Koetter wants balance in Atlanta offense - Pat Y

Pudge · **Posted:** Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:05 pm

Brad Johnson took the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to the Super Bowl, does that make him a HOF lock?

RobertAP · **Joined:** Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:15 pm **Posts:** 3537

Pudge wrote:

Brad Johnson took the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to the Super Bowl, does that make him a HOF lock?

Trent Dilfer took the Ravens there. But again, there are some pretty obvious differences:
Warner has been to THREE Superbowls, and in each of them, (as well as collectively) he has more passing yards than any other QB.
Unlike Johnson and Dilfer, he obviously did not ride the coat tails of his defenses.

And earlier, Bulger was brought up as having comparable stats to Warner... But what did Bulger and the Arizona Cadre of QBs do in the playoffs in the years after Warner took those teams to the Superbowl... NOTHING. Bulger got there twice with a record of 1-2. Arizona hasn't been back yet.

It's pretty safe to say that Warner not only got those teams to the playoffs, he got them to the Superbowl once they were there, and to top it off, he had some of the best Superbowl performances of all time. It's really hard to ask any more of one player in crunch time. Beyond the Superbowl stats, he has the highest career completion % in the playoffs. He has the highest yards per attempt in the playoffs. He is 2nd in passer rating in the playoffs. And then there's his 10-3 record. (yes, 10-3, I mistakenly posted 10-2 earlier)

If anything is going to keep Warner out of the Hall, it is his injury history. The guy couldn't stay healthy. But I don't think that will stop him. When he was healthy, he was one of the best that ever played the position. He might not be a first-ballot hall of famer, but I think that he will get in.

SteveH · **Joined:** Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:36 pm **Posts:** 1741

Pudge wrote:

Brad Johnson took the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to the Super Bowl, does that make him a HOF lock?

Nope. But it would if he had also won 2 league MVPs and had one of the best playoff QB ratings of all time.

Pudge · **Posted:** Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:35 pm

SteveH wrote:

Pudge wrote:

Brad Johnson took the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to the Super Bowl, does that make him a HOF lock?

Nope. But it would if he had also won 2 league MVPs and had one of the best playoff QB ratings of all time.

Just trying to point out the incongruity that Warner gets 100% of the credit for the Rams and Cardinals going to the Super Bowl, but Johnson gets 0% of the credit for the Bucs winning their title.

As for Bulger's playoff record, does it even matter that the Rams teams he played on weren't as good as the Rams teams that Warner played on? Nope. Marshall Faulk was pretty much done as a lead back after '01. From 2002 and on, the Rams defenses got progressively worst.

I mean, who knows how far the Rams could have gone in 2002 under Bulger. The fact is they missed the playoffs directly because of Kurt Warner's shoddy play. In the 6 games that Bulger started and finished that year, they were 6-0 and averaging 28.5 points, which was 1 less point than the league-leading Chiefs that year being coached by Dick Vermeil with almost a duplicate offense.

And how much does it factor in that Larry Fitzgerald had the greatest playoff run of any WR in NFL history in 2008, beat out Jerry Rice's production from 1988?

I will say that I'm 99% certain Warner will get into the Hall of Fame. His numbers are irreproachable. But as far as the player goes, I think Warner was a good QB, but not a great QB. And when he gets into the Hall of Fame, and you compare him to the other QBs currently enshrined, he will be the only one that was irrelevant for 50-70% of his career.

That exact same statement could be said of Boomer Esiason or Drew Bledsoe, yet neither of them will get into the Hall of Fame. Warner will get in because of his numbers, while Ken Anderson won't. Anderson only went to 1 Super Bowl, while Warner went to 3. 2 of Warner's SB appearances came during a period of NFL history where there was only 1 other HOF QB (Favre) playing during his prime. The moment Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, and Drew Brees became the guys they would eventually be between 2002-04, Warner became irrelevant until that late resurgence in 2008 with the Cardinals. While the prime of Anderson's career (1972-82), he was competing with the likes of Terry Bradshaw, Dan Fouts, Frank Tarkenton, and a young Joe Montana. Not to mention you had players like Roger Staubach, Bob Griese, and Joe Namath towards the ends of their careers, but still as significant obstacles to much of Anderson's early success.

Factors such as quality of competition will never be considered when Warner comes up for enshrinement. They'll just see 2 league MVPS and 3 Super Bowl appearances, and consider nothing else. They won't consider his entire career, they'll just look at those accomplishments and those 3 seasons in which they occurred in, and that will be the entirety of the argument.

