Thread: Since When Did Kurt Warner Get Put In Charge Of HOF Selection?....

Soul, I'm pretty sure you agree with us that Eli is not, AS OF RIGHT NOW, a lock to be a HOFer. I'm also pretty sure that your point is not about Eli, but about Warner (whom you admittedly dislike) discussing it.

Care to tell us why Warner is on your shit-list? Or is it, as could also be inferred, merely the idea that someone "less" accomplished than another has no right to offer criticism's (however valid or relevant)?

Warner, as an ex high level qb has every right to discuss current qb's (Eli, Brady, Peyton, Cutler etc); ecspecially when asked.
He has even more right to talk about Martz/Cutler seeing as he played in Martz's system, and therfore knows what Cutler would be going through.
Eli isn't there yet, someo of his #'s are downright poor for today's NFL. What puts him in the discussion is the fact that he has stepped up and helped his team win in big games(SB/mvp). If it weren't for that he wouldn't be in the discussion at all. Remember before he won his SB a few years ago he was being looked at as a boarderline bust, and not a franchise qb. And before their big run(when the D finally got healthy) Coughlin was looking at getting fired and there was a ton of heat on that whole team, Eli included.
Fact is it's easier then ever now to have gaudy QB stat's, if your #'s aren't there you have to question the qb's potential. A lot of these guy's couldn't have played in the 70's, 80's and 90's when the QB's wouldn't get sacked, but crushed..and the WR's were physically assulted all the way down the field.

Originally Posted by soulman

Good points Wolf but does Brady get dinged because he's lost twice to Eli. One point I'll bring up that to me adds points for induction to Eli's side of the ledger is not only has he won two SB's, the same as Brady and one of only 5 in the history of the game to do it, but in both instances he beat a HOF shoe in Tom Brady, and in both instances he was named the SB MVP.

Stats aside for a moment at least Eli gets the "Top Gun Trophy" for going up against the best and beating the best. Maybe rather than questioning Eli's eligibility it's Brady's that should be under scrutiny. Eli's record is now 2-0 and Brady's is 2-2 with both those losses coming to Eli and the Giants. Thoughts to ponder.

Just sayin'.

You do realize that:

1) It isn't "Brady vs Manning" it's "Brady vs Giants defense" and "Manning vs Patriots defense." The Patriots defense is dogshit, the Giants had one of the best. Big difference. Had Brady been playing the Patriots defense he'd probably be hoisting the trophy instead.

2) I fvcking HATE Tom Brady and even I have zero doubt he'll be in the hall. Mannings career numbers are far from impressive. He needs a few more good seasons to be even in the conversation. Superbowls IMO aren't what make a QBs entire career (see: Marino, Dan), it's about whether or not they play the majority of their career at a high level. I don't care if you win 16 Superbowls in your career, if your name is Ryan Leaf odds are your team won in spite of you, not because of you thus you don't belong in the hall.

3) You say "stats aside" and then bring up some more stats. Why does it matter who he lost to? The Giants got hot at the right time (similar to the Packers run last season) and ended up benefiting from it.

Originally Posted by Papa Bear

I think the reason Brady is a shoe-in is because he has dominated his position for a full decade. He's probably at least in the Top-5 to Top-10 of most major passing records. He's been to 5 Super Bowls, winning 3 of them, been named SB MVP twice and league MVP twice. He's had a rough go at it in the last couple Super Bowls but I don't think that should diminsh what he has done over the last 10 years during the regular season and the playoffs. I can't stand him or the Patriots, but I'm jealous of what they've done and how that organization is run. (Minus the whole Spygate thing. lol)

Only won two according to what I read. One of five. Montana won 3. Eli has some ground to cover yet I don't deny but I think it's too soon for Warner to be making remarks but he's not the only won I have an issue with sometimes. Dilfer is much higher on the list than he is.

Originally Posted by Evernight;86124[I

3]You do realize that:

1) It isn't "Brady vs Manning" it's "Brady vs Giants defense" and "Manning vs Patriots defense." The Patriots defense is dogshit, the Giants had one of the best. Big difference. Had Brady been playing the Patriots defense he'd probably be hoisting the trophy instead.

