View Full Version : Kurt Warner?
Brooklyn
11-25-2008, 09:13 AM
Warner is quietly putting up a very impressive career.
He only ranked #49 on out collaborative QB ranking (albeit that was before this season), bu8t I think that is an example of how he tends to get overlooked.
He won two AP MVP's. He has a chance for a 3rd this year.
Here is a list of everyone who has won multiple AP MVP's:
Favre, Brown, Unitas: 3
Montana, Warner, Manning, Young: 2
Very elite company, especially if he manages to notch a third.
He has a Super Bowl title, and a Super Bowl MVP. His 4,830 passing yards in 2001 are the second highest single season total ever, behind Marino (which Drew Brees is on pace to pass). he has two of the top 10 passing TD seasons of all time
I see two negatives. First, he really hasn't accumulated the stats, mostly because he didn't become a FT starter until age 28. Add in another 3-4 seasons at the beginning of his career, and he'd have a serious chance at 40,000 yards passing
Second, he's been inconsistent. He had a great run with St. Louis from 1999-2001, and is having a revival season this year, but was relatively unimpressive in between.
For me, he is on the outside looking in. Without this revival season, I don't think he is all that close, but if he can keep this up, and possibly play at a high level for another couple of years, then I think he should at least be in the conversation.
football junkie
12-05-2008, 10:49 PM
If Warner earns a third NFL MVP this season and brings the Cardinals deep into the playoffs (when he's not even supposed to be starting, Lienart's team remember) he becomes a legit HOF candidate.
That said, he's going to have a long line of more worth QBs to wait his turn behind.
Seattle1
12-06-2008, 12:22 AM
In a hypothetical world where Warner is NFL MVP and the Cardinals win the Super Bowl this year, I think he probably ends up in the Hall of Fame as a result, considering all his other credentials with the Rams. However, I don't see it happening. I don't think the Cardinals have either the defense or the running game to win the whole enchilada. I will be impressed if they even win their first playoff game.
So, he'll probably remain a borderline candidate.
:twocents:
Seattle1
12-08-2008, 09:08 PM
I just checked. The Cardinals are currently ranked dead last in the NFL in rushing, averaging 75.4 yards per game and 3.3 yards per carry. I don't see them going very deep in the playoffs with those kind of numbers.
:twocents:
Galloping Ghost
12-09-2008, 10:27 AM
In a hypothetical world where Warner is NFL MVP and the Cardinals win the Super Bowl this year, I think he probably ends up in the Hall of Fame as a result, considering all his other credentials with the Rams. However, I don't see it happening. I don't think the Cardinals have either the defense or the running game to win the whole enchilada. I will be impressed if they even win their first playoff game.
So, he'll probably remain a borderline candidate.
:twocents:
THe Arizona Cardinals won a playoff game in 1997, beating the Cowboys in Dallas. That's the Cardinals only playoff win since 1947 when Harry S. Truman was president. Yikes!
efin98
12-09-2008, 02:05 PM
He lost three years due to being in the AFL, another behind Brett Favre, two due to injury, and parts of the last four seasons due to inconsistancy and downright bad play...sorry but that's not a Hall of Fame resume.
He had three great seasons where he was undeniably the best QB in the league with maybe one more in him but that's not good enough to offset his bad years between 2002 and 2007. He doesn't get in...
efin98
12-09-2008, 02:11 PM
THe Arizona Cardinals won a playoff game in 1997, beating the Cowboys in Dallas. That's the Cardinals only playoff win since 1947 when Harry S. Truman was president. Yikes!
It was 1998 that they beat the Cowboys and was their first playoff game in 16 years and their first as the Arizona Cardinals, their prior games were as the St. Louis Cardinals in the '74, '75, and '82 and as the Chicago Cardinals in '47 and '48.
1947 was also their last playoff game at home- every other one since then have been on the road.
Galloping Ghost
12-09-2008, 05:15 PM
It was 1998 that they beat the Cowboys and was their first playoff game in 16 years and their first as the Arizona Cardinals, their prior games were as the St. Louis Cardinals in the '74, '75, and '82 and as the Chicago Cardinals in '47 and '48.