No one will consider that Warner played 5 years on the Cardinals, and for 2 of those years he wasn't even the best QB on his team. That if Kurt Warner was so great, then how was it possible for the Cardinals to be better for 2 years with either Josh McCown or rookie Matt Leinart in the lineup?...

RobertAP · **Joined:** Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:15 pm **Posts:** 3537

Like:
Joe Namath?
Terry Bradshaw?
Troy Aikman?

In my opinion, Warner was better than they were. Matter of fact, if you go through the HoF QBs, Warner is better than at least half of them, and I'm not simply talking about raw stats, I'm talking about comparing them to people of their own era. When Warner was on, he was a dominating force. A lot of the guys in the HoF either had a few good years, got to a lot of championships (team?), or they played a long time. If you are weighing their accomplishments vs Warner's, then Warner is a shoe-in. He holds enough regular season and playoff records that there shouldn't be any question.

Pudge · **Posted:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:47 pm

For the majority of people, and again why I think he'll get into the Hall is that people will sum up his career as 2 MVPS and 3 Super Bowl appearances. And I understand that especially for things like HOF voting, people will tend to focus on the good/great and see Warner's resume and be very impressed. That is essentially what will be printed on his plaque and it really looks good.

What i think is the problem is that people won't consider the entire body of work when it comes to Warner and I think that can be said of pretty much all HOF candidates. It's why a guy like Anderson won't get a sniff, because he only has 1 Super Bowl appearance, 0 MVPs, 4 Pro Bowls, and they'll see that and say "That's nice and all, but it's not relaly moving me."

And my point is that if you were to consider Anderson's entire career, I think it's a better overall body of work than Warner.

And what is glossed over for Warner's career because of the eye-popping "plaque stuff" is that between 2002 and 2007, he was no better a QB then than say what Kyle Orton is today. He was J.A.G. And those 5 years, represents 50% of his career.

And again, when he gets into the Hall, he will be the only QB that for 50% of his career was mediocre at best. And when you factor that in, and weigh it alongside his other great achievements, that IMO negates much of that and means that he should not be in the Hall of Fame. He may be the best QB in the Hall of Very Good.

And when you look at those 2 MVPs in particular and 2 of those Super Bowl appearances, they occurred during a period of time where since the late 70s where the rules were changed to favor passing, it was arguably the worst 5-6 year period of QB play in general.

But my beef may be less with Warner specifically, then with the HOF and generally "legacy determining" process in general. For example, if Eli Manning wins his 2nd Super Bowl this weekend, there's going to be talk that he is better than his brother. Which is an absolute joke, but because of this aura that surrounds Super Bowls and championships in general, that basically makes the pretty good player on the team that goes to or wins the Super Bowl is better than the pretty good player on the team that got eliminated a round or two before.

For example, compare Hakeem Nicks and Roddy White. They are in a very similar category of player. Roddy is probably better, and is probably towards the upper end of the "No. 1 WR" spectrum, while Nicks is probably at at the low end, but both are still No. 1s. But in terms of talking about legacies, Nicks just got a huge boost, especially if the Giants win the Super Bowl this year.

Cyril · **Joined:** Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm **Posts:** 3882

Well we all know that compared to some sports its twice as easy to get into footballs Hall Of Fame...... There's a lot of good players
that don't change the way their position is thought of, we've been talking about Qbs but their are running backs and receivers that pretty much play the position well; but just play and I don't think deserving.....I wish they were more selective!!

RobertAP · **Joined:** Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:15 pm **Posts:** 3537

With regards to Warner's complete body of work, I again state that Joe Namath and Terry Bradshaw were pretty lousy QBs for most of their careers. Terry rode the steel curtain to success, but put up pretty good numbers in the playoffs. Namath... why is he in the hall? Seriously, how did that man get in? I URGE you to go look at the careers that these guys had and then come back here and tell me that Warner is the only one who was mediocre for 50% of his career.

I understand that you're not happy about how the system works... But it is possible to get in without winning a superbowl. Marino proved that. Gonzo will undoubtedly get in without winning anything of significance.

Pudge · **Posted:** Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:49 pm

RobertAP wrote:

I understand that you're not happy about how the system works... But it is possible to get in without winning a superbowl. Marino proved that. Gonzo will undoubtedly get in without winning anything of significance.

Not exactly great examples. Marino had set a number of records when he hung up the game. Tony Gonzalez also set/holds all of the records for a pass-catching TE. Basically you have to put up ridiculous career numbers in order to get into the Hall without winning a Super Bowl. But if you're just a pretty good player, if you have 3 or 4 rings it is worth the same (e.g. Lynn Swann).

