Is Kurt Warner a Hall of Famer?

[Roy Hobbs]

Okay, I know it sounds crazy.  But, Warner is getting some serious MVP buzz right now.  If he wins, he'll be a three-time MVP, tied with Brett Favre for the most ever.  He's won a Super Bowl MVP, and he's got the third best QB Rating of all time. 

On the other hand, his career record isn't that spectacular (48-37), and he's only made 85 career starts (and played in 103 games).  From 2002 until 2006, his record was 8-23.  He's only made seven postseason appearances (where he is 5-2).

So what do you think?  It's easy to say "definitely not", but how do you keep a three time MVP out if he wins this year?

[Redz]

There have been some pretty weird choices for the NFL Hall of Fame over the years.  I'd say yes.  Especially if he can keep it up.  He had a few momumental seasons with the Rams.

[guava_wrench]

Yes. I'm not too worried about overall winning percentage. Too many people comprise a teams.

[furball]

If he wins the MVP this year he has to be in the hall.  Three time MVP, Superbowl MVP what else can the guy do?  His record isn't great but his injuries and teams have had a lot to do with that.  What was Steve Youngs record before he joing the Niners?  (I'm a San fran fan and should probably know that).  

If he didn't get started so late in his career his life time numbers would be up there with the greats, i.e. Marino, Favre, etc.  Everyone loves brett favre (who is so over rated) but what's he done that Warner hasn't?

I think he's in if he win the MVP this season.  plus with the way he's playing I would think he's got a few more years in him.  

[Donoghus]

Great topic.

It's definitely an interesting question.  If this was the Baseball Hall of Fame, Im pretty sure this wouldn't even be debated.  He'd be left out the argument because of the longevitiy factor alone.

The NFL Hall of Fame is an interesting hall.  Lots of questionable ins and omissions.  Position, rings and popularity seem to be three of the strongest considerations for the hall.  Being a quarterback definitely helps him as well as the league MVPs and Super Bowl MVP.  Considering the average career of an NFL player is much shorter than an NFL player, his resume becomes a bit more easier to argue for inclusion.  I'd say right now he's borderline but if he wins this year's MVP, he's in.  I'd also argue that if he had won Super Bowl XXXVI against the Pats, he'd probably be considered part of the "in group" already. 

[the_Bird]

I'm going to say no.

1999, outstanding, no questions asked.

2000, lot of touchdowns, lots of yards given his injuries, but a LOT of picks.  

2001, HUGE raw TD/yardage numbers, but I've never see a QB (really, a team) that was more careless with the ball.  22 picks, 10 fumbles.  Martz had him just rip it, turnovers be [dang]ed; if you're going to give him credit for the good stuff, you've got to think about all the bad plays he made that year as well.

2002 - 2006: Sometimes hurt, sometimes terrible.  

2007: Very good, but not necessarily a year to get you into the Hall.

2008: His best year, I think; finally putting up good numbers while also taking decent care of the football.  

So, you've got two extremely good years (1999 and 2008), one very good year (2007) and one year (2001) where he did an incredible amount well, but also made a HUGE amount of bad plays.  I can't help but think that Mark Bulger (who no one thinks of as a HOF'er) stepped into that same basic system in St. Louis and had a lot of success himself.

To me, it comes down to whether 2001 was "fluky" in whether his numbers were mostly a byproduct of Martz's approach.  I didn't like him in 2001, I hated how careless he was with the football, so I heavily discount the MVP award he won that year and basically see a guy with two outstanding seasons on his resume.  

Now, if he posts another couple years like this one, he's in the Hall, but as of today, I say no.  He'll be someone I tell my daughter about, but right now the resume just isn't thick enough.  He just hasn't done it enough on a consistent basis.

[Fafnir]

I'd have to say no. If he keeps it up this year he'll have had three awesome years and then a bunch of years were he wasn't very good. I don't think three great years are enough to get you into the HoF, especially when you've played for a long time.

Also his great years have come with beastly receiving corps to support him. While he certainly had a part in their success it does make me second guess how good he really is overall.

The HoF should be about sustained success. For example should Devin Hester end up being a average wide receiver and never recapture his insane return numbers from his first two years, should he get into the HoF because of two great years? I don't think so and for me Warner is also a no unless he keeps playing at an high level for a couple of more years.

[yall hate]

no.  too streaky.  injury prone.  etc...

