Don Banks weighs in on Warner

[moklerman]

What we need to remember is Matt lost the starting Job because of that terrible one quarter he had in preseason. He had played well otherwise.

Wrong! How little you must think of Whis if you believe that statement.

 

[IAWarnerFan]

you say for every Cunningham, there's a Favre... as if Favres grow on trees? Favre's a sure-fire, first ballot HOF and in discussions for the greatest QB of all time.

That's true, but I wasn't talking about skills I was talking about longevity. My point was that there's nothing to say that Warner can't play for three more years except this article. Many QBs just decide to retire before their 40, but if Warner doesn't want to, I dont think his game will fall apart like this article indicates.

 

[IAWarnerFan]

Far more durable to be sure. Beneficiary of far more well rounded teams. Both have been on 3 different teams, both have won 1/lost 1 in the Super Bowl and both have multiple MVP's. Favre hasn't passed for as many TD's in a season. Favre's never eclipsed 100 rating for a season. Favre is one of the few guys who can be compared to Warner in fumbles. Warner's never led the league in most interceptions and Favre is on pace for his 3rd time. Their TD% is the same(5.1), Warner's INT% is lower(3.1>3.2), Warner's completion pct. is higher (65.5>61.7), Warner's YPA is much higher (8.1>7.0) and his YPG is higher (261.8>239.3).

No one compares to Favre in longevity but Warner stacks up pretty well in all other categories. At least well enough that this comparison isn't "crazy".

And that's what I was trying to say by that. There's no question in my mind that if Warner would have been seen for the great QB he is right after college he could have very well be on his way in longevity as well.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

One interesting section other than the main story...

Seem like plenty to choose from to replace CP in the off season.

In order of preference:

Jim Johnson
Rob Ryan (would never happen considering family history with club).
Wade Phillips
Marvin Lewis
Mike Singletary
Romeo Crennel

 

[Arizona's Finest]

The article is talking about the 98 season. Cunningham got his extension based on the resurgent 98 season. Warner would be getting a contract based on this resurgent season. That is what the article is predicated on and what CT78 is refering to, the 98 season of Cunningham. Not sure what bringing up Cunnginhams previous seasons does for the arguement considering the debate in the article is not predicated on that.

Him not doing anything after the age of 35 is exactly the cautionary tale he is trying to make. Name one QB who got a large extension or even a mid level extension over the age of 35 that has actually lived up to that extension.

I love Warner and think he should be extended without a doubt but the article has its merits without a doubt becuase Warner would be the first QB ever over the age of 35 to get an extension to have ever lived up to that extension.

JC - Thank you Joe as I was about to type the exact same thing before your post.

 

[moklerman]

The article is talking about the 98 season. Cunningham got his extension based on the resurgent 98 season. Warner would be getting a contract based on this resurgent season. That is what the article is predicated on and what CT78 is refering to, the 98 season of Cunningham. Not sure what bringing up Cunnginhams previous seasons does for the arguement considering the debate in the article is not predicated on that.

Because there's a big difference between a QB doing it for 14 games(Cunningham) and a QB that's done it for 24 games(Warner). Not to mention that Warner had been playing a considerable amount for over 4 years. Cunningham came out of retirement and very little playing time to have his 14 games of resurgence.

 

[moklerman]

There's no question in my mind that if Warner would have been seen for the great QB he is right after college he could have very well be on his way in longevity as well.

That's a very huge, very unfounded leap. Warner wasn't ready to play QB in the NFL after his brief time in Div. IIA football. It's well documented that he wasn't even ready to run plays in practice when he got his first shot with the Packers. He needed the Arena League time and maybe even the NFL Europe time to get enough experience and more importantly confidence to be able to step on an NFL field.

No, it's foolish to think that he would've done what he's done if things had been different. You don't really think he'd have the swagger that he does if he didn't get that first year of the GSOT? That confidence just can't be assumed. If he'd not been sick and got a shot with the Bears, there's no way he's where he's at now.

And there's no way he was ready to play in the NFL after his college days. He barely showed enough to beat out Will Furrer, Paul Justin and a used up Jeff Hostetler after 2 years in the AFL and 1 in NFLE.

