Kurt Warner

[Jrick35]

Swerski is right though. You cannot compare Young to just about anyone.

 

You guys need to start talking apples and apples.

 

I brought Steve Young into the debate to argue Swerski's position that players who only start 67% of their games have not started enough for the HOF. Young only started 48% of the games played over his career.

 

Swerski also said that being selected to the HOF should be based on Stats and true measurables, rather than subjective awards like League MVP's. So I continued using Young as a measuring stick because if Warner has nearly matched, matched or exceeded most of Youngs career stats, except the rushing, which I am not discounting.

 

I was just pointing out his habit of contradicting his own arguments by giving him examples.

[Bill Swerski]

I brought Steve Young into the debate to argue Swerski's position that players who only start 67% of their games have not started enough for the HOF.

 

I did not say that a certain percentage of starts is required for HOF induction.

 

Swerski also said that being selected to the HOF should be based on Stats and true measurables, rather than subjective awards like League MVP's. So I continued using Young as a measuring stick because if Warner has nearly matched, matched or exceeded most of Youngs career stats, .

 

 

You use retarded caveats like "per year basis" to cover up the fact that Young is 6,000 passing yards and 100 TDs ahead of Warner. Throw in Young's 4,000+ rushing yards and your argument becomes even weaker.

 

except the rushing, which I am not discounting

 

Because if you did, it would be dead-obvious to everybody that your assertion of Warner being on the same level as Young is ridiculous.

 

I was just pointing out his habit of contradicting his own arguments by giving him examples.

 

And now I'm pointing out your habit of being intellectually dishonest.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Bill Swerski

[Seahawks21]

Was someone really just accused of being intellectually dishonest?

[tazinib1]

Was someone really just accused of being intellectually dishonest?

 

lol..I guess we are being politically correct now.

 

"Intellectually dishonest" --- I like it. I will use that on my ex wife next time we have a verbal tussle.

[Jrick35]

I did not say that a certain percentage of starts is required for HOF induction.

I did not say that you said it was a requirement. I said it is your position that 67% was not enough and I think you made that pretty clear.

How many HOF inductees have spent half of their careers either sucking or holding a clipboard?...

How many HOF quarterbacks have spent a full HALF of their careers putting up below-average numbers or riding the pine?...

And, again, starting in 67% of one's games isn't exactly a ringing HOF endorsement.

 

On another point you made reference that instead of using things like MVP's & things to decide who goes into the HOF we should use...

Perhaps accolades that are objective (championships, playoff appearances, career victories, passing statistics), rather than completely subjective

So I show you Warners Passing stats and Super Bowl Appearances along with % of games started as compared to a HOF'er, Steve Young, and then explain how when you compare what Warner has done in 10 Years to what Young did in 14, rather than maybe actually admit that Warners Passing stats are HOF worthy you come back with the very clever

You use retarded caveats like "per year basis" to cover up the fact that Young is 6,000 passing yards and 100 TDs ahead of Warner. Throw in Young's 4,000+ rushing yards and your argument becomes even weaker.

Looking at stats on an average production per year, is pretty much the best way to compare the careers of players who did not play the same number of seasons.

 

When you were talking about MVP's and things not being the best way to look at who is HAll worthy or not you said;

If this were true, Dan Fouts never would've been inducted.

This is actually a better comparison for Warner. I loved watching Fouts play and I COMPLETELY agree that he deserves to be in the HOF, but that being said while his yardage & Total TD's are massive, his td/int ratio was nearly 1:1 and his careere passer rating was 80.2 which is meidocre at best. Dan never won an MVP, or even appeared in a Super Bowl. He was just a GREAT PASSER who average 3,000 yards and just less than 20 TD's a season, who made 6 Pro Bowls

Now at the risk of being called retarded again, when you compare what Dan did per year with what Kurt has done per year and then throw in Warners 'subjective" yet never-the-less achieved accolades it looks like this;

Warner is averaging a lttle better than 2700 yds & almost 18 TD's a season over his career despite his, in your words, 5 horrible seasons, if you look at the years he played 10 or more games in a season those numbers go up dramatically and toss in 2 Super Bowl Appearances with 1 WIn & 1 Super Bowl MVP, 2 League MVP's and 3 Pro Bowls, with another MVP & Pro Bowl looming and add in that he is not done yet and I would say Warner is in.