2) I fvcking HATE Tom Brady and even I have zero doubt he'll be in the hall. Mannings career numbers are far from impressive. He needs a few more good seasons to be even in the conversation. Superbowls IMO aren't what make a QBs entire career (see: Marino, Dan), it's about whether or not they play the majority of their career at a high level. I don't care if you win 16 Superbowls in your career, if your name is Ryan Leaf odds are your team won in spite of you, not because of you thus you don't belong in the hall.

3) You say "stats aside" and then bring up some more stats.[/I] Why does it matter who he lost to? The Giants got hot at the right time (similar to the Packers run last season) and ended up benefiting from it.

I don't deny any of that but down the road most will forget the defensive effort and it will be Eli out dueled Brady twice so why isn't he in of Brady is. In other words why should Eli get dinged for a lesser regular season record if Brady doesn't get dinged for his two SB losses to him.

I'm talking about won and loss records as far as the SB is concerned not individual stats for yardage or completions passer rating etc. Just SB. Does Favre deserve the SB on the basis of his stats. Maybe and maybe not but he'll get it for other things. Once again just sayin' that Warner who only won one SB is commenting on Eli right after he just one his second. The defense won the game but folks will remember that last drive down the road more than the sacks.

Originally Posted by loki520

Soul, I'm pretty sure you agree with us that Eli is not, AS OF RIGHT NOW, a lock to be a HOFer. I'm also pretty sure that your point is not about Eli, but about Warner (whom you admittedly dislike) discussing it.

Care to tell us why Warner is on your shit-list? Or is it, as could also be inferred, merely the idea that someone "less" accomplished than another has no right to offer criticism's (however valid or relevant)?

I do agree with all of you relative to where Eli stands and yeah, maybe Warner is expected to comment but I guess I've never seen the guy as a great QB. Good yes but not HOF material himself. Your point is well taken though. To me it's much like Dilfer who won a SB but got cut the next year despite that. I dislike Dilfer more than Warner but it just hit me wrong that he should make that comment right after Eli beat NE for the second time in two tries.

Originally Posted by soulman

I don't deny any of that but down the road most will forget the defensive effort and it will be Eli out dueled Brady twice so why isn't he in of Brady is. In other words why should Eli get dinged for a lesser regular season record if Brady doesn't get dinged for his two SB losses to him.

I'm talking about won and loss records as far as the SB is concerned not individual stats for yardage or completions passer rating etc. Just SB. Does Favre deserve the SB on the basis of his stats. Maybe and maybe not but he'll get it for other things. Once again just sayin' that Warner who only won one SB is commenting on Eli right after he just one his second. The defense won the game but folks will remember that last drive down the road more than the sacks.

If it's Brady vs Eli head to head I take Brady every time. If it's Eli vs the Patriots defense you'd have to be a tard to not take Eli (or hell, Jemarcus Russell if you put him in there ). A Super Bowl win and a Super Bowl loss is a team stat. It has much more to do with how the team plays vs how the QB plays. The QB can play like utter dog crap and the team can still win, likewise the QB can play lights out and the team can still lose.

Eli isn't getting dinged for a lesser regular season, he's getting dinged because he hasn't played at a high level long enough to be considered a HoF candidate.

Favre won't be getting into the hall based on Superbowls, it will be based on the fact that he played forever and most of the time it was played at a high level (despite the fact that he threw ints like they were going out of style some of that time).

You're right though, it's unfortunately very much the "flavor of the month" in the NFL. If you win the Super Bowl you're the greatest ever suddenly and they all talk about you as if you're total God Mode which is rarely the case. They blow shit way out of proportion to an absolutely mind numbingly sickening level.

Originally Posted by soulman

Only won two according to what I read. One of five. Montana won 3. Eli has some ground to cover yet I don't deny but I think it's too soon for Warner to be making remarks but he's not the only won I have an issue with sometimes. Dilfer is much higher on the list than he is.

He won in Super Bowls 36, 38 and 39. And, obviously, has lost his last two appearances.

I agree about Dilfer. I have a hard time listening to him critique other QB's since he sucked as one. lol

Actually I think its quite poetic that Warner has made these comments...if I remember correctly, Warner too was a favor of the month QB, who looked to be on the fast track for the HOF...I am not sure his career worked out quite that way...being on track and staying on track are two very different things, just ask Kurt....