 

[IAWarnerFan]

That's a very huge, very unfounded leap. Warner wasn't ready to play QB in the NFL after his brief time in Div. IIA football. It's well documented that he wasn't even ready to run plays in practice when he got his first shot with the Packers. He needed the Arena League time and maybe even the NFL Europe time to get enough experience and more importantly confidence to be able to step on an NFL field.

No, it's foolish to think that he would've done what he's done if things had been different. You don't really think he'd have the swagger that he does if he didn't get that first year of the GSOT? That confidence just can't be assumed. If he'd not been sick and got a shot with the Bears, there's no way he's where he's at now.

And there's no way he was ready to play in the NFL after his college days. He barely showed enough to beat out Will Furrer, Paul Justin and a used up Jeff Hostetler after 2 years in the AFL and 1 in NFLE.

Sorry, I shouldn't have tried to go there. You know more about that situation than me.

 

[joeshmo]

Because there's a big difference between a QB doing it for 14 games(Cunningham) and a QB that's done it for 24 games(Warner). Not to mention that Warner had been playing a considerable amount for over 4 years. Cunningham came out of retirement and very little playing time to have his 14 games of resurgence.

You think Warner would be getting an extension based on the three years prior to this one? Sorry cant buy that one bit. They wanted Matt to be the starter so bad before this season. This season being the only season out of the 4 years that would make anyone think about giving a 35+ year old QB a large 2 year extension.

Sorry but my point still very much so applies. Both got or will be getting an extension based off of one resurgent year.

 

[joeshmo]

Cunningham doesn't seem like a very good example. Jeff George replaced Cunningham in '99 and has a monster year. Rookie Culpepper comes in '00 and has a monster year. In '01, Cris Carter is 36 and out of gas and the passing game starts to slip. In '02, Carter retires and defenses don't have reason to fear Dwane Bates. Culpepper's number suffer greatly.

You are bringing up a lot of hindsight. The team didnt know those future items until they happened. Thus it had no barring on their decision to give a 35+ year old QB a failry large extension. They would have no way of knowing the info you just brought up.

Statistically speaking, Elway had 3 of his best seasons at 36, 37 & 38. Brett Favre, Doug Flutie, Rich Gannon, Jeff Garcia, Joe Montana, Warren Moon, Jim Plunkett, Phil Simms, Dan Marino & Steve Young are all guys who were good enough to stick around long enough(and contemporary enough for comparison) to be viable at 35+. From what I could tell, the good at that age outweigh the bad by a decent margin.

Case in point for Don Banks then. How many of those got a large extension after the age of 35? Answer - 1, Gannon. The rest were working under their last contract already. Teams were not willing to give an OLD QB an extension because history shows a pattern of it rarely if every actually working out. Not to say Warner couldnt be one of the few if not the first but the history just isnt there, which is the point of the article, not a cunningham comparison it is jsut one story of many.

 

[moklerman]

Sorry but my point still very much so applies. Both got or will be getting an extension based off of one resurgent year.

How is most of '07 and all of '08 equal to 14 games? Since donning the gloves in late '06 up 'til now, Warner has shown himself to be a viable, even prolific, starting QB. Whether it's coincidence or something else, the '02-'06 Warner is a thing of the past and 2+ years of performance supports that idea.

Cunningham came off the bench and put up ridiculous numbers that were far above anything in his career. 5% higher completion, almost double his TD%, his best INT%, his YPA of 8.7 was 2 yards better than his career average, etc. Even at the time I think it was fathomable that it was a fluke year for Cunningham. The hindsight applies to Banks' article not the Vikings' decision at the time.

Warner's numbers this year are all near his career averages and nothing that drastically contrasts with what he's done throughout his career. I'm not saying Banks doesn't have a point with his "buyer beware" advice, just that Cunningham is a bad example.

No one in their right mind expects Warner to play any more than 2 more years and there is going to be a huge risk of injury that goes along with him being in his late thirties. Arguing that Warner is having a one year spike in production isn't a valid part of the argument.

 

[moklerman]

The rest were working under their last contract already. Teams were not willing to give an OLD QB an extension because history shows a pattern of it rarely if every actually working out.

Montana, Gannon, Garcia and Favre all signed "new" contracts late into their 30's. All four of them look to lead their respective teams to the playoffs after signing the contract too.

