Average is the 50th percentile. If you want to make up your own definitions, let me know what those are. If the Chiefs finished 14th in offense and 14th in defense this season, would you say they were an average or medicore team? Of course not. Because that isn’t what either term means.

No. If one had proof that Warner was merely a result, not the cause, then that would justify such an opinion.

I don’t recall anyone ever putting forth an argument that Emmitt Smith didn’t belong in the HOF, do you? That’s because such an argument would have been endlessly mocked.

Anyway, can you name five better QBs from the last ten years? I’ll spot you Petyon Manning and Tom Brady. I’d be willing to debate whether Warner was better than Favre or Rothlisberger. I don’t see who else enters the conversation.

I haven’t kept going back to the thumb injury. You have. There’s a difference.

In 2004, Warner played in 10 games before he was yanked for the Giants QBOTF. His stats:

86.5 passer rating
62.8% completion rate
4 FL
6 TDs
4 INTs
2000+ yards

His TDs weren’t that high in the Giants run-based offense, but those aren’t medicore or average numbers. Those are numbers of a great QB on a new team in a new system. They’re better numbers than the majority of QBs in the league had in 2004.

In 2005, Warner played in 10 games before he was yanked for the Cardinals QBOTF. His stats:

85.8 passer rating
64.5% completion rate
5 FL
11 TDs
9 INTs
2700+ yards

Those are numbers of a great QB on a new team in a new system. They’re better numbers than the majority of QBs in the league had in 2005.

Again, let me know what your new definition of the term “average” means. Warner, in his worst years, was in the top half of the league. And again, his worst years were better than the worst years of Marino, Elway, Favre, etc. And better than the best years of most QBs.

If you want to get in a Manning/Huard debate, make another thread, and I’ll explain how Huard’s lack of postseason success, his inability to complete full seasons, and the fact that he spent most of his career as a backup disqualifies him from any comparison to Super Bowl-winning QBs who haven’t missed a start since their rookie year.

It isn’t as easy as posting an opinion with nothing to back it up.

If there were facts to back up your opinion, you or Seek would have provided them by now. You haven’t. Because you can’t.

It seems that you are trying to start a new argument because you lost the last one. You’re now trying to argue that Warner isn’t as good with bad players as he was with good ones. That scheme and supporting casts make a difference. No s***.

The argument you lost is whether Warner is a HOF QB. Comparing him to every other HOF QB in terms of statistics and accomplishments, there is no argument to say that Warner does not belong in the HOF.

Someone’s opinion that Warner doesn’t belong in the HOF is as valid as someone’s opinion that Brodie Croyle does. You can’t hide behind either as an opinion.

Why do you always get into debates about Fact or Opinion?

Here’s my two-cents.

He’ll probably get in, does he deserve a 100% shot because of what he’s done in the league. No. There are many football players who have won a Superbowl who are not enshrined in Canton, as their are many who have not won any but have out-standing statistics and legendary game-heroics.

Kurt Warner won a championship and lost two, plus he’s placed some big numbers. We all know this, but this does not merit a sure-fire ballot into the hall. His heroics are, IMO, barely a Meh! In the clutch he’s a loser and that’s why I wouldn’t want him in the hall but hey… in all likely-hood LaDanian Tomlinson will be there without a ring so… I just wouldn’t visit their part of the hall at Canton if and when I go.

P.S. Don’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings… I’m just not a fan.

I respect your argument very much. It is intelligent, well thought out, and you back it up.

My response would be: Who? Who has produced on the level of Warner and is not in the HOF?

Can you think of any three SB QBs who aren’t in the HOF? The only two-time (or more) MVPs not in the HOF Favre, Manning, and Warner. And Favre and Manning aren’t in because they aren’t eligible yet.

I could relate to an argument that the HOF needs tougher standards. But Warner’s accomplishments equal or dwarf most very other enshrined QB.

What puts Warner in the “lock” category is 3 SBs and 2 MVPs. There is not a single QB in the NFL with those qualifications who isn’t in the HOF. If you keep Warner out, you have basically said that MVPs and SBs aren’t criteria for the HOF. And since they obviously are and have been for previous selections, you are basically asking the HOF to be something its not.

Kurt Warner’s stats are very good but also are somewhat deceptive, just like Tomlinson. He produced big-time stats in 4 of his seasons. He has consistently placed an average to above average passer rating. I just don’t place him very high on big-games type of effectiveness, nor consistency on a year by year basis.

His win-loss percentage throughout his career isn’t great. With the Rams he had phenomenal W/L stats but also was surrounded by a great team which went to two Super-Bowls and meritted his MVPs… then he declined with only his passer-rating remaining at par.

Had Eli Manning not taken away his initial second-comeback in NY this may not be up for debate, but that’s history and as such his second come-back story was last season which started fantastic at 8-4, I believe, but tuckered out with a average W/L entering the playoffs… and we all know what happened from there.

Here’s a link which provides a quick read on why he should not be enshrined:
Kurt Warner Is Not A Hall Of Famer | Bleacher Report

Now having posted that, I’m fairly sure he’ll be enshrined, I just don’t think it should be first ballot. Maybe my opinions are simply because I’m not that big of a fan. I love the story of him making it to the NFL and he seems a class act, just not so-much the rest.

i’d say if he can play two more seasons w/out stinkin, then yes his career stats, complete body of work would warrant consideration to the HOF, just compare his career stats to bradshaw, otto graham, sammy baugh, y a tittle, fran tarkenton, bart starr, etc…you may be surprised at the comparrison.

The thing is, you are absolutely correct in what you write. Warner had fantastical seasons and merely above average seasons. He did great with great supporting casts and/or schemes, and he didn’t do as great when put on fairly untalented teams. But, I think you make a fundamental error in analyzing his HOF prospects.

You are comparing Warner to to himself, not to other enshrined QBs, to determine his HOF eligibility. QBs like Aikman, Jim Kelly, Terry Bradshaw, Elway, etc. all had fantastical seasons and merely above average seasons. All these HOF QBs did great with great supporting casts and/or schemes, and didn’t do as great when put on fairly untalented teams.

Warner’s worst years were leagues better than the worst years of Aikman, Unitas, Elway, etc. – and his worst years were better than most NFL QBs best years. Warner’s best years were better than the best years of most HOF QBs. He certainly didn’t have better personnel on the ’99 Rams, ’01 Rams, or ’08 Cards than Bradshaw in Pittsburgh, Aikman in Dallas, Young in San Fran, Kelly in Buffalo, Elway in Denver, or Favre in Green Bay.

My point is: comparing Warner to almost every other HOF QB, he has equal or better accomplishments and statistics. If that is the case, how does it make any sense to say he’s not a HOFer?