Alphadawg7 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Do you think cements his status in the HOF regardless of the outcome of the SB? There is no question if he wins the SB, but what if they lose...is he still a lock? I think he was alredy deserving, I mean he is the 4th highest rated passer of all time. I know he has had a lot of talent to throw too, but so did Aikman, Montanna, Young, Manning, etc, so that shouldnt be held against him. I mean, the guy throws a great ball, constantly hits players in stride, gets balls into tight places, and is just really accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 i think he's probably in, the numbers are there, he has a super bowl win under his belt and is now playing in his third whats going to be interesting is will the Cards give him the new contract he wants considering he is a free agent, his age and the fact that they have Leinart on the bench Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I don't know. What ever happened to that spikey haired first wife? Does he have a smokin hot one now, or is he still with that one? Either way, he's very likely still in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills44 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 God willing, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLflutie7 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Do you think cements his status in the HOF regardless of the outcome of the SB? There is no question if he wins the SB, but what if they lose...is he still a lock? I think he was alredy deserving, I mean he is the 4th highest rated passer of all time. I know he has had a lot of talent to throw too, but so did Aikman, Montanna, Young, Manning, etc, so that shouldnt be held against him. I mean, the guy throws a great ball, constantly hits players in stride, gets balls into tight places, and is just really accurate. I've been on Warner's jock all year, so yes he should be a first ballot Hall of Fame player. Plus if he comes back next year, and that's still up in the air, and the Cardinals improve on offense even more then Kurt will go in. Warner is the one is who got the Cardinals to the SB. The Cardinal defense didn't get on 3-and-out the whole game did they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 i think he's probably in, the numbers are there, he has a super bowl win under his belt and is now playing in his third whats going to be interesting is will the Cards give him the new contract he wants considering he is a free agent, his age and the fact that they have Leinart on the bench I think the Cards offer him the right contract...the bigger question is will Kurt retire, especially if he wins it all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 I've been on Warner's jock all year, so yes he should be a first ballot Hall of Fame player. Plus if he comes back next year, and that's still up in the air, and the Cardinals improve on offense even more then Kurt will go in. Warner is the one is got the Cardinals to were they are at. The Cardinal defense didn't get on 3-and-out the whole game did they? Yeah, I totally agree...Leinart doesnt get them in the playoffs let alone the SB in my opinnion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLflutie7 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Yeah, I totally agree...Leinart doesnt get them in the playoffs let alone the SB in my opinnion Something about Leinart, he's just not good enough. Warner's performance says it all. Close one though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seq004 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Yes, he should get in now. I believe he has 2 MVP's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I've been on Warner's jock all year, so yes he should be a first ballot Hall of Fame player. Plus if he comes back next year, and that's still up in the air, and the Cardinals improve on offense even more then Kurt will go in. Warner is the one is who got the Cardinals to the SB. The Cardinal defense didn't get on 3-and-out the whole game did they? I agree Warner is a big reason they are there but what does the defense not getting a 3 and out all game have to do with anything? the Cards defense played well in the first half then didnt do much in the second half...the entire Cards team came out like the game was already over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I think surely now, but I think he was in before this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsObserver Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Kurt Warner in the hall of fame is a lock, regardless of the outcome of the Super Bowl. As someone mentioned, it'll be interesting to see if he returns to Arizona next year. To me, at his age he seems to have lost some mobility (not that ever had much). He still has the accuracy and the arm but time isn't on his side and I can't see him wanting to go to another team, and having to learn a new system. He's really got it good in Arizona with his group of wide receivers. Leinart hasn't gotten the job done when called upon, so there has to be some doubt whether he's the right man for the job. But I'm not sure if he's been given a fair amount of time to prove himself yet (too lazy to look up the stats).. