Update: In light of Warner's retirement announcement today, we felt this piece, orignally posted on January 12, was worth bumping up to the front page.

According to several reports over the weekend, Arizona Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner is likely to call it a career after the playoffs. Warner continued to play brilliantly on Sunday in the aftermath of the retirement speculation, going 29 of 33 for 379 yards and five touchdowns to lead the Cardinals to an opening-round playoff win over the Green Bay Packers. The 38-year-old improved his career playoff record to 9-3, proving that he still has a lot left in the tank and would be going out on his own terms.

The combination of Warner’s excellent performance against the Packers and the retirement talk has reignited a debate that is sure to rage on for a while: is he a Hall of Famer or not?

Warner is certainly a legitimate candidate. To this point of his career, he has gone 57-44 as a starter during the regular season and, most impressively, completed 2,666 passes in 4,070 career attempts. That translates to an excellent 65.5 completion percentage. As well, he put together an incredible three-year stretch of dominance for the St. Louis Rams from 1999 to 2001, leading the league in completion percentage in each season. While he had a lot of talent to work with on the Rams—St. Louis did not get the Greatest Show on Turf nickname for nothing—there is no denying his greatness. He was especially sensational in ’01, completing 375 of 546 passes for career-best 68.7 completion percentage and 4,830 passing yards. He also led the NFL in touchdown passes, with 36, for the second time in three seasons.

Injuries and other issues took their toll on Warner soon thereafter, leading to a rough stretch for him from 2002-2004. Overall, though, he still has 208 touchdown passes, a 93.7 passer rating, three Super Bowl and four Pro Bowl appearances, two MVPs and excellent career postseason credentials to his name. Thus, Warner, especially if he continues to perform throughout the remainder of the postseason, will likely garner serious consideration when he becomes eligible in light of a late-career revival in Arizona.

To me, though, Warner is a borderline guy, and I would lean against voting him in. But my view of his Hall worthiness has nothing to do with the Cardinals losing in the Super Bowl down in Tampa last February. Too many writers felt that he would have to win that game to get elected, voicing their opinions in misguided columns on the topic. Basing a career achievement for that reason on its own is pure nonsense. Football is a team game, and it was in no way, shape or form his fault that Arizona ended up losing. Indeed, he cannot be blamed for the Cardinals’ defense failing to stop Ben Roethlisberger and the Pittsburgh Steelers on that classic final drive.

What really hurts Warner’s Hall of Fame credentials, though, is a relatively short peak of greatness and the context in which he accumulated his statistics. While he ranks near the top of all-time leader boards in several rate stats (he did not play long enough to rank in counting stat categories), it is hard to deny the talent that he had to work with in St. Louis. Marshall Faulk, a should-be Hall of Famer on his own, was the most dangerous threat on those excellent Rams teams that also featured strong offensive lines. And, as King Kaufman pointed out on this very subject a year ago, he played in an era in which passing offenses became more prevalent.

Kauffman:

I would love to see a comparison of Warner to other Hall of Fame quarterbacks, but adjusted for era. It doesn't mean anything that Warner's raw stats -- even rate stats, like completion percentage -- blow, say, Terry Bradshaw's out of the water. Warner and Bradshaw were practically playing a different sport.

I think comparing the NFL of the 2000s to the NFL of the 1970s is like comparing major league baseball of the 2000s with about the 1920s, maybe even the teens. The changes in philosophy, rules and the physical makeup of the players have been that profound. Adjustments have to be made.

Warner has had a remarkable career, there is no question. His success was also due, in part, to the supporting cast around him and his struggles on mediocre teams are hard to overlook. As the Football Outsiders sheds light on in an excellent statistical post on the matter, there were many quarterbacks in the past era who have done more on a football field than him, from Tom Brady and Peyton Manning to Drew Brees and Brett Favre.

If I had to bet on it, I would say that Warner will eventually get into Canton, anyway. He just probably belongs in that clichéd Hall of Very Good, though, and is on the cusp. What do you think?

Also, in light of Warner's success, I felt this old drunk dial was worth sharing.