Kurt Warner first ballot or not?

[Veeshik_ya]

As football continues to (de-) evolve from the sport we grew up with into a less physical, more passing game will Kurt Warner be remembered as the first great quarterback of a new age?

That's a great question. The NFL, operating in today's litigious environment exacerbated by a media growing more tabloid by the day, is certainly on the path of legislating physical contact out of the game (I hope I'm wrong).

My take on Warner is that he was a RETURN to the past rather than something new.

But your take, along with someone else's observation in another thread about this year's SB, where he alluded to the game becoming somewhat akin to the NBA where only the last five minutes count, certainly makes your question a compelling one.

[Reaser]

As football continues to (de-) evolve from the sport we grew up with into a less physical, more passing game will Kurt Warner be remembered as the first great quarterback of a new age?

Agree with V_ya, that is a great question. I would say no. Though it depends on when one pinpoints the start of the era we're currently in. Easy to say "Goodell Era" but it probably doesn't have one clear starting point and it's more of a multi-year thing with multiple changes (protection of QB becoming over-protection of QB, DB's more restricted in contact, and probably most important is the middle of the field opening up.) ...

Regardless, the first half of his career they were still playing defense, after the Rams won the SB, 2000 Ravens come along, after Rams lose SB, 2002 Bucs come along and the Patriots defenses were good - and allowed to play defense, too. So the bulk of his resume (MVP's, SB win, etc) came when real defense was being played and more importantly allowed to be played.

The end of his career, his Cardinals career definitely happened in the "devolved" era. For me it's too split for him to be the first 'new age' guy, he should get full credit for the Rams run which is where he made his name, with his Cardinals days falling in the less physical era and even then for as 'soft' as I thought the late 00's were, it's worse in the 2010's.

I get the point about Arena Football and Warner himself credits it with further developing his skills, so this isn't directly in response but it always bugs me how that gets phrased: "He was an Arena Football QB." To me, that totally discredits the sport at the Youth, Middle School, High School, and College levels. He grew up like most anyone else that played football, flag football until he was old enough to put the pads on in grade school, he was a great High School QB, five years of college football and his short time with the Packers. That's a lot of 'normal' 11-man American Football before Arena, which after that he had a season with the Amsterdam Admirals that usually gets completely overlooked when telling his story, too. So saying he was an "arena QB" makes it sound like he played High School arena football (if there was such a thing) and was just some arena football player that brought that game to the NFL when in reality he played 'real' football for a majority of his life, with 3 seasons of Arena football mixed in.

[rebelx24]

I'm fine with Warner not going in on first ballot. Given the strange shape of his career, I don't think he deserved that. As I wrote in another thread, I can see his induction being pushed back to 2017 with Favre on the ballot next year. I'd be surprised if he got in later than that.

[Veeshik_ya]

Question related to the career-not-long-enough-to-warrant-inclusion debate:

If an obscure basement tinkerer fired up the test tubes and developed a cure for cancer then was never heard from again would he warrant inclusion as one of the greatest doctors/scientists of all time?

[Reaser]

If an obscure basement tinkerer fired up the test tubes and developed a cure for cancer then was never heard from again would he warrant inclusion as one of the greatest doctors/scientists of all time?

I get the premise, and agree if you're making a point, but it's not apples to apples (obviously) ...

It continues to be odd to me how much stock is placed on "seasons played", if you accomplish everything there is to accomplish in 7 seasons it's somehow not long enough, but if you added 3 meaningless seasons to the total most people would fly off the handles saying "he played 10 years, he was great!" Which all comes back to people using largely irrelevant, compiled stats.

On the other end of that is playing "too long", on the old forums - and on other football related forums - one of the main arguments made against Tingelhoff was that he didn't have any all-pros or pro bowls the last 8 (or however many, don't care to look it up) years of his career, as if that erased what he accomplished before that. Without directly saying it, it was punishing him for how many seasons he played, which is no coincidence that he played a position with no stats. So he wasn't a RB getting a fairly meaningless 300-600 yards a year down the stretch of his career which is nothing special except that it's tacked on to career totals and people eat that up ("he's Xth all-time in (meaningless stat)!") ... Essentially if you take it further - than the flawed argument people were making - they were saying that if he had retired after 10 years he would have been more impressive (again, the proverbial "they" only use this argument on a player with no stats to add to.)

It's almost like there's a 'sweet spot' of seasons played for people, 7 isn't enough, 17 is too many (at least if it doesn't pad stats) and so on.

I don't get it. I always say I don't care about how many years a player played, I care about what the player did when he played. Not sure why that isn't the standard but it's clearly not. Seasons played are nothing more than more chances to accomplish something but they are not an (HOF worthy) accomplishment in itself. Hypothetically if Player A and Player B had the same resume but Player A played 7 years and it took Player B 13 years to match, somehow most people would consider Player B "better" or "more deserving", which of course defies logic.

There does seemingly have to be a minimum, however. Which is where curing cancer is a hard comparison to make. Since in football there's been plenty of players who were one season wonders, in theory a rookie QB could dominate, win MVP, SB MVP, all-pro and so on then do nothing after that.

I always use 3-season minimum, to be "in the discussion", since I think anyone can do something once, doing it twice is "proving it", while doing it a 3rd time is where you reach so-called 'greatness' ... So anyone who wasn't the best or close enough to the best at their position at least 3 seasons doesn't make my cut 99% of the time. For how many seasons total, I don't care, 3 "HOF seasons" (for lack of a better phrase) in 8 years or 3 "HOF seasons" in 12 years, the former is what matters to me, not the latter. Though if I did have to pick one or the other I'd be opposite of the majority and think two players with equal accomplishments, the one that took less time to accomplish it would be more impressive - though that's not a 'criteria' with my personal HOF criteria.

