop
You're correct, Blanda was inducted into the HOF in 1981.

Yeah, Namath was 63-63-4 as a starter over his career. Warner was 48-37-0 going into this season. If he started every game his record would go to 57-44-0.

Namath - 140 games, 130 starts
50.1 comp percentage 27,663 yards 173 TDs 220 Ints

Warner - 110 games - 101 as a starter (if think he will probably be inducted eventually, but it may take a few years of eligibility.

With Namath and Warner you are comparing apples and oranges. When Namath played, football was primarily smashmouth and run the ball with an occasional pass. Namath was proloific as a passer among his contemporaries of his time.

During Warner's time, the league has generally been balanced to slightly more passing prone. All QB's from Warner's era should have more passing numbers than Namath did.

Namath played on horrible knees, in the Big Apple and he was controversial on many fronts. He also predicted the Super Bowl victory over the heavily favored Baltimore Colts, and then he delivered it.

Originally posted by zakkwylder
Tony Romo would be lowering the standards, I think Kurt Warner is a fine pick.

Who in the hell even considered Tony Romo and the Hall of Fame in the same paragraph? Romo isn't even a good NFL starter, much less a HOF caliber QB.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
With Namath and Warner you are comparing apples and oranges. When Namath played, football was primarily smashmouth and run the ball with an occasional pass. Namath was proloific as a passer among his contemporaries of his time.

During Warner's time, the league has generally been balanced to slightly more passing prone. All QB's from Warner's era shou ...[text shortened]... ed the Super Bowl victory over the heavily favored Baltimore Colts, and then he delivered it.

Namath's passer rating was 65. He threw almost 50 more interceptions than he did touchdowns. I agree that passers today should have better numbers, but saying namath was a better quarterback than warner?

Originally posted by dryhump
Namath's passer rating was 65. He threw almost 50 more interceptions than he did touchdowns. I agree that passers today should have better numbers, but saying namath was a better quarterback than warner?

Compare Namath's numbers against Namath's contemporaries.

Then compare Warner's numbers against his contemporaries.

Namath's will stand out as far better in his time than Warner is in his time.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Compare Namath's numbers against Namath's contemporaries.

Then compare Warner's numbers against his contemporaries.

Namath's will stand out as far better in his time than Warner is in his time.

I'm not saying namath doesn't deserve to be there. Only saying that his numbers were not great. Look it up on www.nfl.com. You can compare for yourself. Namath may have gotten in because of a lasting contribution to the game, namely helping to change the quarterback position, but when compared with contemporaries, he fares worse than warner.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Who in the hell even considered Tony Romo and the Hall of Fame in the same paragraph? Romo isn't even a good NFL starter, much less a HOF caliber QB.

Exactly my point, he would be a great example of lowering the standard. The fact that he's not up for HOF is a very moot point.

Originally posted by dryhump
I'm not saying namath doesn't deserve to be there. Only saying that his numbers were not great. Look it up on www.nfl.com. You can compare for yourself. Namath may have gotten in because of a lasting contribution to the game, namely helping to change the quarterback position, but when compared with contemporaries, he fares worse than warner.

NO, you are missing the point. Namath was prolific for his era...Warner is not.

Same as Babe Ruth was until Maris came along, then McGwire, Sosa & Bonds. Different eras (and drugs of choice 😉 )

Originally posted by zakkwylder
Exactly my point, he would be a great example of lowering the standard. The fact that he's not up for HOF is a very moot point.

I don't understand why anyone would want to lower the standards for Romo's benefit. If they were going to lower the standards, why wouldn't they do it for a good player not a mediocre one?

Originally posted by shortcircuit
I don't understand why anyone would want to lower the standards for Romo's benefit. If they were going to lower the standards, why wouldn't they do it for a good player not a mediocre one?

For God's sake man, I only mentioned Romo as an example. Somebody mentioned that inducting Warner would/wouldn't be lowering the standards to get in. Kurt Warner may not be one of "the greats", but few have achieved what he has. That's certainly worth something even if his career hasn't been as stellar as some.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
NO, you are missing the point. Namath was prolific for his era...Warner is not.

Same as Babe Ruth was until Maris came along, then McGwire, Sosa & Bonds. Different eras (and drugs of choice 😉 )

Namath certainly threw a lot of interceptions, if that is what you mean by prolific. Babe Ruth the man was not. He was absolutely mediocre according to the stats. No better than average.

Originally posted by dryhump
Namath certainly threw a lot of interceptions, if that is what you mean by prolific. Babe Ruth the man was not. He was absolutely mediocre according to the stats. No better than average.

You need to get into a statistics class to learn how to interpret then because you obviously don't have any idea what you are referring to. I especially love you assessment of Babe Ruth as average. ROTFLMAO!!
The man has the third most HR's in major league history out of all players who ever made it to the major leagues. He was year in and year out one of the most feared hitters during his era. Only 4 people have hit more home runs in a single season than he did, and three of those were using steroids. The only non-steroid user needed 6 additional games to break the record. Ruth was walked more than any player in his era. His batting average was among the best of his era. I guess he must be average because he didn't steal many bases.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
You need to get into a statistics class to learn how to interpret then because you obviously don't have any idea what you are referring to. I especially love you assessment of Babe Ruth as average. ROTFLMAO!!
The man has the third most HR's in major league history out of all players who ever made it to the major leagues. He was year in and year out one ...[text shortened]... was among the best of his era. I guess he must be average because he didn't steal many bases.

Read the post carefully and you will see that I said Joe Namath was not Babe Ruth and then went on to say that Namath was average for his time. The only thing Namath did worth mentioning was throw for 4000 yards in a season.