You've got two options for QB:
Option #1 is 38 years old with 1 Super Bowl ring and 3 NFL MVP trophies. He's got a career QB Rating of 85.7 and a career completion percentage of 61.4. His best statistical year was back in 1995, when he bombed the pigskin for 4,413 yards, 38 TD's and 13 INT's.
Option #2 is 37 years old with 1 Super Bowl ring and 2 NFL MVP trophies. He's got a career QB Rating of 93.2 and a career completion percentage of 65.1 His best statistical year was in 1999, when he accumulated 4,353 yards, 41 TD's and 13 INT's.
Which one do you take?
As I'm sure you can already gather from the title of this article, I'm taking Option #2 - Kurt Warner. This is not to knock Brett Favre (who was Option #1, for those of you who are "slow"). He's obviously a great quarterback, and unless he finds himself in the Clementh Circle of Sports Hell, he's a first ballot Hall of Famer. But a lot of what makes Favre the icon he is is the green and the gold. It's the fact that he stayed with one franchise for so long, and all the success - including that one Super Bowl victory - that he had with that franchise.
But, you look at the numbers, and there's really not much difference between Favre and Warner. In fact, the only difference is that Warner's career numbers are slightly better and he's arguably more accomplished. But how come Warner is not revered the same way Favre is? It's not like Warner beat his wife, bet on games, or dealt drugs on the side or anything. On the contrary, Warner is a blue-collared, hard-working individual - from going undrafted by the NFL, to playing in Canada, to coming back to the States and becoming a Super Bowl hero (not to mention a bona fide threat in Madden).
Warner's problem = he didn't have the same opportunity that Favre had to become a mainstay in his community. If Warner had played every year of his career in St. Louis, I'm sure he'd be on that short list of QB's (along with Peyton Manning and Tom Brady) to have a shot at reaching Favre iconic status. But, the Rams fell in love with Bulger and felt it was time to cut the cord on Warner.
Which leads me to another difference between Favre and Warner. In the midst of this whole Favre "I'm retired - I'm not retired" ordeal, we see that Favre really doesn't care about the Packer franchise or the careers of guys like Aaron Rodgers and Brian Brohm. Obviously through all his accomplishments, Favre has earned the right to throw his weight around in this league and do what's best for himself. It's just that we as fans hope that our sports heroes and icons would take the high road - we want them to go that extra mile off the field just like they do on it. Don't tell your team you're retired, have them move on without you, only to come in later and say "I'm Back!" and expect everything to be like old times. In the legal community, we call that "laches." It's just not cool.
That's why I'll take Kurt Warner. After being jettisoned from the city that enjoyed two Super Bowl victories because of him, Warner went off to New York. Despite throwing for over 2,000 yards and completing nearly 63% of his passes, he was replaced by rookie Eli Manning. (How do you think Favre would have handled that situation?) Warner remained on the sidelines and mentored the soon-to-be Super Bowl QB. The next year, Warner continued his exodus to Arizona - where, once again, he finds himself on the sideline mentoring young Matt Leinart. Is he outside the white lines because of his production? 3,417 yards, 62.3 completion percentage, and 27 TD's in 2007 suggest that's not the case. He's on the sideline because the Cardinals have their QB of the future in Leinart. Yet, you don't hear him giving an ultimatum: start me or trade me.
So give me Trusty #13. Better career numbers and a better team attitude.