1947 was also their last playoff game at home- every other one since then have been on the road.
I stand corrected. The '98 playoff win was their first playoff win since 1947. If fact it was only the second playoff win in franchise history! That is just simply amazing. Two playoff wins for a team that has been around for over 60 years? Yikes! Here's another crazy stat. The Cardinals have just five double digit win seasons in their entire franchise history, none since 1976. How can a franchise suck for so long? :shrug:
efin98
12-13-2008, 11:05 PM
I stand corrected. The '98 playoff win was their first playoff win since 1947. If fact it was only the second playoff win in franchise history! That is just simply amazing. Two playoff wins for a team that has been around for over 60 years? Yikes!
They go beyond 60 yeasrs, the team was organized in 1898!
Here's another crazy stat. The Cardinals have just five double digit win seasons in their entire franchise history, none since 1976. How can a franchise suck for so long? :shrug:
Take that stat lightly as they have only been playing 16 games since '78, 14 games since '61 so that stat really isn't too impressive.
Galloping Ghost
12-15-2008, 02:21 PM
Take that stat lightly as they have only been playing 16 games since '78, 14 games since '61 so that stat really isn't too impressive.
Yes, I know that. Yet, two of the Cardinals five double digit win seasons came long before 1961 (1925 and 1948). And 1961 was 47 years ago, almost half a century.
Take that stat lightly as they have only been playing 16 games since '78, 14 games since '61 so that stat really isn't too impressive.
Also unimpressive has been the Cardinals play. Really, one playoff win in over half a century is very telling. There is a reason why the Bidwell family are regularly named among the worst owners in sports. You can take that stat lightly but not too lightly.
efin98
12-17-2008, 12:30 PM
Also unimpressive has been the Cardinals play. Really, one playoff win in over half a century is very telling. There is a reason why the Bidwell family are regularly named among the worst owners in sports. You can take that stat lightly but not too lightly.
Being cheap and being a bad owner are two different things. The Krafts are cheap yet the Patriots are one of the best teams in the league for the league. Frugality hasn't paid off for the Cardinals YET, but they have a team that is built for the long run who could take them into the playoffs and possibly the Super Bowl in a year or two.
And Mr. Bidwell is well ahead of the Fords and the Browns in "bad" ownership in the NFL especially after the last decade with the Fords and the last few years and the entire decade of the 90s with the Browns.
efin98
12-17-2008, 12:40 PM
Yes, I know that. Yet, two of the Cardinals five double digit win seasons came long before 1961 (1925 and 1948)..
They could easily be 10-6 this year(I hope not, Pats play them Sunday).
They were 9-4-1 one year
They were 9-3-2 another year
They were 9-3 another year
They were 9-5 another year
Those may not look like much but they are great years compared with a 10 win year but with two less games that's a good year, as equal to me as a 10 win 16 game year.
And 1961 was 47 years ago, almost half a century
Considering the fact that it is less than half the team's lift, it matters little.
Being cheap and being a bad owner are two different things. The Krafts are cheap yet the Patriots are one of the best teams in the league for the league. Frugality hasn't paid off for the Cardinals YET, but they have a team that is built for the long run who could take them into the playoffs and possibly the Super Bowl in a year or two.
And Mr. Bidwell is well ahead of the Fords and the Browns in "bad" ownership in the NFL especially after the last decade with the Fords and the last few years and the entire decade of the 90s with the Browns.
Again, one playoff win since 1947. Recent history is one thing, and only one thing.
Talk to somebody from St. Louis and see how they feel about it. Or a fan from before Kurt Warner came into town. What's going on now doesn't equal all the bad drafts (Kelly Stouffer?) and sub-500 finishes that have gone on longer than many of us have even been alive.
efin98
12-17-2008, 02:47 PM
Again, one playoff win since 1947. Recent history is one thing, and only one thing.
Talk to somebody from St. Louis and see how they feel about it. Or a fan from before Kurt Warner came into town. What's going on now doesn't equal all the bad drafts (Kelly Stouffer?) and sub-500 finishes that have gone on longer than many of us have even been alive.
