I was actually going for HOF quarterbacks without a title, in which case the list looks like this:

Dan Marino
Warren Moon
Fran Tarkenton
Jim Kelly
Ace Parker (although he missed three years in WWII, and his team was in good shape before the war broke out)
Sonny Jurgensen

The thing with Warner is that he has had such a bizarre career arc; the only remotely comparable player is Ken Anderson. I'm a Warner fan as much as anyone, but I'm still not ready to put him the HOF realm....yet. He's in the top 30 QBs of all time and possibly the top 20, but I'm not sure how much farther he goes than that.

I'd have him on my team over Moon, Kelly, Namath, Griese, and Aikman any day. Among current QBs, I'd take him over Brady in an instant. But how does one reconcile the huge gap of mediocrity in the middle of Warner's career?

Kurt Warner is one of my favorite players ever. I always loved watching him in the Arena League(He was the reason I ever started watching the AFL). And as long as he wasn't playing the Cowboys I always hoped to see him do well.

And if anyone doesn't think he is a HOF'er I would like to know why.

trackandccrunner wrote: Kurt Warner is one of my favorite players ever. I always loved watching him in the Arena League(He was the reason I ever started watching the AFL). And as long as he wasn't playing the Cowboys I always hoped to see him do well.

And if anyone doesn't think he is a HOF'er I would like to know why.

One historic season, one exceptional season, three (maybe four) pretty good ones.

The problem is the five seasons right in the middle where he was horrible. From 2002-06, he had less than 8,000 yards, 26 TDs to 30 INTs. Most of the passing yards were because the offense would do nothing, get into a huge deficit, and he'd have to pass against soft zones (which the defense would willingly allow).

Yes, he has a body of work that's more impressive than at leat five HOF quarterbacks. But that's also not the way the system works.

Definitely in and I don't care what anyone else says. He's been remarkable.

He's played with a stacked offense, but there arguably is no better playoff QB. Manning has had a lot of great offenses and he can't touch Warner's post season success.

NNN wrote:But how does one reconcile the huge gap of mediocrity in the middle of Warner's career?

I'm pretty sure he had injury issues his last two seasons in STL. They went with the younger guy in Bulger, who had shown a lot of potential.

Then it was off to NYG to hold down the fort until Eli was ready. Then off to ARI to do the same for Leinart.

So I wouldn't hold those middle years against him. He was the victim of some unfortunate circumstances. He's back playing at a high level and his career numbers are still quite good, but he only got to play about half the games (didn't come to the NFL until 27) most other guys get.

I think, had he played for IND all these years, he would have been every bit as good as Manning, and he blows Manning away in the playoffs.

He's a HOFer...Played the game at an elite level for 5-6 years and took two completely downtrodden franchises to the SB. His playoff numbers put him easily over the top, IMO.

That said, Warner was blessed to play with arguably the two best set of trips in the history of the game. Would he have been as successful with lesser talent most other QB's had to compete with? My take on that is simply the name of the game is championships. It's not the end all and be all, but if you stack an offense and a guy goes 1-2 in the SB with two downtrodden franchises, then there is absolutely nothing you can take away from his numbers. You can talk about Marino and Fouts and I can say maybe their numbers, which people cite for their greatness, came partially at the expense of a better defense and running game that might have won a championship. Point being, Marino may not be Marino as we all know him with the team he needed to win a championship (which Football Outsiders has some interesting commentary on).