Why is Namath in the Hall? I would presume because he was one the league's first gunslinger and was a pretty good QB in the years leading up to the merger when the AFL had less than a dozen teams. He won an AFL MVP, Super Bowl MVP, and has one of the most memorable personalities and Super Bowl wins in league history. Does that mean he deserves to be in the Hall? Perhaps, perhaps not.

Bradshaw? Bradshaw had nearly a dozen good seasons and the Steelers and he were never irrelevant during his entire career. Did he put up great numbers? No. But he played in a different era, where throwing the football was a lot harder. And if you compare Bradshaw to his peers, especially from 1975-82 when he really started to play well as a passer, and he was one of the top guys in the league: http://pfref.com/tiny/4yHVI

Are you really arguing that Kurt Warner has a better HOF resume than Terry Bradshaw? Bradshaw played 14 years in the league, and maybe for 1 or 2 of them would you say he was not the best QB on his team. Warner played 10 years in the league, and for 4 of those years he was the 2nd best passer on his team. You can't say that about any other HOF passer, Namath and Bradshaw included.

You can certainly say that Bradshaw was a below average passer for the first 5 years of his career. But he played 9 more seasons, and was not a below average passer for those years. He was actually pretty good, relative to his era.

Philip Rivers has been an elite QB for 3 years, already matching what Warner was. And if he maintains his current level of play for the just the next 3 years, he'll have put together a better body of work than Warner. But will he get serious looks as a HOFer? Who knows. But unless he goes to and/or wins Super Bowl(s) and/or sets a number of passing records, the answer is probably no.

RobertAP · **Joined:** Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:15 pm **Posts:** 3537

Adjusted Net Yards per pass attempt? Seriously, that's what being a good QB boils down to? Look at the other stats... Completion %, Passer rating, TD/Int ratio, Avg yards/game. In almost every other statistically significant category, Bradshaw is well behind his peers. He most certainly was not the Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, or Aaron Rodgers of his era. He was more like the Phillip Rivers or Matt Ryan. The difference is that his team made the playoffs consistently and he lifted his game when he got there. Terry would not be in the hall if not for the rings. Neither would Namath.

On the other hand, when Warner wasn't battling injuries (he really did not recover well from concussions) he was among the best in the league at his position. Once he got to the playoffs, he put up performances that are among the best of all time. Warner carried his teams to three Superbowls. Bradshaw rode his defense there.

fun gus · **Joined:** Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am **Posts:** 4271

I think it's pretty clear Pudge hates Warner like he was an overweight defensive linebacker...

I think his annoying wife must have kicked Pudge's dog, or something :mrgreen:

Pudge · **Posted:** Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:00 am

RobertAP wrote:

Adjusted Net Yards per pass attempt? Seriously, that's what being a good QB boils down to? Look at the other stats... Completion %, Passer rating, TD/Int ratio, Avg yards/game.

Do some research about ANYA and then come back to me if you still have such sentiments. There is no end-all be all, but ANYA does take into account things like tds, interceptions, and yards. And in an era where the average QB barely completed over 50% of his passes, I'm not going to put too much stock in completion %.

RobertAP wrote:

In almost every other statistically significant category, Bradshaw is well behind his peers. He most certainly was not the Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, or Aaron Rodgers of his era.

No he is not. And who are the Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Aaron Rodgers of that particular Era if Bradshaw is not among them?

RobertAP wrote:

On the other hand, when Warner wasn't battling injuries (he really did not recover well from concussions) he was among the best in the league at his position

Nope, not true.

Here are Warner's DVOAs for every season of his career:
1999: 32.1% (1st)
2000: 25.2% (5th)
2001: 33.1% (1st)
2002: -17.3% (36th)
2003: -67.3% (59th)
2004: -10.9% (24th)
2005: 6.9% (15th)
2006: -4.7% (23rd)
2007: 11.3% (16th)
2008: 22.4% (6th)
2009: 18.8% (13th)

He was among the best at his position for 4 years (1999-01, 2008), but the other 7 years he had 2 terrible years (2002-03), 2 below average years (2004, 2006), and 3 average years (2005, 2007, 2009).

And the concussions weren't really a problem for Warner until the very end. It was a broken finger on his throwing hand that botched his 2002 season. And then it was a knee injury that slowed him during his first year in Arizona.