Playoff wins aren't the only measure of succes. They aren't in any risk of bankrupcy and aren't in danger of being folded unlike 54 other teams in the league who have come and gone during the NFL's life and dozens more since the team was first created 110 seasons ago.
And despite their long history they don't even have the worst winning percentage in history- the Falcons, Buccaneers, and Saints all have it worse than the Cardinals.
Galloping Ghost
12-17-2008, 03:08 PM
Playoff wins aren't the only measure of succes. They aren't in any risk of bankrupcy and aren't in danger of being folded unlike 54 other teams in the league who have come and gone during the NFL's life and dozens more since the team was first created 110 seasons ago.
In pro football, I think it is the only measure of success. So the Cardinals have never folded? That's a measure of success? The NFL has been in business over 80 years. It's a mature professional sports league. How often to mature professional sports leagues fold teams? It's been what about 60 years since an NFL team folded?
And despite their long history they don't even have the worst winning percentage in history- the Falcons, Buccaneers, and Saints all have it worse than the Cardinals.
The Falcons, Buccaneers, and Saints are all much younger franchises. Yet, the Bucs have won a Super Bowl and the Falcons have been in a Super Bowl. The Saints have an many playoff wins in their much shorter history as the Cardinals.
efin98,
I don't know what your argument is? :shrug: Since 1947 the Cardinals have ONE PLAYOFF WIN. ONE. Anyway you look at it that is simply a long record of awful football.
football junkie
12-17-2008, 11:19 PM
Chicago Cardinals :grouch: Pottsville Maroons baby!
Actually the Cardinals were forced to merge with the Steelers for one season. So it's not like they've been solvent the entire tenure they've been in the league. No merger, no more Cardinals. And Steelers, for that matter.
Really, efin, you need to look at the team's regular season history, where they've hardly been more than a mediorcre team throuought history. Not just one playoff win, they haven't even won their division in 33 years until this season. That's the signs of a good franchise?
The Falcons and Buccaneers have reached levels of success the Cardinals haven't sniffed in over half a century. The Saints may well be the Cardinals with less history. Management had been able to turn it around on occasion. Something that never quite happened in Chicago/St. Louis/Arizona.
Either way, nothing to be proud of. 2008 aside.
efin98
12-19-2008, 12:33 PM
Actually the Cardinals were forced to merge with the Steelers for one season. So it's not like they've been solvent the entire tenure they've been in the league. No merger, no more Cardinals. And Steelers, for that matter.
Or Eagles, who merged with the Steelers the year befoire. But that was beside the point since there was a war going on.
Really, efin, you need to look at the team's regular season history, where they've hardly been more than a mediorcre team throuought history. Not just one playoff win, they haven't even won their division in 33 years until this season. That's the signs of a good franchise?
The Falcons and Buccaneers have reached levels of success the Cardinals haven't sniffed in over half a century. The Saints may well be the Cardinals with less history. Management had been able to turn it around on occasion. Something that never quite happened in Chicago/St. Louis/Arizona.
Either way, nothing to be proud of. 2008 aside.
This all coming from a Lions fan is laughable. Really, you guys have so much to look upon through your history:nod: :rolleyes:
Brooklyn
12-22-2008, 10:53 AM
Either way, nothing to be proud of. 2008 aside.
I'm not even sure there is much to be proud of in 2008. They are the best of a bad division. The Cards are 5-0 in the division and 3-7 outside of the division. Playing in almost any other division and we'd be talking about another disappointing Cards season.
This all coming from a Lions fan is laughable. Really, you guys have so much to look upon through your history:nod: :rolleyes:
I'm not a big Lions fan. I'm just from Detroit and don't turn my back on my home town. I follow them like I follow the Bengals, local to me. But I do like a couple of teams more.
The Lions have at least won titles, divisions and otherwise. They've played in a NFC title game. They've made the playoffs almost regularly for a stretch. Next to the Browns they were the team of the 50's. (How those fans reminisce.)