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 Kurt Warner in the hall of fame is a lock, regardless of the outcome of the Super Bowl. As someone mentioned, it'll be interesting to see if he returns to Arizona next year. To me, at his age he seems to have lost some mobility (not that ever had much). He still has the accuracy and the arm but time isn't on his side and I can't see him wanting to go to another team, and having to learn a new system. He's really got it good in Arizona with his group of wide receivers. Leinart hasn't gotten the job done when called upon, so there has to be some doubt whether he's the right man for the job. But I'm not sure if he's been given a fair amount of time to prove himself yet (too lazy to look up the stats).. I felt he was a lock before today, but I continue to be surprised at how many times this topic comes up during AZ games on TV which is why I started this thread...I was curious if I was in the monority here if you guys felt the same. As far as Leinart goes, seems I remember hearing he didnt have the best work ethic in the film room and stuff like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsObserver Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I felt he was a lock before today, but I continue to be surprised at how many times this topic comes up during AZ games on TV which is why I started this thread...I was curious if I was in the monority here if you guys felt the same. As far as Leinart goes, seems I remember hearing he didnt have the best work ethic in the film room and stuff like that... Leinart seems to be a bit too Hollywood for his own good. I remember a Bill Parcells quote, shortly after he left Dallas, he was asked about Romo's potential and he said something to the effect of, "If he stays away from the Hollywood crap, he'll be good" and then a week later it was revealed Romo was dating Jessica Simpson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 Leinart seems to be a bit too Hollywood for his own good. I remember a Bill Parcells quote, shortly after he left Dallas, he was asked about Romo's potential and he said something to the effect of, "If he stays away from the Hollywood crap, he'll be good" and then a week later it was revealed Romo was dating Jessica Simpson. hahahaha, yeah I remember that...classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gus2378 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 OK, let me play devil's advocate here ... not saying he absolutely does not deserve it, but he's still borderline, IMO ... Basically, his whole candidacy would be based on FOUR seasons - 1999-2001 with STL and this season ... Granted, four GREAt seasons, but still just four ... in the 6 seasons in between he went 13-29 as a starter and threw 27 TDs and 30 INTs ... I gotta believe no HOF QB has EVER had a stretch like that. Longevity DOES come into play. Look at Terrell Davis ... four amazing seasons, league MVP, and driving force behind two Super Bowl wins ... it's pretty much accepted he has no chance because he was not dominant for long enough. What's the difference? If anything, Davis was slowed only by injury. Warner actually played BADLY for a long stretch. Not saying he is not a great player, and if you want to argue both of he and Davis should be in I would listen ... but that 6-year stretch is hard for me to ignore. Bad teams? Hell yes. But Archie Manning played on bad teams. Hell, Joe Ferguson played on bad teams and put up numbers like that. Does anyone think a Super Bowl and an MVP would have put Fergy in the HOF? I don't. If he gets in, I would not be outraged, but I'd say TD needs to go in immediately also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 OK, let me play devil's advocate here ... not saying he absolutely does not deserve it, but he's still borderline, IMO ... Basically, his whole candidacy would be based on FOUR seasons - 1999-2001 with STL and this season ... Granted, four GREAt seasons, but still just four ... in the 6 seasons in between he went 13-29 as a starter and threw 27 TDs and 30 INTs ... I gotta believe no HOF QB has EVER had a stretch like that. Longevity DOES come into play. Look at Terrell Davis ... four amazing seasons, league MVP, and driving force behind two Super Bowl wins ... it's pretty much accepted he has no chance because he was not dominant for long enough. What's the difference? If anything, Davis was slowed only by injury. Warner actually played BADLY for a long stretch. Not saying he is not a great player, and if you want to argue both of he and Davis should be in I would listen ... but that 6-year stretch is hard for me to ignore. Bad teams? Hell yes. But Archie Manning played on bad teams. Hell, Joe Ferguson played on bad teams and put up numbers like that. Does anyone think a Super Bowl and an MVP would have put Fergy in the HOF? I don't. If he gets in, I would not be outraged, but I'd say TD needs to go in immediately also. Understandable argument...You have to include last year though in with the dominant years...during the second half of the season he had better numbers than Brady...he