No, fun gus I don't hate Warner. I think he's a good QB, and as a person I like him. I just think his playing career is vastly overrated because people tend to gloss over that middle portion of his career when he was really nothing more than J.A.G. And I just don't think a player should be in the Hall when he was legitimately J.A.G. for half of his career.

I think the HOF should be reserved for QBs that were great for the majority of their career. There should be nobody that was a JAG for anything but a minor portion of their career. If it's during the early portion of his career, then its definitely excusable. That clearly was not Kurt Warner. Terry Bradshaw played 14 years, and was good to great for 9 of them, and the fact that being an explosive passing team really only started to develop during his playing career, I'm not going to get too down on him because he didn't put up gawdy numbers.

When Warner came into the league he was this great Cinderella story that Hollywood couldn't have written a better script. A guy that was bagging groceries suddenly was a Super Bowl champion and league MVP. And then in 2002, he got hurt and fell off the face of the Earth, and didn't really emerge until 6 years later. Then he had 1 really solid year, and in the eyes of most that sort of washed away all the bad and average play that had been Warner for the past 6 years. It did not with me. It was a nice third act for a genuinely good guy, but it didn't make him Hall of Fame worthy...not in my eyes.

But yes, I'm aware that he's going to get in. It really is inevitable. If Lynn Swann is in the Hall, then Kurt Warner will definitely get in.

RobertAP · **Joined:** Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:15 pm **Posts:** 3537

What were Bradshaw's DVOA's? Let's compare apples to apples here. It's kind of silly to post one set of stats for one guy, and another set of stats for the other.

And as for the elite QB's of his era, Dan Fouts was far and away better than anyone else, but there's also Fran Tarkenton, Roger Staubach, and Tommy Kramer, all of which consistently put up better numbers than Bradshaw. (of course, all of them but Kramer are in the hall.)

Cyril · **Joined:** Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm **Posts:** 3882

Namath was the first Qb of the AFC to win a Super Bowl; in just Super Bowl 3; when the AFC was considered a second rate league with
about as much chance of winning the Super Bowl as the Vegas odds were about 25-1. The Green Bay Packers had smashed and trashed
the First two AFL Super Bowl Teams as well as knocking out the Chiefs "Fred The Hammer Williamson"

Quote:

"Hall of Fame.com" Wrote this about Namath " Joe Namath is best remembered for his performance in the New York Jets' stunning 16-7 upset of the heavily favored Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III. However, during his 13-year tenure from 1965 through 1977 he was one of the game's most exciting, proficient and publicized quarterbacks."

Namath's place in history was assured with his first pro football act, the signing of a reported $400,000 contract early in 1965 that gave the American Football League its biggest victory in the costly inter-league war of the 1960s. The National Football League’s St. Louis Cardinals had also drafted Namath. “Broadway Joe,” as he quickly became known, won a starting job in his third game on his way to AFL Rookie of the Year acclaim in 1965.

In 1967, he became the first quarterback to pass for more than 4,000 yards in one season. In 1968, he capped off AFL Player of the Year and unanimous All-Pro selection with MVP honors in Super Bowl III. Namath's pre-game "guarantee" of victory backed up by his 206-yard passing production was a major factor in assuring the competitive viability of the AFL-NFL Super Bowl series.

Namath was plagued with knee injuries through much of his career. Still he completed 1,886 passes for 27,663 yards and 173 touchdowns in 12 seasons with the Jets and a final try with the Los Angeles Rams in 1977. He enjoyed many exceptional days, one of which came in the 1968 AFL title game. He threw three touchdown passes to lead New York to a 27-23 win over the Oakland Raiders that set up the dramatic Super Bowl III confrontation.

This was in the day of just 14 regular season games!!

Now you must put this is context with the 60's..... Perhaps he was a Hall of Fame person..... Many forget in his 4th year after his Super Bowl win " Broadway Joe" was publicly told he could not attend a certain nightclub that Namath had opened; by Pete Rozelle because some alleged Mafia bosses
frequently went to the same Club....... His attending this club was " grounds for suspension"!!

Joe Namath put his career; his money and fame, in jeopardy to hold an open press conference that he was retiring from professional
football; so he could live as he pleased (with a beautiful woman on each arm) !!

Its fun to actually see the NFL panic!!