They've had their moments. Something the Cardinals cannot say. Regardless of how bad the Lions have been the last 40 years *cough* the Cardinals don't have much on them in terms of history. If at all.
60+ years of mediocrity at best does not trump Bobby Layne and Co, not to mention the playoff teams of the 80's and 90s. The Cardinals are lacking there, efin. Instead of pointing out the shortcomings of my hometown team, how about showing how the Cardinals aren't the joke we're claiming. They're closer to the LA Clippers than the Lions and Browns are.
But hey, at least we're having a spirited discussion here. This site needs that. I wouldn't expect anything less from you, efin.
Oh, yeah. Kurt Warner. He kind of reminds me of Joe Namath, who got in for a couple big seasons without putting up big career numbers. Even if the Cardinals do well come playoff time, it probably isn't eenough. He's not Broadway Joe.
KHenry14
12-23-2008, 12:46 AM
On topic, while Warner had a coupe of great years, he really wasn't consistantly brilliant over a long period of time.
And you don't get into the HOF on a couple of great years.
Off topic...The Cardinals are dreadful franchise. One playoff win in 60 years DOES speak volumes about the franchise. And what's consistant during that period of time? Ownership! They may be profitable, but the whole point in playing the games is to win, and they have been consistantly bad for so long it is a disgrace. Having one decent season now does not change the fact that they haven't been good, nay mediocre, very often. Frankly, during most of the past 60 years it has been like the Bidwell's didn't care if they won or if they lost. And their record is evidence of that.
Galloping Ghost
12-23-2008, 11:49 AM
On topic, while Warner had a coupe of great years, he really wasn't consistantly brilliant over a long period of time.
And you don't get into the HOF on a couple of great years.
That's how Joe Namath got into the HoF. Namath's career record as a starting QB is 63-63-4. Namath had 173 TDs and 220 INTs. That's a HoF QB? :shrug:
That's how Joe Namath got into the HoF. Namath's career record as a starting QB is 63-63-4. Namath had 173 TDs and 220 INTs. That's a HoF QB? :shrug:
That's the Fame in HOF. Like early inductees Ernie Nevers, Bronco Nagurski, and, sorry, your namesake.
I don't have a problem with any of the above making it, mind you. Entirely different time.
Galloping Ghost
12-23-2008, 03:41 PM
That's the Fame in HOF. Like early inductees Ernie Nevers, Bronco Nagurski, and, sorry, your namesake.
What?! :grouch:
Just kidding.... :happy:
I don't have a problem with any of the above making it, mind you. Entirely different time.
Nor do I. I see those old timers more as "pioneers" than HoF NFL players statistically. I just can't put Broadway Joe in the same light.
What?! :grouch:
Just kidding.... :happy:
Nor do I. I see those old timers more as "pioneers" than HoF NFL players statistically. I just can't put Broadway Joe in the same light.
You can't. The impact those players made in the short time they played in the NFL was that great. Grange and Nevers were incredible for their time, even if Grange's most famous accomplishments happened in college. Nagurski was just such a presence on both sides of the ball from what I understand he stood out.
Namath won the super bowl and made that guarantee and was the first passer to break 4000 yards. He was such a celebrity off the field. If he were a better actor who knows how huge he might have been. Robert Redford with an arm. But those knees caught up with him.
Warner had some big seasons under an incredible offensive scheme, and showed he was a good quarterback when the offense wasn't so high-powered. Just good, not great. The greats are still very good to great even when it's not so good around them.
football junkie
12-24-2008, 06:23 PM
Yes but can you see Kurt Warner standing on the sideline in a fur coat? :crazy:
efin98
01-01-2009, 04:16 AM
You can't. The impact those players made in the short time they played in the NFL was that great. Grange and Nevers were incredible for their time, even if Grange's most famous accomplishments happened in college. Nagurski was just such a presence on both sides of the ball from what I understand he stood out.
Namath won the super bowl and made that guarantee and was the first passer to break 4000 yards. He was such a celebrity off the field. If he were a better actor who knows how huge he might have been. Robert Redford with an arm. But those knees caught up with him.
