Kurt Warner … Hall of Famer

One of the major, unavoidable topics of the week, has been whether or not Kurt Warner is a Hall of Famer. In fact, the pregame talk leading up to the NFC Championship game centered on how much bearing it had on the impending legacy of both Warner and Donovan McNabb. Warner obviously got the edge on that one cementing his legacy as a big-game quarterback, and McNabb as a guy who could get you to a big game but not further than that (which is still a major accomplishment in my eyes). Seems like many people have since been swept up in the euphoria of the Kurt Warner cyclone and want to throw him in the Hall of Fame already. Some people are more rational and feel his performance on Sunday will dictate his place in history. Me? I need to see Kurt Warner have another two stellar seasons and take his team to the playoffs two more times to be sold.

While I have no problem calling Kurt a big-game quarterback, I’m not down with all this talk about him being the best quarterback in football and a Hall of Famer. Here’s my main beef: how many Hall of Fame quarterbacks disappeared for five years after being a stud QB? How can you vote for a guy as a Hall of Famer when he stunk during the prime of his career? I guess it’s pretty easy for everyone else to just erase the past, but it’s not for me. I remember Kurt vividly as a turnover machine. The guy was either burping the ball from center or throwing picks. He stunk up the joint completely in his last two years with the Rams, his year with the Giants, and his first two years with the Cards. Don’t remember him fumbling six times against the Giants in ’03? I do.

I’m not saying that Warner isn’t a pretty spectacular quarterback when he’s well-protected, healthy, and playing with lethal weapons — he is. I’m just saying that there were times in his career — a five-year stretch — when he was a below average quarterback in the National Football League. And that to me, does not a Hall of Famer make.

Around The Web

  • Gene

    Warner should not be in the HOF. He is very successful in the proper system – either with the great Cardinal receivers or with the Rams’ greatest show on turf. However, when he is with an average offense, he played very average, as you have pointed out. By way of comparison, Tom Brady guided the Patriots to the playoffs many times with receivers who are, for the most part, nameless. When he finally got Moss and Welker, he set records and came within one minute of an unthinkable perfect season.

    McNabb hasn’t won the big game, but, for the most part, he has labored with average receiving talent. He has taken the Eagles a lot farther than Warner would have with similar players around him. For my money, he is the better QB.

    If Super Bowl rings were the sole criterion on which to judge quarterbacks, you would have to rate Trent Dilfer above Dan Marino.

  • http://www.pointguardu.com/cats NICK

    Gene makes a very good point. Warner is a good QB and i think that the Cards have some choices to make. Drafted Matt Lienart # 10 overall and hasnt been good.

  • SpinMax

    McNabb better than Warner? did you miss that game 2 weeks ago when Warner got it done in
    the clutch while McNabb choked and repeatedly missed wide open guys even on short passes?
    Much like their careers. The only thing they have in common is injury problems leading to
    poor seasons.

  • Gene

    Max, I saw Cardinal receivers running in the open all game and McNabb trying to squeeze the ball into tight openings where Eagle receivers had no separation. Do you really believe that if the teams switched QB’s Warner would even have the Eagles in the game? What about all of the seasons McNabb played injured and still got the Eagles to the playoffs while Warner, the china doll, coughed the ball up and missed games?

  • SpinMax

    McNabb and the China doll have both missed about the same number of games due to injury