Here in New York, we take football seriously. Even though we may be fans of the Giants, Jets or Patriots (or in this writer’s case, the can’t-believe-I have-the-nerve-to-admit-this Detroit Lions), there are certain players outside our weekly purview that win us over completely with toughness, charisma or flat-out greatness. For me, that player is Kurt Warner. And while Kurt collects national accolades and stands on the brink of playing in yet another Super Bowl, it might seem odd to suggest a lack of respect toward him. Yet for some reason, many say he’s not “Hall of Fame worthy”.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T?
Sports Illustrated’s Peter King (who is a Hall of Fame voter) appeared on ESPN Radio last week and was adamant that Warner did not belong in the Hall, then compared him to Terrell Davis. His rationale is that Warner only had “five great years”, hasn’t displayed the longevity necessary for enshrinement and wasn’t “a singular player in his era”. Huh?? Allow me to repeat, HUH?? (Is ‘huh’ even a word? Well it should be now!). Ok, let’s take this point by point:
Only 5 great years. Granted, Warner spent a lot of time nursing injuries after his Rams glory years. Yet, throw out 2002-2003 when he couldn’t even grip the ball because of injuries and he’s been remarkably consistent since, completing over 65% of his passes for nearly 15,000 yards. And people are so quick to say he was a bust as a New York Giant in 2004, but he had a winning record and a higher passer rating that year than Eli Manning has had in ANY year. Plus, over the course of his career he has the highest average passing yards per game in NFL history, the 2nd highest completion percentage (which is unfair to Warner, because the highest percentage in history belongs to Chad Pennington who rarely attempts a throw longer than 10 yards), 3rd all-time on NFL QB passer rating (fyi- John Elway is ranked 45th!), the most NFL games with a perfect passer rating and highest rate of games w/300+ yards passing (45.2%). Think about this: the man has thrown for 300+ yards in over 45% of the games in which he’s appeared. Amazing. Peter King makes it seem Warner has only played for 5 years. If you want to go with that line of thinking, then Warner has thrown for nearly 30,000 yards in only 5 years.
No longevity. Last time I checked (yesterday, in fact), an 11-YEAR veteran QB picked apart a tremendous defense en route to leading the most pathetic franchise in NFL history to a Super Bowl (ok, 2nd most pathetic – way to go, Lions!). In 1999, Kurt Warner was a Pro-Bowl starter. In 2008, Kurt Warner is a Pro-Bowl starter. And as a 37 YEAR-OLD, he was the best QB in the NFL in 2008 against the blitz with a QB rating of 103.1. . It is almost clichéd to say how quick his release STILL is, not to mention his fearlessness. Nope, no longevity at all there.
“Not a singular player in his era”. This is laughable. Let’s assume Warner’s “era” is the late 90’s and early 00’s (that’s sort of an era, I guess). In that time, what did our man do? Threw for nearly 14,000 yards (and another 15,000 yards since), completed nearly 70% of his passes, lead his team to three 500+ point seasons, made 4 Pro-Bowls, won 2 MVP’s, lead his team to 2 Super Bowls, won a championship, along with throwing 400+ yards and collecting an MVP trophy for Super Bowl XXXIV. Warner had the best 3-year stretch of any QB in NFL history. And since 1999 is smack dab in his era, let’s take specific notice of that year. Warner had the best single season of any QB in NFL history, not only because of eye-popping stats (41 TD’s, 4,300+ yards) but also because, unlike Dan Marino in 1984 and Tom Brady in 2007 (both of whom had technically superior seasons, stat-wise), Warner actually ended up winning his last game. In fact, he is only NFL quarterback to throw 40 touchdowns and win a Super Bowl in the same season. Remarkable stats AND a Super Bowl ring? Show me one other QB in one other year, or ANY era, that had a better season than Kurt Warner in 1999. I defy you. And I think Kurt’s era has a part 2 called the ‘late 00’s’, in which he has been the best QB in the NFL over the past 2 seasons (project out his stats from 2007, in which he only started 10 games yet threw for nearly 3,000 yards and add that to a 4,500+ yard 2008 season. Oh, and he led his team to the Super Bowl.
Terrell Davis is a terrible comparison. Ok, Davis has a few great years but only gained 7,000 yards. That is not going to get a modern back in the HOF. It’s not like Warner had 3 great years, threw for 12,000 yards and was never heard from again. Warner has thrown for 30,000 yards and nearly 200 TD’s and has shown the SAME level of proficiency 10 years after his initial stardom. I seriously doubt Terrell Davis is going to gain 2,000 yards again anytime soon.
When the ‘Kurt for HOF’ question was posed to Steven A. Smith on ESPN Radio last week, he was nearly apoplectic (well, more so than usual anyway) in his denial. Steven A was so upset by the suggestion, you’d think he just received a hostage note. Oh and in the same interview, he made a HOF case for Donovan McNabb (HA!) and said he thought Adam ‘Pacman’ Jones was a “good guy”. Yeah, he’s a good guy in the same way Dakota Fanning is a middle linebacker.
Andrew Perloff of ESPN was kinder (albeit slightly) when he said Kurt Warner is headed to the Hall of Fame; however, he added a disclaimer that the Hall’s standards are now so low that it should be called the “Hall of Very Good”. In Perloff’s words, “Hall of Famers shouldn’t be journeymen for big chunks of their career. Hall of Famers shouldn’t consistently have to fight to start. A Hall of Famer should be so talented there’s no question he belongs on the field”.
People, PEOPLE…listen to me closely. Kurt Warner belongs in the Hall of Great. And he’s not even done yet.
-John Lavallo