Joe was not coming back!! Here's how Wiekepidia tells it

Quote:

Bachelors III

After the season, Namath opened a popular Upper East Side bar called "Bachelors III", with plans to open branches in Florida and Boston. To protect the league's reputation, the NFL Commissioner, Pete Rozelle, ordered Namath to divest himself of his interest in the bar. Namath reacted defiantly, retiring from football during a teary news conference. Down at the NFL offices panic ensued. His presence on Sunday afternoons meant millions of dollars in television ad revenue. Working through intermediaries, a meeting between Namath and Rozelle was arranged. It lasted well into the night, and in the end the antagonists reached a compromise. Namath would sell his share of the New York Bachelors III only. He would retain his shares of the Boston and Fort Lauderdale locations, as well as any that might open in the future (Tuscaloosa, Alabama). After missing most of training camp, Namath came out of retirement and reported to the Jets.

Now Robert AP their were lots of people who became very famous for their stands on issues in the 60's.... Namath played with a broken Jaw against Oakland, was kicked off the National Champion Alabama Crimson Tide for a game;" for missing curfew" and said it " was deserved'; then won the National College Championship!!

$400,000 was more money than anyone had been paid when he was selected #1 by the Jets, and the Jets have never won another Super Bowl.....

I won't argue he might not have the stats; but he was as more famous then than anyone who ever played the game, and we must remember its the Hall Of FAME!!

That's how Namath made it by doing commercial's with Farrah Fawcett (putting shaving cream on his face; without his shirt on; unheard of
40 years ago,) showing "no fear" after 4 knee surgery's; telling playboy he'd slept with 400 women at Alabama; (I was hoping for 40 someday (: And he never really had good running backs and Pudge is so right; back then in a 14 game schedule it was just very tough
to play Qb compared to today's easy rules for the offense.

backnblack · **Posted:** Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:48 am

I remember watching that SB and hoping the Colts would break him to bits. It was a shocking loss. My favorite player back then was a DB on the Colts named Alvin Haymond who was, BTW, legendary for coming back onto the field after being concussed. He returned kicks.

RobertAP · **Joined:** Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:15 pm **Posts:** 3537

My point about Joe is, he had a couple of really good years early in his NFL career, and then he was mediocre. He did not show a high level of play throughout his career. He's in the hall because of a couple of good seasons, and a lot of attention whoring. Warner was not the attention whore that Namath was, but comparing Warner to his peers, he put up a better career than Namath did compared to his peers. Ditto for Warner compared to Bradshaw. And again, if you want to talk about the big game, Warner has 3 of the best Superbowl performances by a QB on record.

For me, this discussion is about the merits of Warner getting into the hall of fame vs the guys who have already gotten in. It's not simply pick on Namath and Bradshaw.

Pudge · **Posted:** Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:29 pm

RobertAP wrote:

What were Bradshaw's DVOA's? Let's compare apples to apples here. It's kind of silly to post one set of stats for one guy, and another set of stats for the other.

No, you're the one who keeps trying to make the comparisons between Warner and Bradshaw. You believe Bradshaw and Namath don't belong in the Hall of Fame, which is your prerogative. But the basis for getting into the Hall should be on that individuals merits, not comparing him.

DVOA isn't recorded before 1992. I'm just trying to show you that your notion that Warner was among the best in the league is grossly overstated. He had 4 really strong seasons, and that's about it. The rest of his career he was much more of a middle-rung passer, i.e. average.

RobertAP wrote:

And again, if you want to talk about the big game, Warner has 3 of the best Superbowl performances by a QB on record.

Based off what measure, passing yards and passer rating?

My recollection of the Super Bowl against the Patriots was that Warner did not play that well. My recollection of the Cardinals Super Bowl was that Warner had a decent game, but it was not memorable. The memory players/plays from that game were James Harrison's INT, Larry Fitzgerald's big pass catch at the end of that game, Ben Roethlisberger and Santonio Holmes game-winning drive. Where are the memorable Super Bowl moments for Warner? There really are none.

The Rams lost to the Patriots because Mike Martz got cute, and abandoned the run and decided to throw it pretty much every down. And the Rams lost their balance, and Warner was unable to carry that offense. The Rams beat the Titans IIRC because they got off to a strong start, but then the more memorable aspect of that game is how well Steve McNair played in the second half and almost led a comeback where I believe the Titans were down by like 2 scores.

My memory may be off, and I'm not going to spend 5-10 minutes looking it up.

Kurt Warner's achievements are overrated and overstated. He won his first MVP when he was by almost every account not even the most valuable player on his team (that would go to Faulk), and his closest competition as far as a QB goes was Steve Beuerlein. And when you look at their numbers, they are very similar, and considering Beuerlein was surrounded by Tim Biakabutuka, Muhsin Muhammad, and Patrick Jeffers and the 26th ranked defense in the league instead of Faulk, Bruce, Holt, and a Top 5 defense, you can certainly say Beuerlein did as much as Warner with a lot less.