 

***caveat*** most of Fouts Seasons were 14 games compared to 16 games for Warner so break it down on a per game played basis and you will actually see the numbers skew in favor of Warner a little bit.***Caveat***

 

And don't forget, when I asked if stats should be measured against the all time best for each category you said, not necessarily...

 

I only threw this one in because it kinda sounds like you called Earl Campbell a flash in the pan, did you get to see him play?

I also don't know of many flash-in-the-pan backs since Earl Campbell who've been inducted

 

As I have said, you have a habit of contradicting yourself.

 

And could you please explain to me what Intellectually Dishonest means?

Edited November 21, 2008 by Jrick35

[Bill Swerski]

How many HOF inductees have spent half of their careers either sucking or holding a clipboard?...

How many HOF quarterbacks have spent a full HALF of their careers putting up below-average numbers or riding the pine?...

And, again, starting in 67% of one's games isn't exactly a ringing HOF endorsement.

 

My point was that not many HOF QBs rode the pine for a substantial number of years. That doesn't mean that Young shouldn't get in. It means that it counts as a negative regarding his HOF qualifications. Thankfully, Steve Young hit the ground running and became an uber-stud who went to 7 straight Pro Bowls when he finally got his chance. Warner hasn't had that degree of sustained success. Oh, and Young had to fight Joe Freaking Montana to be #1 on the depth chart. Who did Warner have to fend off?

 

Your argument of Warner being on par with Steve Young is completely idiotic, especially when you throw out Young's 4,000 rushing yds and 43 rushing TDs. Hell, Warner doesn't even have Young's career PASSING numbers yet. Come talk to me when he gets there.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Bill Swerski

[Bill Swerski]

I only threw this one in because it kinda sounds like you called Earl Campbell a flash in the pan, did you get to see him play?

 

Yeah, I know that Earl Campbell was a dominating bad-ass for about four or five years. So was Terrell Davis, and he won't be getting into Canton.

 

Steve Young's career numbers compare favorably to other HOF QBs of his era. Earl Campbell's do not compare well to players like Franco Harris, Tony Dorsett, and Walter Payton. In fact, it's highly unlikely that you'll see a halfback with less than 10,000 rushing yards get into Canton again.

 

As I have said, you have a habit of contradicting yourself.

 

You have a habit of making uninformed, asinine arguments.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Bill Swerski

[policyvote]

I brought Steve Young into the debate to argue Swerski's position that players who only start 67% of their games have not started enough for the HOF. Young only started 48% of the games played over his career.

 

Because Young was on the bench behind Joe Montana, not because he kept losing his starting job to rookies and chumps. If you even half-believe this ridiculous argument, you're off your rocker.

 

Swerski also said that being selected to the HOF should be based on Stats and true measurables, rather than subjective awards like League MVP's. So I continued using Young as a measuring stick because if Warner has nearly matched, matched or exceeded most of Youngs career stats, except the rushing, which I am not discounting.

 

Uh . . . what? He has not, not even close. What stats are we counting here?

 

Peace

policy

[policyvote]

Looking at stats on an average production per year, is pretty much the best way to compare the careers of players who did not play the same number of seasons.

 

Unless the point of the comparison was to see if the player in question is good enough for long enough to merit HoF induction. Then using a average per year pretty much defeats the purpose entirely.

 

Peace

policy

[Chavez]

In fact there are people in the HOF not for their career numbers as much as for just how they played the game. Lance Alworth & Roger Staubach come to mind as players that fit that mold.

I just about spit my Mountain Dew all over the keyboard....Lance Alworth led the AFC in catches, yards, and tds 3 times each and finished his career as a top 5 all-time WR. His 542 catches, 10000+ yds and 85 tds look good no matter what era you're in, and for the 60s, even in the AFC, they're a cut above - if you look at the prime of his career from 63-68, he finished out of the top 3 WR in catches, yds, and/or tds 3 times . He's still 12th all-time in td catches.

 

Staubach's numbers suffer a little bit more due to the offensive inflation over the past 20 years, but in about 8 years as a starter, he led his team to 3 SBs, had an 82-28 record as a starter, and numbers-wise was top 5 in pass yds 6 times, top 5 in tds 4 times, 1st or 2nd in passer rating 4 times (as well as leading the league in passer rating in '71), and by my reckoning probably retired as a guy with top 15ish career passing #s - the numbers justify, the winning record justifies it. The Captain America clinches is as a no-brainer.