Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Loyal Homer about whether or not Arizona Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner is a hall of famer.
Every professional sport has a number of great players who, in spite of their accolades, never receive an invitation to the sport’s hall of fame. Baseball, for example, is full of them. Some players are seemingly disqualified from serious contention because of their connection to allegations of cheating (Mark McGwire). Others players may have infamous incidents that overshadow their career accomplishments (Roberto Alomar and the loogie heard ‘round the world). Others are ignored because they failed to reach certain benchmark achievements, like hitting 500 homeruns (Fred McGriff). Whatever their reason for exclusion, a number of great players who fail to make it into the hall of fame spawn debates about their worthiness, and football has more than its fair share of such debates. This debate examines NFL quarterback Kurt Warner’s qualifications for the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
Sports Geek lived up to his reputation as more than just a scholar with a mind for statistics but as a knowledgeable sports intellectual, who provides unique fact-based insight. Sports Geek’s argument began by highlighting Kurt Warner’s pedigree as one of the most prolific passers of his day, citing his huge success in St. Louis from 1999-2001, a 9-3 career playoff record, and his Super Bowl MVP. Perhaps the Sports Geek’s most compelling argument was his comparison to other quarterbacks with similar histories, quarterbacks who are actually inducted into the Pro Hall of Fame.
Loyal Homer fired back with an equally stirring argument that pointed to the monumental collapse of Warner’s career during his post-Greatest-Show-On-Turf days. Loyal Homer reminded Warner supporters that the embattled quarterback was unseated twice in as many years because of his failures to control the ball. Loyal Homer made significant advances for the argument by pointing out that in 2005 Warner was brought to Arizona where he promptly split time with the likes of Josh McCown.
Both Sports Geek and Loyal Homer brought up the fact that most of Kurt Warner’s successes were accomplished during a relatively short career in a short burst of greatness offset by periods of struggles and ineffectiveness. Whether the short timeframe of Warner’s success should be viewed as a positive or negative is truly a matter of personal opinion.
For me, the arguments boiled down to one central question: Is the debate whether Kurt Warner will be inducted into the Hall of Fame or whether Kurt Warner should be inducted into the hall of fame? Sports Geek makes it abundantly clear that Warner boasts career numbers that probably will send him to Canton… eventually. But Loyal Homer convinced me that Warner should not be remembered among the greats of the game. Therefore I am awarding the victory to Loyal Homer.
When I think of the greatest names in professional football history names like Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana, Dan Marino, Brett Favre, and Peyton Manning come to mind. Kurt Warner will be remembered as a very good quarterback, but I agree with Loyal Homer that the NFL should not dilute the memory and legacy of those who are truly the best by allowing anything less to enter enshrinement in the living memory of the sport, which is the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
Posted by Babe Ruthless 