had a tremndous season last year too once he filled in for Leinart. He also had a winning record in NY before the pressure to put Eli in got the best of them that year even though the Giants were playing pretty good to that point...so it wasnt all bad. He also battled injuries at the end in St. Louis which contributed to his struggles too... When he was good, he was dominant though...and now he has taken a doormant losing franchise to the Super Bowl...he turned the doormat Rams into Superbowl Champions from the very FIRST game he played there and never looked back... Thats pretty impressive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gus2378 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Understandable argument...You have to include last year though in with the dominant years...during the second half of the season he had better numbers than Brady...he had a tremndous season last year too once he filled in for Leinart. He also had a winning record in NY before the pressure to put Eli in got the best of them that year even though the Giants were playing pretty good to that point...so it wasnt all bad. He also battled injuries at the end in St. Louis which contributed to his struggles too... When he was good, he was dominant though...and now he has taken a doormant losing franchise to the Super Bowl...he turned the doormat Rams into Superbowl Champions from the very FIRST game he played there and never looked back... Thats pretty impressive... Why do we have to include last season as "dominant" when he was 5-6 as a starter? You can't pick and choose what you want to count. All of those games count, not just the ones where he got hot at the end. But whatever, the point is, we have one guy (TD) who played 4 seasons, went to 2 Super bowls, was a league MVP, a Super Bowl MVP and was historically good ... then he got hurt and that was it. And he can't get in. Now we have a guy who also has all that in his four best seasons but has 6 VERY mediocre seasons also. If I told you those were JP Losman's numbers you might believe me. But yet he somehow gets CREDIT for playing poorly just because he was not hurt? Or at best we are asked to ignore those six years? It's half his career. Makes no sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 Why do we have to include last season as "dominant" when he was 5-6 as a starter? You can't pick and choose what you want to count. All of those games count, not just the ones where he got hot at the end.But whatever, the point is, we have one guy (TD) who played 4 seasons, went to 2 Super bowls, was a league MVP, a Super Bowl MVP and was historically good ... then he got hurt and that was it. And he can't get in. Now we have a guy who also has all that in his four best seasons but has 6 VERY mediocre seasons also. If I told you those were JP Losman's numbers you might believe me. But yet he somehow gets CREDIT for playing poorly just because he was not hurt? Or at best we are asked to ignore those six years? It's half his career. Makes no sense to me. I did say include the his whole season last year...I only meant Leinart started out as the starter, but once Kurt took over he was dominant. You cant look at the 5-6 record as a gauge of his performance...look at Brees this year, he didnt make the playoffs yet had one of the best seasons all time at QB. Are you saying Brees wasnt dominant this year? Or was it that the NO defense was so inept that they couldnt win enough games? He was one of the best QB's in the league last year by far and had a great QB season regardless of how the Cardinals did as a franchise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gus2378 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I did say include the his whole season last year...I only meant Leinart started out as the starter, but once Kurt took over he was dominant. You cant look at the 5-6 record as a gauge of his performance...look at Brees this year, he didnt make the playoffs yet had one of the best seasons all time at QB. Are you saying Brees wasnt dominant this year? Or was it that the NO defense was so inept that they couldnt win enough games? He was one of the best QB's in the league last year by far and had a great QB season regardless of how the Cardinals did as a franchise... First of all, I guess we will agree to disagree that 17 INTs in 11 starts is a "great QB season" regardless of the team's record. Second, if wins and losses are not the gauge of a HOF quarterback's performance, he truly has NO chance. The only thing that has him in the discussion if the 3 Super Bowl appearences. Without the Super Bowls, he is not even Drew Bledsoe .. Bledsoe has 69 more touchdowns, 16,000 more yards, teh same number of 4,000 yard seasons and five more 3,500 yard seasons. Other than the one season when he got hurt and Brady took over, he had a 12-year stretch where he missed THREE games. Warner played 16 games 3 whole times in his career. Can't have it both ways ... if you want to count the wins that got him to the Super Bowls (and you SHOULD, I am not making a case for Bledsoe), , you can't ignore the losses just because he put up good numbers in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts