2013 Pro Football Hall of Fame Finalists

Does anybody truly believe that Warner had a better career than Fouts or Moon?

Other than Joe Namath, is there a Super Bowl Era quarterback who is in Canton who people can argue that Warner had a better career than them?

That's not necessarily a reason to keep him out. It's just that while Warner has a lot going for him, he also has his share of marks against him.

 

The Cardinals going from the Super Bowl to the NFL's cellar almost immediately after he retired doesn't hurt either...

 

Yeah but those 2008 Cardinals weren't very far from the cellar to begin with. The clearest example yet (and probably ever) of the NFL's new paradigm, where all you have to do is get in and hope you get hot. Most years it's not too different from the NCAA tournament now.

 

You can't say there are no Hall of Famers with a career arc like Kurt Warner's because there are no other players at all with a career arc like Kurt Warner's.

 

Right now, probably very few people would buy the argument that Warner was better than Moon or Fouts. Probably it is less than two or three amongst the voters, who is the key demographic. That being said that is the campaign he needs to run because these kinds of campaigns work. Look at Floyd Little. Look at Art Monk. Look at Lynn Swann. That is just football. Rice and Blyleven had them in baseball. His supporters need to show where he clearly outclasses players in he Hall.

Comparing him to old-timers ala Layne, Graham, Luckman, Baugh....that is not going to work. Games are vastly different. Comparing him to true game untouchables of the Super Bowl era with long careers aka Montana, Elway, Marino, Staubach doesn't work either. Can't compare him to Bradshaw and Namath, who are in for reasons not doing with their stats.

Warner 's biggest weapons is gaudy stats in a short amount of time. That puts him against Moon and Fouts, who both are probably remembered as being better than they actually were. Fouts was dominant from 1979 to 1982. There is not much more or after for him. He was the first guy with multiple 4,000 yards seasons, and he led an explosive attack. People have complained that Warner's numbers are an illusion created by throwing to Holt, Bruce, Faulk, Fitzgerald and Boldin. Well, Fouts in his best years had Winslow, Joiner, Jefferson, Chandler and Muncie....when that crew got old,traded, etc...his numbers crashed.

Moon was very consistent...he made nine pro bowls over the course of a long career and like Warner, got a late state not because of lack of ability, but because of the narrow mindedness of NFL management. However, he was only true elite for two years -- 1990 and 1991.

So when you even the playing field between them somewhat (again Warner's short career and the doughnut hole are still there), you bring in Warner's big guns compared to Moon and Fouts...playoffs. Moon's teams were 3-7 and Fouts were 3-4. Warner's teams went 9-4. You get 40 writers in a room...well, you may have something.

 

Yes and no. No one had the extremes like Warner....MVP winner twice, vanishes, comes back with the Pro Bowl caliber season.
However, there have been plenty of NFL quarterbacks with mid-career slumps and made comebacks. Jim Plunkett. Earl Morrall. Ken Anderson. Craig Morton. Phil Simms essentially lost two seasons in a row to come back and regain his starting job twice.

 

Those guys don't come close to Warner's story. The guy was never drafted and was a bag boy. If Trent Green had gotten hurt in the second-to-last preseason game instead of the last, maybe he never even gets a chance because the Rams scour the waiver wire.

 

Earl Morrall's missing toe begs to differ about great stories!

But seriously, that is a good question. How much does the "legend" of Kurt Warner play in? Joe Namath's legend got him into the Hall. Will Warner's have the same play?

 

Probably. It certainly made him more famous, and it is the Hall of Fame. (This is an offshoot of the "excitement" factor we were discussing on the HOF thread.) People fell in love with that story, and even with almost 15 years to reflect, it's as unbelievable as it looked at first glance.

 

However, remember when Lance Armstrong and Mark McGwire were unbelievable great stories? Joe Paterno was a living symbol or morality? Pete Rose was the beloved Charlie Hustle?

If the voters are feeling jaded when Warner's time comes up, you never know what will happen. For example, let's say Warner is close in 2016...but two weeks before the voting, the NFL announces a major PED investigation into the late 1990, early 2000s era. ( i know, i know, farfetched that the NFL would killed the golden goose) ...will voters be willing to push Warner? some surely will hold him up as an example of a "good guy." But it some major columnist goes on a witchhunt and it gains steam that "hey, even if Warner is clean, how do we know his sudden accent wasn't enhanced?"

Yes, I know, I am dealing in what ifs, which is a poor argument, but asking the question.

 

You don't need to ascribe morality to Kurt Warner's story (or Lance Armstrong's story) to make them remarkable.

 

I've said it before, but statistically, Kurt Warner is Jim Kelly with a ring.

He'll get in and he absolutely should be in.

As far as better than Fouts and Moon, I don't have time to look up the numbers right now, but my first inclination is probably yes on Fouts and certainly yes on Moon.