His 2nd MVP, his closest competitor with Jeff Garcia.

Warner was a good QB, but he was essentially no better than the Drew Bledsoes, Jeff Garcias, or Rich Gannons of his time, all guys that good years. The difference is that Warner managed to stick around long enough to have a resurgent year in Arizona, while the others were long gone. He deserves credit for that, but during his career he did very little when he didn't have a HOF RB and/or WR to throw to.

He's good, but he was never great.

Pudge · **Posted:** Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:24 pm

Very, very, very interesting...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -of-famer/

Kurt Warner says Eli isn’t a Hall of Famer
Posted by Mike Florio on February 7, 2012, 5:28 PM EST
040829_warner_hmed.standard AP

Quarterback Kurt Warner retired two years ago with a body of work that likely will put him in Canton. If he gets there, he may not be welcoming Eli Manning with open arms.

In an appearance with Burns and Gambo on Arizona Sports 620 in Phoenix, Warner made the case against Eli’s potential induction into the Hall of Fame.

“I fully disagree with that,” Warner said of talk that Eli will get in. “You know because I know we put a lot of weight on championships, and rightfully so. But championships are won as a team, and I’m fully convinced of that. You never see one guy — a great player, great quarterback — carry a team through the playoffs and into a Super Bowl and win a Super Bowl that way. I’ve never seen it. You know even in that game [Super Bowl XLVI], it’s 21-17. That’s the game. There wasn’t a quarterback just up and down the field carrying the team.

“Yeah, he made the plays down the stretch, no question about it,” added Warner, who spent the 2004 season with Eli in New York. “He’s had two great playoff runs, or his team has had two great playoff runs. But I also look at the rest of his career. I mean, he has an 82 . . . quarterback rating throughout his career. You know, he’s had five of his eight seasons where he has thrown 16 interceptions or more. His completion percentage on his career is 58 percent. To me, those aren’t Hall of Fame numbers and by that I mean every time you step on the field you’re a game changer, you’re a difference maker. And I don’t believe Eli Manning has been that guy until this year. I think this year is the first time in his career when he’s become that guy.”

Warner said that, if Eli performs like he did this year for five more seasons, then he’ll be worthy of inclusion among the league’s all-time greats. Without that, Warner thinks Eli should be kept out due to the fact that he has been “extremely inconsistent throughout his career.”

It’s persuasive stuff, despite the potential bias that a guy like Warner may have when it comes to setting the bar for inclusion. Warner won only one Super Bowl, and he’s less than 5,000 passing yards and only 23 touchdown passes ahead of Eli. But Warner was twice the league MVP, which under his own explanation of what it takes to get to Canton makes his career seem more impressive.

I’m not saying Warner is twisting the standard to suit his own interests deliberately, but it’s normal where there’s no clear, objective formula to define greatness in a way that enhances the great things the person providing the definition has done. Warner has been a “game changer” more often than Eli, even though Eli has won two Super Bowls — and two Super Bowl MVP awards — and barring injury Eli’s final career stats likely will dwarf Warner’s.

But at least Warner is willing to take a position publicly and defend it, unlike the 44 men and women who under the cover of the Hall of Fame’s by laws can’t be compelled to provide details regarding why they’ve voted the way they’ve voted, and why others in the room have cast their own ballots.

Cyril · **Joined:** Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm **Posts:** 3882

Quote:

"Robert AP" Wrote My point about Joe is, he had a couple of really good years early in his NFL career, and then he was mediocre. He did not show a high level of play throughout his career.

Yes and I understand your point; although their were not many talented Jets teams. My point is their is no standard for the Hall Of Fame.
Even the Super Bowl Jet team was mostly Namath and one great receiver.

The last word is Fame; and Joe Namath was the most famous football player to ever play the game.....I've got no idea of your age but I've just turned 61 and I was a boy and Namath was the most famous player for any sport!! Up there with Muhammad Ali in boxing!! Joe had the "first quick release"; he was very exciting, the first AFC Winning Superbowl was just not another Superbowl; it changed Football history!! I'm quoting this again so you can see one person was bringing in millions!! " NFL Offices Panicked"

Quote:

After the season, Namath opened a popular Upper East Side bar called "Bachelors III", with plans to open branches in Florida and Boston. To protect the league's reputation, the NFL Commissioner, Pete Rozelle, ordered Namath to divest himself of his interest in the bar. Namath reacted defiantly, retiring from football during a teary news conference. Down at the NFL offices panic ensued. His presence on Sunday afternoons meant millions of dollars in television ad revenue.