 

[Spielman]

Theere is an important difference between Warner and Cunningham...RC could win on the road and in the cold and win high pressure games past 35. All Warner has proven this year so far is that he can put up great fantasy numbers at home or in the wam weather against crappy teams. No thanks for starting next year.

Y'know, I'm shocked Jeff Blake made it out of town without being drawn and quartered.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Wrong! How little you must think of Whis if you believe that statement.

Correct. Whiz said that Matt was the starter and had a very good preseason and offseason besides that Oakland game. If he doesn't have that bad game in Oakland, Matt is our QB this year. This I am certain.

 

[moklerman]

Correct. Whiz said that Matt was the starter and had a very good preseason and offseason besides that Oakland game. If he doesn't have that bad game in Oakland, Matt is our QB this year. This I am certain.

I don't think Whis was behind Matt as the starter since Whis got here. It took all of two games for him to start losing snaps in '07 and, according to you, 1 bad quarter in preseason to get benched again. Doesn't sound like Whis' actions are matching his words.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I don't think Whis was behind Matt as the starter since Whis got here. It took all of two games for him to start losing snaps in '07 and, according to you, 1 bad quarter in preseason to get benched again. Doesn't sound like Whis' actions are matching his words.

We'll just have to respectfully disagree.

 

[moklerman]

We'll just have to respectfully disagree.

That's fine but it's just conversation. Neither of us has a say in what happens. I am curious how you view Leinart's reduced role in '07 and subsequent loss of a starting job, especially if it was all based on the Raiders preseason game. If you add in the continued drifting away from Whis/Haley's template for the offense, it seems like they would prefer the guy that wasn't causing those changes.

I think Leinart was being forced on Whis by management and Leinart was given enough rope by Whis to hang himself, which he wound up doing. I don't think Whis is against Leinart, I just think he doesn't care who starts and Leinart as the twice incumbent hasn't won him over.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

That's fine but it's just conversation. Neither of us has a say in what happens. I am curious how you view Leinart's reduced role in '07 and subsequent loss of a starting job, especially if it was all based on the Raiders preseason game. If you add in the continued drifting away from Whis/Haley's template for the offense, it seems like they would prefer the guy that wasn't causing those changes.

I think Leinart was being forced on Whis by management and Leinart was given enough rope by Whis to hang himself, which he wound up doing. I don't think Whis is against Leinart, I just think he doesn't care who starts and Leinart as the twice incumbent hasn't won him over.

The only problem that Whiz had with Leinart was his no-huddle offense. Whiz also admitted that he made tremendous strides in this area and did not expect to need to bring Warner off of the bench.

 

[moklerman]

The only problem that Whiz had with Leinart was his no-huddle offense. Whiz also admitted that he made tremendous strides in this area and did not expect to need to bring Warner off of the bench.

I seem to recall that comment was more along the lines of whichever QB won the job wouldn't be splitting snaps with the other. In hindsight, it could be surmised that Whis was angling to keep Warner in full time, not the other way around.

It's all mind-reading and guesswork but the pudding sure looks like Warner was the guy.

 

[RolleRocks]

Correct. Whiz said that Matt was the starter and had a very good preseason and offseason besides that Oakland game. If he doesn't have that bad game in Oakland, Matt is our QB this year. This I am certain.

If Whiz had any confidence that Leinart was durable and the right man for the job, he would have sent Warner packing after 2007.

That would have been fair to both Leinart and Warner.

The fact that he kept Warner around shows that he just isn't sold on Leinart at all.

And as far as preseason games goes, Leinart was rotten against KC in the second preseason game also. In fact, they had to rehab his confidence by bringing him back out in the second half to beat up on some scrubs.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

If Whiz had any confidence that Leinart was durable and the right man for the job, he would have sent Warner packing after 2007.

That would have been fair to both Leinart and Warner.

The fact that he kept Warner around shows that he just any sold on Leinart at all.

And as far as preseason games goes, Leinart was rotten against KC in the second preseason game also. In fact, they had to rehab his confidence by bringing him back out in the second half to beat up on some scrubs.

Again, I'll just have to disagree with you guys on the Leinart/Warner situation.

 

[Skkorpion]

QB arguments are always contentious and unfulfilling. Why bother? Either to trust the coach's judgment or don't trust it - those are our two real choices.

Whisenhunt will choose the right guy to start next year, in my opinion.