Kurt Warner deserves to be in more then namath ,if it's just based on what they did on the field. I know it's different eras but you can look at namaths numbers compared with other players numbers from the same era and see that he was barely a top 15 qb year in and year out in that era.

Look at his career stats and the stats for other players in the same era.
Joe namath career stats over 12 years in New York and 4 games in la for the rams

Career completion percentage 50.1. His best in any one season was 52.9. Had multiple years, in his prime, where he was easily under 50% . Go look at the other qbs over those years and you will find him way down the list

27663 was the number of yards he threw for over 140 games ,do the math and see what he avg each game .hint, not really that good at all. Remember to Compare it to other players of that era ,to be fair.

173 tds over 140 games,also very average ,even for that era.

220 ints over 140 games .that's absurd,even for that era.thats a worse ratio then any other player I've seen or heard about.

Kurt Warner's stats will show the difference in that era, but you can compare the stats to his peers in that era ,with him and with joe namath .by doing this ,you will see how much better he was then most of his qb competitors of the era ,you will also see how below average, to average at best,namath was .

Kurts stats ;
124 games played
Career completion percentage is 65.5 ,his lowest ever ,for a season in which he started,at least,2 games was 62.3. that was with Arizona before they got it going with him at qb.

Yards 32344 over 124 games,compare it to his peers of the era and hes top 5 almost every year in which he was in his prime with st louis ,and in arizona. He led
2 different franchises to the super bowl and arizona never went back or never went before ,without warner.

208 tds over 124 games . Do the math ,if you take out games he didnt start or play much ,hes ahead of many of his peers ,and good peers at that.

128 Ints. compare that to his peers over that time. Then compare namaths numbers to his peers at that time.
Its not hard to debunk the eras excuse, just compare all the numbers to the top qbs of that time. Also was a 4 time pro bowl qb,and a two time first team all pro .

The system that you can use to take away the eras bias is easy. Take those each of those career numbers and devide them by the number of games played .then for each stat you see where the player ranked among all the qbs in the league over that time period . Add all those numbers up ,and whoever has the lowest number total, was better.
Now ,it may need to be tweaked a little but I just thought about it as I wrote,but if you take the formula I'm talking about as a starting point ,I'm sure you could come up with a way to make that idea work.

This post was edited on 11/25/20 at 9:18 am