Oh, okay. I couldn't tell at first, but I see that now. Several times on this board I saw people knock those 2 WRs, thinking they were only good because of Marino Another positive for Warner is looking at what happened to the Rams after he left. Marc Bulger took the Rams to the playoffs a couple times with the same players for the most part, but Bulger did not have the same level of success.
And Namath was only 13 , 12 if you discount the last with the Rams - and 3 with the Jets were 5 or less starts due to injury.
Warner is now 8-2 in playoff games. Playing well in numerous playoff games never hurts. The two losses were both by 3 points. 31-28 loss to Saints in Wild Card game in 2000 and Super Bowl 36
Hall of Famers don't get benched for 3 1/2 years. That's why his down years play a part. Yes, he did have the Giants in position for the playoffs in 2004, but he was 5-4 and lost his last 2 games before being replaced by Manning. The "down years" are from 2002 thru 2006 where he played 37 out of a possible 80 games. I think you need more production out of HOF players. I still say he gets in, but its not a slam dunk as you are making it out to be
Staubach had major problems beating out Craig Morton for a job and Staubach was in his late 20s at the time. Namath missed tons of action. Waterfield was unable to keep Van Brocklin on the bench. Montana eventually lost his job to Steve Young. Warner had several dominant seasons and if the Cardinals win the Super Bowl and Warner plays well, he's going to go down as one of the best postseason performers of all-time. He'll be up there with Montana and Bradshaw in that department.
Staubach was just coming back from the Navy. Morton was not a slouch either as he led two different teams to the Super Bowl Namath is in the Hall of Fame because of what he meant to the league and the pro game more than his play on the field. They are both HOF's for a reason The elbow injury helped. Young was brought in to eventually replace Montana and when he finally did Montana was 34 years old. I don't disagree with this at all. However, he had a major lull in his career (5 1/2) years where he did not produce. That will/should factor in the decision to get him into the HOF. I still say he will get there, but not first ballot. If he's first ballot, then Terrell Davis NEEDS to be in the HOF ASAP.
Marcus Allen and George Blanda are two Hall of Famers who had spent several seasons on a team's bench. Kurt Warner certainly has had an odd career, but it's probably been good enough for him to be enshrined in the PFHOF someday.
Staubach was in his 5th season and was 31 years old before he finally rested the Cowboys starting QB job away from Morton for good. Morton was a very mediocre quarterback by any measure.
^ Murrell278 He did not have a lull of 5 1/2 seasons , a couple of seasons 04 Giants and 05 Cards were slightly above average in about 2/3 of the games , he has had 5 Great seasons with huge yards and TD's. His only really subpar work as a starter was 2002 Also should he be punished because he was looked over, took the hard route to the NFL and did not get to begin his Starting Career until he was 28 years old.
He took over the starting QB position in 1971 at 29 years old in his third season, a year after Morton guided the Cowboys to Super Bowl V. He then won the MVP of Super Bowl VI. In 1972 he missed most of the season with a separated shoulder before getting it back in the playoffs. He was never benched for another QB again until he retired.
And two downtrodden franchises at that, the Rams were what, 3-13 before he got there and we know the history of the Cardinals.
Yeah and Warner missed most of 2002 because of injury, but you seem to be holding that against him. Can we agree that Warner has had an odd career, but still is a serious candidate for the Hall of Fame?
And then was benched in 2003, benched in 2004, replaced in 2005 by Josh McCown, benched in 2006. This is not the resume of a Hall of Famer...yet..... I did not suggest he isn't a serious candidate for the HOF. I have suggested that he should not be a first ballot HOF'er... To answer your question, he has had one very odd career, no doubt about it.
The guy won a Super Bowl, almost won a second and has now led the NFLs crappiest franchise to his third. He just seems to step up every time his number is called. Plus he's the second most accurate passer in NFL history. The guy is clutch and a HOFer in my book.
Look at his career and tell me there isn't a 5 1/2 year lull in his career http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4541/career;_ylt=AjwUlZ4iVPKlCjeKSxLk.HX.uLYF I have not suggested at all that his path to the NFL should cost him the HOF.
I do want to make sure everyone knows that I fully understand when Warner was "on" he was amazing. Truly one of the best passers of the football and a pure joy to watch.
He had all sorts of nagging injuries. He was not benched due to poor play. As for the 1st ballot thing, I never cared for that crap. The guy is either a Hall of Famer or he isn't. I think it's silly when a voter will refuse to vote for a guy in his first year of eligibility just because he doesn't think the guy should be a 1st ballot inductee. "He belongs in the Hall of Fame. He was a great player. But he wasn't that great, so he should wait a year."
I think Warner spent too much time on the bench, hurt, or out of the league to be a Hall of Famer. 3 Super Bowl appearances and so far one win yes, but those were his only great years and he had a lot around him.