[James]

If an obscure basement tinkerer fired up the test tubes and developed a cure for cancer then was never heard from again would he warrant inclusion as one of the greatest doctors/scientists of all time?

I get the premise, and agree if you're making a point, but it's not apples to apples (obviously) ...

It continues to be odd to me how much stock is placed on "seasons played", if you accomplish everything there is to accomplish in 7 seasons it's somehow not long enough, but if you added 3 meaningless seasons to the total most people would fly off the handles saying "he played 10 years, he was great!" Which all comes back to people using largely irrelevant, compiled stats.

On the other end of that is playing "too long", on the old forums - and on other football related forums - one of the main arguments made against Tingelhoff was that he didn't have any all-pros or pro bowls the last 8 (or however many, don't care to look it up) years of his career, as if that erased what he accomplished before that. Without directly saying it, it was punishing him for how many seasons he played, which is no coincidence that he played a position with no stats. So he wasn't a RB getting a fairly meaningless 300-600 yards a year down the stretch of his career which is nothing special except that it's tacked on to career totals and people eat that up ("he's Xth all-time in (meaningless stat)!") ...

It's almost like there's a 'sweet spot' of seasons played for people, 7 isn't enough, 17 is too many (at least if it doesn't pad stats) and so on.

I don't get it. I always say I don't care about how many years a player played, I care about what the player did when he played. Not sure why that isn't the standard but it's clearly not. Seasons played are nothing more than more chances to accomplish something but they are not an (HOF worthy) accomplishment in itself. Hypothetically if Player A and Player B had the same resume but Player A played 7 years and it took Player B 13 years to match, somehow most people would consider Player B "better" or "more deserving", which of course defies logic.

There does seemingly have to be a minimum, however. Which is where curing cancer is a hard comparison to make. Since in football there's been plenty of players who were one season wonders, in theory a rookie QB could dominate, win MVP, SB MVP, all-pro and so on then do nothing after that.

I always use 3-season minimum, to be "in the discussion", since I think anyone can do something once, doing it twice is "proving it", while doing it a 3rd time is where you reach so-called 'greatness' ... So anyone who wasn't the best or close enough to the best at their position at least 3 seasons doesn't make my cut 99% of the time. For how many seasons total, I don't care, 3 "HOF seasons" (for lack of a better phrase) in 8 years or 3 "HOF seasons" in 12 years, the former is what matters to me, not the latter. Though if I did have to pick one or the other I'd be opposite of the majority and think two players with equal accomplishments, the one that took less time to accomplish it would be more impressive - though that's not a 'criteria' with my personal HOF criteria.

Matt, you make a very valid point about how long or short a players career. Look at the Hall of Famers from the 1920's, 1930's, 1940's, for example, a lot of them had short careers.

[ChrisBabcock]

Yes. Awesome points made in your post, Reaser. I agree 100%. Although the counterpoint to the "seasons played is meaningless" argument is if a player has consistency in those seasons played. Even if those seasons are not "elite" but merely "great" or "very good". Darrell Green has been brought up recently on here and I think he's a perfect example. He had at least one INT in every season of his 18 year career. (or however long it was) That's saying something and is HOF worthy IMO. I don't think he was ever a top 3 or 4 DB though.

[Reaser]

if a player has consistency in those seasons played.

I get that, and everyone has their own way of looking at it and my way is nothing more than my way. Which what I posted wasn't my full criteria, it's just the starting point.

I just think that if the question is: "Who were the best players in pro football history?" (which is what I personally think the PFHOF should be) then at a minimum the answer would include players who were at least the best at their own position sometime during their career.

Basically, it's hard to call someone (among) the best of 'all-time' when they weren't even the best at their own position when they played - which relatively speaking is a short amount of time (whether it's 7 or 20 years) compared to "all-time".

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

if a player has consistency in those seasons played.

I get that, and everyone has their own way of looking at it and my way is nothing more than my way. Which what I posted wasn't my full criteria, it's just the starting point.

I just think that if the question is: "Who were the best players in pro football history?" (which is what I personally think the PFHOF should be) then at a minimum the answer would include players who were at least the best at their own position sometime during their career.

Basically, it's hard to call someone (among) the best of 'all-time' when they weren't even the best at their own position when they played - which relatively speaking is a short amount of time (whether it's 7 or 20 years) compared to "all-time".

But you have to agree with V's excellent point -- if they play consistently over their career, and also cure cancer from their basement, then surely, SURELY, that warrants a spot in Canton....

[Bob Gill]

I always use 3-season minimum, to be "in the discussion", since I think anyone can do something once, doing it twice is "proving it", while doing it a 3rd time is where you reach so-called 'greatness' ... So anyone who wasn't the best or close enough to the best at their position at least 3 seasons doesn't make my cut 99% of the time. For how many seasons total, I don't care, 3 "HOF seasons" (for lack of a better phrase) in 8 years or 3 "HOF seasons" in 12 years, the former is what matters to me, not the latter. Though if I did have to pick one or the other I'd be opposite of the majority and think two players with equal accomplishments, the one that took less time to accomplish it would be more impressive - though that's not a 'criteria' with my personal HOF criteria.

So, given those criteria, what would you do with Rich Gannon? For four years he was about as good as anybody, but that came after a decade or so of mediocrity. So I'd think he probably qualifies for greatness at his peak, but he might get "penalized" for requiring a longer window of opportunity to achieve that. And the pattern of his career is different from other similar cases, because the great years came at the end of all those so-so seasons; a more common pattern would be great years toward the beginning, then an injury or something that affects the rest of the player's career.

By the way, excellent point about Tingelhoff's longevity working against him, just the opposite of the way it would be for a running back or a receiver. I'd never thought of those two things together, but I think you're right.