Seven years in the top ten in the league in every major QB statistic category. Three years lost due to injuries. Played on some bad teams that anyone would have had problems with and still put up great numbers.
His most lasting impression that almost everybodyo overlooks but I thik deserves mention is that he is the inspiration for the QB centered offenses that would dominate the game from then on: a good half to 2/3rds of the guys ahead of him in most of the categories owe their stats and offensive styling to his changing of the game in the late 60s/early 70s.
He's a Hall of Famer. Celebrity aside, he's a Hall of Famer.
Warner had some big seasons under an incredible offensive scheme, and showed he was a good quarterback when the offense wasn't so high-powered. Just good, not great. The greats are still very good to great even when it's not so good around them.
Even with a good team around him he still had problems. He had a decent team in New York and he got run out of there. He had a decent team in St. Louis and he ran it into the ground. He has a decent team in Arizona, if he can't get them beyond the first game then his legacy is good stats, but couldn't win.
Seattle1
01-18-2009, 07:15 PM
I just checked. The Cardinals are currently ranked dead last in the NFL in rushing, averaging 75.4 yards per game and 3.3 yards per carry. I don't see them going very deep in the playoffs with those kind of numbers.
I came back to this thread to have a serving of crow about the Cardinals. Between the time I posted this and now they found a bit more defense and a better running game somehow. They made it, they're in the Super Bowl.
:faint:
Brooklyn
01-20-2009, 09:31 AM
I came back to this thread to have a serving of crow about the Cardinals. Between the time I posted this and now they found a bit more defense and a better running game somehow. They made it, they're in the Super Bowl.
:faint:
I came back to re-visit, too. They have done more then any expected.
To revisit the original question, if the Cardinals win the super bowl, Warner will have 2 MVP's and 2 rings, not to mention a 9-2 playoff record. He certainly has an interesting up and down resume, but his positives will garner him serious consideration
efin98
01-20-2009, 12:30 PM
I came back to re-visit, too. They have done more then any expected.
To revisit the original question, if the Cardinals win the super bowl, Warner will have 2 MVP's and 2 rings, not to mention a 9-2 playoff record. He certainly has an interesting up and down resume, but his positives will garner him serious consideration
Still have to look closely at his problems between 2002 and 2007...even with this year those are major problems for his candidacy.
He may have put himself in but it is not a first ballot candidacy, not for another year or two.
Galloping Ghost
01-20-2009, 01:19 PM
Also, Warner is 37 years old. If healthy perhaps he can play until he's 40. What he does over the next three seasons will detemine if he is a viable HoF candidate or not.
KHenry14
01-20-2009, 08:35 PM
If Warner brings a title to the Cards I will change my mind and endorse him for the HOF. This would be a much more impressive win than his one with the Rams.
Galloping Ghost
02-02-2009, 12:40 PM
Chicago Cardinals :grouch: Pottsville Maroons baby!
I didn't know what this reference meant until I stumbled upon the wikipedia page of the disputed 1925 NFL championship! Wow, the Maroons got hosed on this one. Apparently in 2003 it was brought to the owners and the owners voted 30-2 to not even reopen the case and review the facts.
efin98
02-02-2009, 01:05 PM
I didn't know what this reference meant until I stumbled upon the wikipedia page of the disputed 1925 NFL championship! Wow, the Maroons got hosed on this one. Apparently in 2003 it was brought to the owners and the owners voted 30-2 to not even reopen the case and review the facts.
I love this controversy and I am still surprised that the NFL tries to run away from a blatant violation of their own rules and doings...
In addition to the 2003 vote the Marroons were hosed 12-2 in 1963 too...the Steelers(Art Rooney) and the Bears(George Halas) voted against recognizing the Cardinals as the sole winner for 1925. George Halas, the founding father of the NFL, was voted against- they really had balls to do that!
The 2003 vote saw the Steelers(Dan Rooney) and Eagles(Jeff Lawrie) voted in favor of reopening the case- Ironic since the Eagles were the immediate successor to the team that protested the Marroons playing the game that cost them their title in 1925.