Today their is no one bigger than the game BUT THEN "His Presence on Sunday Afternoons meant millions of dollars in television ad revenue. "Joe's Presence" And everyone loved him; he was a very exciting Qb.

All I'm saying is that if your younger than 50 you can't imagine how famous Namath was. If you want to call it the "whoring around" ok,
but I can assure you it was his total package, the fur coats, N.Y.City before Donald Trump, Namath ruled N.Y. City!!.... All I'm saying
is if the most famous football player for 10 years in Pro Football doesn't deserve to be in the Hall called FAME, then I think we are missing the boat a
little. Sure its what you do on the field; but like Arnold Palmer, its also what you do for the game!! Namath made the AFC a real league
all by himself; their wasn't anybody even close!! Once in 50 years there is something so big that happens, that its remember forever!!

SteveH · **Joined:** Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:36 pm **Posts:** 1741

Pudge wrote:

“Yeah, he made the plays down the stretch, no question about it,” added Warner, who spent the 2004 season with Eli in New York. “He’s had two great playoff runs, or his team has had two great playoff runs. But I also look at the rest of his career. I mean, he has an 82 . . . quarterback rating throughout his career. You know, he’s had five of his eight seasons where he has thrown 16 interceptions or more. His completion percentage on his career is 58 percent. To me, those aren’t Hall of Fame numbers and by that I mean every time you step on the field you’re a game changer, you’re a difference maker. And I don’t believe Eli Manning has been that guy until this year. I think this year is the first time in his career when he’s become that guy.”

Warner said that, if Eli performs like he did this year for five more seasons, then he’ll be worthy of inclusion among the league’s all-time greats. Without that, Warner thinks Eli should be kept out due to the fact that he has been “extremely inconsistent throughout his career.”

Quarterback rating? Interceptions? Completion percentage? Man, Warner sounds like Old Europe. Why doesn't he evaluate QBs based on DVOA like everyone else in the modern NFL community? :ninja:

Cyril · **Joined:** Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm **Posts:** 3882

Quote:

Very, very, very interesting...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -of-famer/

Kurt Warner says Eli isn’t a Hall of Famer
Posted by Mike Florio on February 7, 2012, 5:28 PM EST
040829_warner_hmed.standard AP

Quarterback Kurt Warner retired two years ago with a body of work that likely will put him in Canton. If he gets there, he may not be welcoming Eli Manning with open arms.

In an appearance with Burns and Gambo on Arizona Sports 620 in Phoenix, Warner made the case against Eli’s potential induction into the Hall of Fame.

“I fully disagree with that,” Warner said of talk that Eli will get in. “You know because I know we put a lot of weight on championships, and rightfully so. But championships are won as a team, and I’m fully convinced of that. You never see one guy — a great player, great quarterback — carry a team through the playoffs and into a Super Bowl and win a Super Bowl that way. I’ve never seen it. You know even in that game [Super Bowl XLVI], it’s 21-17. That’s the game. There wasn’t a quarterback just up and down the field carrying the team.

“Yeah, he made the plays down the stretch, no question about it,” added Warner, who spent the 2004 season with Eli in New York. “He’s had two great playoff runs, or his team has had two great playoff runs. But I also look at the rest of his career. I mean, he has an 82 . . . quarterback rating throughout his career. You know, he’s had five of his eight seasons where he has thrown 16 interceptions or more. His completion percentage on his career is 58 percent. To me, those aren’t Hall of Fame numbers and by that I mean every time you step on the field you’re a game changer, you’re a difference maker. And I don’t believe Eli Manning has been that guy until this year. I think this year is the first time in his career when he’s become that guy.”

Warner said that, if Eli performs like he did this year for five more seasons, then he’ll be worthy of inclusion among the league’s all-time greats. Without that, Warner thinks Eli should be kept out due to the fact that he has been “extremely inconsistent throughout his career.”

It’s persuasive stuff, despite the potential bias that a guy like Warner may have when it comes to setting the bar for inclusion. Warner won only one Super Bowl, and he’s less than 5,000 passing yards and only 23 touchdown passes ahead of Eli. But Warner was twice the league MVP, which under his own explanation of what it takes to get to Canton makes his career seem more impressive.

I’m not saying Warner is twisting the standard to suit his own interests deliberately, but it’s normal where there’s no clear, objective formula to define greatness in a way that enhances the great things the person providing the definition has done. Warner has been a “game changer” more often than Eli, even though Eli has won two Super Bowls — and two Super Bowl MVP awards — and barring injury Eli’s final career stats likely will dwarf Warner’s.

