1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Great Debate: Is Kurt Warner a Hall of Famer?

Discussion in 'Writers' Workshop' started by jrydun, Jan 25, 2009.

  1. jrydun

    jrydun New Member

    Throughout the course of the 2008 NFL season, there has been a recurring topic that seems to have been continually swept under the rug. Thanks to the storybook post season run by the Arizona Cardinals; it has become a topic that cannot be ignored any further.
    Kurt Warner became a household name for the Rams in the late 90’s in an unlikely rise to prominence in the NFL. However, following the 2001 season, Warner’s great story appeared to have come to an end. He was passed up in favor of Mark Bulger as the future for the Rams organization. He would spend the next 5 years in obscurity bouncing to the Giants, and then to the Cardinals, almost always seeming to be given the mentor, or place-holder spot for the future of these franchises. Warner had come from bagging groceries, to NFL-Europe, to the arena league, to NFL immortality, and then had plummeted back down to earth.
    This would have been the end of the story; it would make for great “remember when” moments; but it should not have carried much further. With the hiring of Ken Whisenhunt in 2007, and young quarterback Matt Leinart’s struggles; Warner was given another shot. Getting the job after 5 games, Warner played fairly well; obviously rusty having not been asked to carry the load in some time; but well enough to carry the Cardinals to an 8-8 record. However, again in the off-season, if he wanted to start; he would have to earn the job; and that is exactly what he did.
    Coming into the 2009 season, not many had high expectations of Warner; his day had come and gone; many considered his role as the starter more as the failure of Leinart, than the success of Warner. All of this would change. Kurt Warner had switched jersey’s, but he was the same quarterback that we had watched in awe as he orchestrated one of the most phenomenal offenses ever witnessed in the NFL.
    Warner arguably should have joined the ranks with Brett Favre as the only 3 time NFL MVP this season; but due to a late skid, it was not to be. I’m certain that’s perfectly fine with Warner who is slated to make his 3rd Super Bowl appearance in 10 seasons, becoming only the 2nd quarterback of all time to make it to the Super Bowl with 2 different teams.
    Statistically, Kurt Warner has a strong case for the Hall of Fame; Although he is only 38th all time in passing yards; 40th all time in TD’s, this is largely to his 5 year stint in obscurity. Even so, he remains 4th all time in passer rating, behind only Steve Young, Peyton Manning, and Tony Romo. That’s pretty good company if you ask me. It doesn’t end there however, he ranks 1st all time in passing yards per game, 5th all time in yards per attempt, and 2nd in completion percentage. While he is lacking in the longevity you see in your Fran Tarkenton’s, Dan Marino’s, he is a winner.
    When looking at the Hall of Fame, what is important? Is it winning? Kurt Warner qualifies there as he is now playing for the 3rd time on Super Bowl Sunday. Is it the stats are important? This 2-time MVP arguably has had the better career than many other Hall of Famers including Troy Aikman and Terry Bradshaw. The charitable work he has been able to accomplish thanks to his rise in fame doesn’t hurt either. When you look at his overall body of work since getting his start with the Rams in 1999; you cannot deny that 5 years after the retirement of Kurt Warner; we’ll be watching his acceptance speech to the Hall of Fame saying “remember when.”
  2. pseudo

    pseudo Well-Known Member

    Right off the top, you need to get all those semicolons under control. Even for the ones used correctly, here's a thought from the "Associated Press Guide to Punctuation":


    But who's doing the sweeping?

    A few punctuation and style corrections, but otherwise mostly untouched. I find it curious, however, that I have yet to read the word "quarterback" in this story. Remarkable though it may seem, some households may not recognize Warner's name. And if they don't, they have no clue what "the future of these franchises" means.
    Also, if you're arguing a point, you can make it stronger by discarding such qualifiers as "seems to be." Was he or was he not signed as a stopgap until Eli was ready to take over? Ditto for Leinart in Arizona.

    Remember the quote about semicolons? They make this paragraph almost unreadable. Let's try it a different way, if you'll excuse the rewrite:
    Moving on ...
    Fact check: I can name at least half a dozen quarterbacks who have made it to the Super Bowl with more than one team, including one who went to five in a row without taking a snap in any of the first four. Did you mean START a Super Bowl for two different teams? Make sure of your facts, and be specific when the situation calls for it. The reference to the Rams offense could also be more clear. After all, Warner has switched jerseys more than once since he first appeared in the Packers' training camp in 1996.
    And be very, VERY careful about using "I" and "we," even in a column.

    Let's lose the repetitions of "all time," shall we? Find a way to say it once, while making it clear that it applies to the other stats mentioned. Also, Fran Tarkenton and Dan Marino both had unique skills. There are no plurals of either one.

    I know where you're going with the comparison to Aikman and Bradshaw, but you'd better be prepared to defend that incendiary statement.

    If you're serious about applying to newspapers, you really should work on writing to fit the style most of them use. Two reading suggestions: "Elements of Style" by Strunk and White, and "The Associated Press Stylebook."
  3. jrydun

    jrydun New Member

    Thanks for the critique. I'll look into the suggested readings.
  4. mustangj17

    mustangj17 Active Member

    One minor thing I noticed that is real easy to remember.

    Kurt Warner on first reference.
    Warner on second reference.
    Don't revert back to calling him Kurt Warner later on down the road. Unless of course you are writing a story that mentions a bunch of other Warners in which case you would have to specify.

    Just read that stylebook.
  5. jrydun

    jrydun New Member

    Thanks. I just ordered both off of Amazon.
  6. pseudo

    pseudo Well-Known Member

    Good catch, 'stang.

    And lest I sounded too negative (which I probably did -- bad habit of mine, even with my own stuff), the piece doesn't suck. But with so many writers fighting for so few jobs, showing prospective employers that you can deliver clean copy will help you pull ahead a little in the rat race. On the flip side, if someone needs heavy editing before their stuff is ready to see the light of day, they'd better be a f***ing incredible writer to make up for it.
  7. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    Jrydun, please give this to pseudo.

  8. jrydun

    jrydun New Member

    Thanks again.
  9. jrydun

    jrydun New Member

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page