If he had 3-5 more above average years then maybe, but as it is, he has only had a few above avg years with some subpar ones. 

[Fafnir]

The NFL Hall of Fame is an interesting hall.  Lots of questionable ins and omissions.  Position, rings and popularity seem to be three of the strongest considerations for the hall. 

Which drives me insane. Lineman of all types are under represented greatly. Defensive players are hugely under represented. Punters and kickers get no consideration at all.

Its WR, QB, and RBs up the wazoo.  

[Donoghus]

The NFL Hall of Fame is an interesting hall.  Lots of questionable ins and omissions.  Position, rings and popularity seem to be three of the strongest considerations for the hall. 

Which drives me insane. Lineman of all types are under represented greatly. Defensive players are hugely under represented. Punters and kickers get no consideration at all.

Its WR, QB, and RBs up the wazoo.  

That alone is the biggest reason why he might get serious consideration or even get in.  The NFL Hall of Fame.

Its a lot like a boy's club where it seems to be handshake deals with voters and who got the glory.  Lots of guys from Super Bowl winners in the Hall who probably wouldn't have sniffed it if they were on another team.  I just think where the Baseball Hall of Fame seems to be substance (overboard at times), the NFL Hall of Fame tends to be more about popularity and style and less numbers oriented.

Regardking kickers, if Vinatieri doesn't get in after he retires, no kicker will ever get in. 

[housecall]

I find K.Warner Hall of Fame worthy eventually mainly because his career has been sort of like Pierce a great player on medicroe to poor teams a lot of his career.He is a great quarterback when he is got  good receivers and the protection to allow him to perform at the top of his game.Just like in Pierce's case he has always been a quality player always surrounded by less talent until recently.

[wdleehi]

No.


First, he will not win the MVP.  I just don't see voters voting for a Cardinal.  

Two, he has more bad years then good years.  

Three, just not enough games.  

[Fafnir]

The NFL Hall of Fame is an interesting hall.  Lots of questionable ins and omissions.  Position, rings and popularity seem to be three of the strongest considerations for the hall. 

Which drives me insane. Lineman of all types are under represented greatly. Defensive players are hugely under represented. Punters and kickers get no consideration at all.

Its WR, QB, and RBs up the wazoo.  

That alone is the biggest reason why he might get serious consideration or even get in.  The NFL Hall of Fame.

Its a lot like a boy's club where it seems to be handshake deals with voters and who got the glory.  Lots of guys from Super Bowl winners in the Hall who probably wouldn't have sniffed it if they were on another team.  I just think where the Baseball Hall of Fame seems to be substance (overboard at times), the NFL Hall of Fame tends to be more about popularity and style and less numbers oriented.

Regardking kickers, if Vinatieri doesn't get in after he retires, no kicker will ever get in. 

You're right, which is why Warner is likely to get in. Blah.

I'd actually think Morten Andersen would be the first kicker to get in if any ever do. But I doubt either him or Vinatieri will make it.

[Fafnir]

I find K.Warner Hall of Fame worthy eventually mainly because his career has been sort of like Pierce a great player on medicroe to poor teams a lot of his career.He is a great quarterback when he is got  good receiver and protection to allow him to perform at the top of his game.Just like in Pierce's case he has always been a quality player always surrounded by less talent until recently.

Your analogy is flawed in that Pierce has been a great player for most of his career by pretty much every measure. He's also been healthy most of his career. Only in 06-07 did he miss major time in a season.

Warner has been hurt a lot, he also has been on the bench or had awful turnover statistics for much of the time during his career.

Pierce hasn't been recognized but he's produced throughout his career. I don't think they're at all similar.

[housecall]

I find K.Warner Hall of Fame worthy eventually mainly because his career has been sort of like Pierce a great player on medicroe to poor teams a lot of his career.He is a great quarterback when he is got  good receiver and protection to allow him to perform at the top of his game.Just like in Pierce's case he has always been a quality player always surrounded by less talent until recently.

Your analogy is flawed in that Pierce has been a great player for most of his career by pretty much every measure. He's also been healthy most of his career. Only in 06-07 did he miss major time in a season.

Warner has been hurt a lot, he also has been on the bench or had awful turnover statistics for much of the time during his career.

Pierce hasn't been recognized but he's produced throughout his career. I don't think they're at all similar.

I said Pierce was a great player and both players have been hurt at some point in their careers.Both players haven't always played with top tier players,so whats is wrong with that?