But at least Warner is willing to take a position publicly and defend it, unlike the 44 men and women who under the cover of the Hall of Fame’s by laws can’t be compelled to provide details regarding why they’ve voted the way they’ve voted, and why others in the room have cast their own ballots.

OK I now hate Warner!! Why would he say this 3 days after Manning & N.Y.s Super Bowl WIN?? Why even touch the subject NOW??

Look, you have a father taken #2 in the NFL draft. He goes to the worst franchise in football and still makes 2 pro Bowls... Then his older
brother Payton is arguably one of the top 10 Qbs of all time with a Super Bowl Ring and having gotten to The Super Bowl twice; then the youngest brother comes along and has to deal with the comparison's of his Father and older brother?

What kind of internal pressure did Warner go through? Stocking shelves??

To me its not interesting; its a glimpse of a retired athlete trying to make news in a very sad way!! Even three months from now; but don't try to take away from what N.Y. accomplished this week....Eli probably put him and his ego in its place when they were both with N.Y.

Pudge · **Posted:** Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:05 pm

SteveH wrote:

Quarterback rating? Interceptions? Completion percentage? Man, Warner sounds like Old Europe. Why doesn't he evaluate QBs based on DVOA like everyone else in the modern NFL community? :ninja:

Because if he did, then his career would be a lot less "illustrious." Like I've said, others relish in ignorance.

Mike Florio wrote:

It’s persuasive stuff, despite the potential bias that a guy like Warner may have when it comes to setting the bar for inclusion.

But for the record, I agree that Manning is not a HOFer. The fact that people want to make him an elite QB just because he's won his 2nd Super Bowl shows how much people overrate championships. Is Manning a good QB? Yes. I've thought he's been largely underrated for the past 3 or so years. But is he an elite QB? No. Top 10? Yes. Top 7? Probably. Eli is going to have to have probably like the article suggests 5 more years like this past year before he really deserves a sniff at the HOF.

Cyril · **Joined:** Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm **Posts:** 3882

I'm not exactly sure how you overate a Super Bowl when very few coaches have won one, much less two!!
As so many seem to say Super Bowl or bust.... (I don't say that) but so many fans say it or imply it here!!

Being the simpleton in the group, I kinda like Eli, I like 185 touchdowns vs. 129 picks.....

I think its really hard to judge a Qb who has played only 8 years and shown no signs of consistently being injured!!

Lets let him play a few more years before deciding right now......I think he'll play better not worse!!

I wish Blank would have had two Super Bowl Rings in the last 8 years!!

Its so hard to accomplish; that a
team is just recognized when they pull it off once. I guess that's why an emphasis is put on winning the Super Bowl;
and so much scrutiny on the Qb that helped make it happen.

It seems the biggest publicity is held for the teams that have won Super Bowls, and won Championships when their were no Super Bowls!! (Bears; Giants; Green Bay, Pitt, Colts) dang same franchises keep doing it; and the same dang ones usually don't!!

RobertAP · **Joined:** Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:15 pm **Posts:** 3537

Pudge wrote:

SteveH wrote:

Quarterback rating? Interceptions? Completion percentage? Man, Warner sounds like Old Europe. Why doesn't he evaluate QBs based on DVOA like everyone else in the modern NFL community? :ninja:

Because if he did, then his career would be a lot less "illustrious." Like I've said, others relish in ignorance.

I've never said anything bad about DVOA... I just said, if we're going to compare Warner to Bradshaw and Namath, let's see their DVOA stats. If we don't have their DVOA stats, then we have to compare them to Warner the old fashioned way.

SteveH · **Joined:** Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:36 pm **Posts:** 1741

RobertAP wrote:

Pudge wrote:

SteveH wrote:

Quarterback rating? Interceptions? Completion percentage? Man, Warner sounds like Old Europe. Why doesn't he evaluate QBs based on DVOA like everyone else in the modern NFL community? :ninja:

Because if he did, then his career would be a lot less "illustrious." Like I've said, others relish in ignorance.

I've never said anything bad about DVOA... I just said, if we're going to compare Warner to Bradshaw and Namath, let's see their DVOA stats. If we don't have their DVOA stats, then we have to compare them to Warner the old fashioned way.

DVOA is a bunch of nonsense. Nobody in the NFL pays attention to it or even knows or cares what it is.

FalcFans Forums

Koetter wants balance in Atlanta offense - Pat Y

Who is online