Kurt Warner

Post #41 » by **Icness** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:10 pm

Young is indeed better than the others, and it's certainly not just because of the rushing yards. He is included as a benchmark--and look at how much closer Warner is to him than the others listed.

And then there's the perennial question with Young--how much of it was how great he really was, versus the fact that he stepped into a Super Bowl champion with a coaching legend and Jerry Rice and basically just held serve from Joe Montana. When he was in Tampa he wasn't even an average stater. And those Tampa teams he was on weren't a lot worse than the Rams team Warner took over, though that quickly changed for additions besides Warner. Again, if you dock Warner for having great teammates, shouldn't that apply to Young or Aikman or Bradshaw or even going back to Frank Ryan or Johnny Unitas? If there is any consistency to that argument, then there's a whole heap of undeserving HOFers.

I'm not disputing that Warner doesn't belong in that inner cirlce of the greatest of all time, he's not Otto Graham or Joe Montana or John Elway. But he's certainly as deserving of being in the HOF as Aikman or Kelly or Fouts or Tarkenton.

Post #42 » by **Rooster** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:35 pm

I don't think Aikman or Kelly should be in there. Of course, I'm also really stringent with these things.

High 5 · Post #43 » by **High 5** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:14 pm

studcrackers wrote:in 1998 he did

He probably wins a championship if his kicker picked a different field goal to miss that season.

Post #44 » by **studcrackers** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:54 pm

i was fine with that miss fg, i loved jamal anderson and the dirty bird that year

LAKESHOW · Post #45 » by **LAKESHOW** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:58 pm

kurt warner sucks. matt leinart should be starting

Post #46 » by **Rooster** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:46 pm

High 5 wrote:
studcrackers wrote:in 1998 he did

He probably wins a championship if his kicker picked a different field goal to miss that season.

That was painful. I was convinced the Vikings had it that year.

Kurt Warner is fine. It's not his fault. I thought the Cardinals had a shot in New England, and was I ever wrong... they're a terrible football team. They have one of the league's worst defences, virtually no running game, and their offensive line can't really run-block that well. They're a rightful 3-7 outside of their bad division, and they're only successful in said bad division. They are going to get annihilated by the Eagles, Bears, Bucs, or whoever they face in the first round. It's a travesty that they'll be playing at home.

The Cardinals and Broncos this year are exactly why I was against realignment. We need to start seeing the top wildcard get a home playoff game again, pronto.

Post #47 » by **Basketball Jesus** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:01 pm

I think it’s safe to say Warner played himself out of MVP contention with yesterday’s hilariously awesome performance.

Post #48 » by **HMFFL** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:41 am

Basketball Jesus wrote:I think it’s safe to say Warner played himself out of MVP contention with yesterday’s hilariously awesome performance.

I agree. Kurt's not deserving of it after that performances.

Post #49 » by **Basketball Jesus** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:23 pm

He’s also not deserving of the HoF, but that’s another war to flame…heh heh.

Post #50 » by **HMFFL** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:44 pm

Basketball Jesus wrote:He’s also not deserving of the HoF, but that’s another war to flame…heh heh.

Another Super Bowl appearance for Kurt. Will another Super Bowl win be enough for you change your mind about Kurt and the HOF?

Post #51 » by **Basketball Jesus** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:06 pm

It’d make me reconsider, probably, but I’d still lean on the side of no.

I’ve still yet to see anything from him to make me believe he’s anything more than a statistical product of an inflated era of passing; a QB who is no better than the guys surrounding him on offense.

However, I do believe Fitzgerald is by far the best receiver in the game.

Post #52 » by **J.Kim** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:49 pm

Basketball Jesus wrote:It’d make me reconsider, probably, but I’d still lean on the side of no.

I’ve still yet to see anything from him to make me believe he’s anything more than a statistical product of an inflated era of passing; a QB who is no better than the guys surrounding him on offense.

However, I do believe Fitzgerald is by far the best receiver in the game.

I'd beg to differ and say that Andre Johnson is the best receiver in the game by far...

But I agree with the point about Kurt Warner. That's still how I see him.

Post #53 » by **Basketball Jesus** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:58 pm

The thing about Warner is he’s played in a number of important games. How many of those games can you say Warner truly won the game on his own? How many games, when all else is failing around him, has he taken over and carried a team to victory with a masterful performance?

Conversely, how many games has Warner thrown a stinker when his team needed him the most?

Warner’s the kind of QB that, when things are going right, he’s at his best. That doesn’t mean he’s a bad QB; he’s still one of the better QBs in the league but, in my opinion, it doesn’t make him a Hall of Famer. Warner is the QB for me where statistics (as much as I love them) don’t accurately portray his true ability.

Post #54 » by **lpsevier** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:13 pm

So he lacks intangibles?

Post #55 » by **Basketball Jesus** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:30 pm

I guess you could say that; I’d say there’s no tangible evidence he’s more than the sum of his offensive environs. Sounds more…less Jon Heymanish. Heh.

Post #56 » by **lpsevier** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:16 pm

So there is tangible evidence that he lacks intangibles.

ic

Post #57 » by **Basketball Jesus** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:09 pm

I guess if you consider skill an intangible.

Post #58 » by **HCYanks** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:44 pm

Basketball Jesus wrote:I guess you could say that; I’d say there’s no tangible evidence he’s more than the sum of his offensive environs. Sounds more…less Jon Heymanish. Heh.

That type of argument is a lot more valid in football than it is in baseball. There aren't, and may never be, any football statistics that can used to completely separate a player from the context of his surrounding cast. For the most part, that isn't true about baseball. In the end, it's hard to be objectively certain how much of Warner's success can really be attributed to his teammates, whereas you can look at Ryan Howard's numbers and see how he benefited from good players hitting in front of him this season (his RBI totals vs. better metrics).

Jon Heyman probably disagrees, and that's one of the 387 reasons he sucks at his job.

Ong_dynasty · Post #59 » by **Ong_dynasty** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:21 am

J.Kim wrote:
Basketball Jesus wrote:It’d make me reconsider, probably, but I’d still lean on the side of no.

I’ve still yet to see anything from him to make me believe he’s anything more than a statistical product of an inflated era of passing; a QB who is no better than the guys surrounding him on offense.

However, I do believe Fitzgerald is by far the best receiver in the game.

I'd beg to differ and say that Andre Johnson is the best receiver in the game by far...

But I agree with the point about Kurt Warner. That's still how I see him.

I would probably agree with you in the regular season...
But what Larry Fitzgerald has done in the post season is nothing short of godly and Larry Fitzgerald in the last 3 games has to be the best 3 game stretch by any WR...ever...

Post #60 » by **Worm Guts** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:03 pm

Ong_dynasty wrote:
I would probably agree with you in the regular season...
But what Larry Fitzgerald has done in the post season is nothing short of godly and Larry Fitzgerald in the last 3 games has to be the best 3 game stretch by any WR...ever...

Maybe, but probably not.
Just look at some of Jerry Rice's playoff performances. In 1988 he had consecutive games of:
5 catches 61 yards 3 TD's
5 catches 133 yards 2 TD's
11 catches 215 yards 1 TD