McNabb, Warner, and the Hall of Fame

[GTripp0012]

Warner, it's not a sure thing, but he would definately get my vote.

Though their are a lot of reasons to keep him out, I believe he's one of the elite quarterbacks of the era. He's on a whole level above McNabb.

[Ruhskins]

I think they are both deserving of the HOF. Warner has the chance of going to his second SB, is a SB MVP, and league MVP. From what people are posting in this thread, sounds like he will have very good numbers. I would say a second SB win for Warner would increase his chances.

McNabb has made the Eagles very successful, despite not having a good wideout group. McNabb does have Westbrook, but except for T.O., he has not had much help in in receivers. Like Warner, a 2nd SB appearance and/or win would greatly increase his chance.

Someone mentioned Manning and Brady on this thread, and these guys are going to affect the likes of McNabb or Warner in the HOF voting. If you have Manning and/or Brady are up for HOF contention the same year that either McNabb or Warner, I think the voters will go with Manning and Brady, before they vote a McNabb or Warner.

[saden1]

Let them get a ring first then we can talk...these two guys aren't in the same league as Marino. Marino set the NFL on fire in terms of the numbers he has put up.

[SouperMeister]

Warner would have been a mortal lock had the Rams not crapped the bed against the Patriots. I still think that both with get in. McNabb has tremendous raw numbers, and could really help his cause with a Super Bowl win.

[dmek25]

going back to gtripps post, i also think that people would be shocked to see Aikman's career stats. to me, no way he should be in the hall. captain of a juggernaut of a football team. yes, he was a darn good qback. hall worthy? i dont think so

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by dmek25

going back to gtripps post, i also think that people would be shocked to see Aikman's career stats. to me, no way he should be in the hall. captain of a juggernaut of a football team. yes, he was a darn good qback. hall worthy? i dont think so

Good point. Aikman's numbers are not HOF worthy IMO. But the bottom line is he was the QB of 3 SB winning teams. But if Aikman was put in a passing offense he had the ability to put up insane numbers. I don't think Bradshaw has great numbers either. He just played great on the biggest stage and that will get you in.

[Paintrain]

I think both of them are borderline leaning towards in at this point. If Warner wins another one, he's a lock because of his numbers, his wins and also his story (although that's not supposed to matter) is a great one.

McNabb has been a winner his entire career, never had great WR except one year with TO and has consistently put up solid numbers. With a SB ring he strengthens his case.

I doubt either one will be a first ballot, but they both will get in.

[MTK]

Aikman's numbers don't tell the whole story. He could have been a gunslinger in an offense that wasn't so run heavy. And at the end of the day 3 rings gets him in easily.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Aikman's numbers don't tell the whole story. He could have been a gunslinger in an offense that wasn't so run heavy. And at the end of the day 3 rings gets him in easily.

The numbers also suggest he would have been a really, really bad gunslinger in an offense that wasn't so run heavy. Possibly an NFL bust, but more likely what we think of Jay Cutler today.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The numbers also suggest he would have been a really, really bad gunslinger in an offense that wasn't so run heavy. Possibly an NFL bust, but more likely what we think of Jay Cutler today.

I saw enough of Aikman to tell me he was a damn good QB and much better than his numbers indicated. A bust? I really doubt that.

[44ever]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I saw enough of Aikman to tell me he was a damn good QB and much better than his numbers indicated. A bust? I really doubt that.

Nobody should be suprised of a HOF Aikman. One of the best IMO

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I saw enough of Aikman to tell me he was a damn good QB and much better than his numbers indicated. A bust? I really doubt that.

Fair enough, but his numbers were really, really, really bad in the years where the Cowboys weren't the greatest 21 player roster ever assembled.

I mentioned this above, but his career completion percentage is 61.5, which is very, very good for his era. But, that's obviously a misleading figure because he never, ever once got within 2 points of that on either side.

Without the greatest Cowboys line ever, and having Irvin in his prime, and Smith in his, Aikman is something like a 56% passer. It's totally not fair to Aikman to take away his prime years and grade him, obviously, but it's clear on a lesser team that not only is he not in the hall of fame, but he likely fails to make the pro bowl.

I don't actually know how bad the Cowboys were from 1997-1999 or from 1988-1989. I suspect they weren't good at all, but whether they were horrible, or just not playoff caliber, it probably would make a big difference in how we (I) perceive Aikman today.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Fair enough, but his numbers were really, really, really bad in the years where the Cowboys weren't the greatest 21 player roster ever assembled.

I mentioned this above, but his career completion percentage is 61.5, which is very, very good for his era. But, that's obviously a misleading figure because he never, ever once got within 2 points of that on either side.

Without the greatest Cowboys line ever, and having Irvin in his prime, and Smith in his, Aikman is something like a 56% passer. It's totally not fair to Aikman to take away his prime years and grade him, obviously, but it's clear on a lesser team that not only is he not in the hall of fame, but he likely fails to make the pro bowl.

I don't actually know how bad the Cowboys were from 1997-1999 or from 1988-1989. I suspect they weren't good at all, but whether they were horrible, or just not playoff caliber, it probably would make a big difference in how we (I) perceive Aikman today.

Well if we took away the Hogs the Skins would probably have never won a SB so that point is pretty usless.

[Jake2008]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I saw enough of Aikman to tell me he was a damn good QB and much better than his numbers indicated. A bust? I really doubt that.

Aikman's first couple of years were pathetic and it wasn't until they drafted Smith and had probably the best offensive line ever in the NFL and Irvin that he put up just decent numbers. His best year over his carreer in most any category doesn't even break the top 100 all time. And his last 4 years when the team started breaking up were very average also. Take him off the Cowboys and put him in Detroit and my guess is most people wouldn't even know who he is today.

Of all teams we should know that you can make a QB look good with a great line and team around him. We have done it a few times.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Jake2008

Aikman's first couple of years were pathetic and it wasn't until they drafted Smith and had probably the best offensive line ever in the NFL and Irvin that he put up just decent numbers. His best year over his carreer in most any category doesn't even break the top 100 all time. And his last 4 years when the team started breaking up were very average also. Take him off the Cowboys and put him in Detroit and my guess is most people wouldn't even know who he is today.

Of all teams we should know that you can make a QB look good with a great line and team around him. We have done it a few times.

Meh, you can play that game with just about anyone. What would Montana and Young have been without Rice and those talented 49ers teams?

You can't pick and choose to take away this or that. His resume is what it is, a Hall of Fame one. There's no debating it at this point because he's already in.