I had a friend email me this last night...

[D-Dogg]

So you don't think a better running game, more time to throw and recievers getting more seperation would have made any difference?

I said I too believe that Warner could have made the difference but he's not the only problem.

Not in that game...the Oline played decent and edge was ripping off good runs (at half he had about 58 yards or so and a 4.5 YPC)

He had plenty of time to throw...more than enough. Good protection for the most part of the game.

Receivers getting separation...sure, they could always do that better but we are a bread and butter crossing routes team with high YAC numbers. And there were several times WIDE OPEN players were missed, and the TE was never even looked at. Edge was open for dumpoffs ALL the time, which really would have helped the passing game.

So while you can always break down tape and say this could have been done better or that could have been done better, that game was a good, consistent effort that Kurt lost.

Seattle, different story I'll give you that. But yesterday a great deal of QBs in the league would have won that game. In fact, a guy like Dilfer could have won that game...the only thing asked was not to make mistakes...it wasn't a big play game from the QB. The big plays came on YAC from short passes.

That loss was inexcuseable.

 

[devilalum]

Not in that game...the Oline played decent and edge was ripping off good runs (at half he had about 58 yards or so and a 4.5 YPC)

He had plenty of time to throw...more than enough. Good protection for the most part of the game.

Receivers getting separation...sure, they could always do that better but we are a bread and butter crossing routes team with high YAC numbers. And there were several times WIDE OPEN players were missed, and the TE was never even looked at. Edge was open for dumpoffs ALL the time, which really would have helped the passing game.

So while you can always break down tape and say this could have been done better or that could have been done better, that game was a good, consistent effort that Kurt lost.

Seattle, different story I'll give you that. But yesterday a great deal of QBs in the league would have won that game. In fact, a guy like Dilfer could have won that game...the only thing asked was not to make mistakes...it wasn't a big play game from the QB. The big plays came on YAC from short passes.

That loss was inexcuseable.

I'm not sold on Warner at all, I just don't believe that he's the only problem. We'll find out in 2 or 3 weeks when Leinart starts. Of course then we won't be playing the Lambs.

 

[Redsz]

As I said earlier, I am a fan of Kurts, but this loss is totally on him.

The line played well, the D played well, ST's played well. Could they have played better? Yeah. But they didn't cost us the game.

 

[Evil Ash]

A yeah, a win because HIS DEFENSE GOT 5 TURNOVERS. How many did Kurt's get him? One? PLEASE DUDE, get your facts straight before speaking.

The dude fumbled 3 times, threw 2 pic, and was sacked 8 times! Yeah, HE won that game against Pittsburgh!

WOW...

Yes it is a team sport but my god this is moronic.

Kurt Warner is averaging 4 turnovers a game thus far this season. 4 a game and he is doing so against 2 mediocre defenses and a good Seattle D. I'm afraid to even find out what Warner would do against a great defense with his inability to dump the ball off, holding onto the ball for too long, and real nasty tendency to put the ball on the turf.

The Palmer/Warner comparison is also beyond moronic. Palmer is still a young player that makes mistakes. Warner is an aged vet that should know that taking care of the ball is the top priority of any player. He makes 1 or 2 mistakes a game ... hell thats livable but he is averaging 4 potential turnovers a game and thats not including the turnovers that got called back because of defensive penalties.

Finally please do not bring up Warner's Superbowl MVPs into the argument because unless we've magically gone back in time, those mean precisely nothing now. NADA. ZIP. If we're really going with this line of thinking we should sign Joe Montana and make him our starting QB based on what he did in the 80s

 

[CardinalChris]

I dunno, holding the Rams to 16 points shows me the defense did their part. This offense should score 20+ a game. Why didn't they? turnovers. Plain and simple. Who had the turnovers? Yeah, that guy.

 

[CardinalChris]

I don't agree with that.

We allowed just 16 points. We turned the ball over in the red zone 3 times, one of them where we would have won the game by just not turning it over. Another of our turnovers gave the Rams the ball in our territory and led directly to points.

The team around him was more than halfway decent..they put in an effort that would have been deemed an ass-kicking of the Rams. It is very rare in a team game like football to pin a loss directly on one guy, but Kurt was directly responsible for taking off a MINIMUM of 9 points and a max of 17, while delivering an easy 3 points to the other team. Someone who does that looks around the room and realized that everyone is looking at him and all he sees is the tips of their index fingers.

Nevermind, I meant what he said... I really should read ALL of the posts before typing something.

 

[RFIP]

Yes it is a team sport but my god this is moronic.

Kurt Warner is averaging 4 turnovers a game thus far this season. 4 a game and he is doing so against 2 mediocre defenses and a good Seattle D. I'm afraid to even find out what Warner would do against a great defense with his inability to dump the ball off, holding onto the ball for too long, and real nasty tendency to put the ball on the turf.

The Palmer/Warner comparison is also beyond moronic. Palmer is still a young player that makes mistakes. Warner is an aged vet that should know that taking care of the ball is the top priority of any player. He makes 1 or 2 mistakes a game ... hell thats livable but he is averaging 4 potential turnovers a game and thats not including the turnovers that got called back because of defensive penalties.

Finally please do not bring up Warner's Superbowl MVPs into the argument because unless we've magically gone back in time, those mean precisely nothing now. NADA. ZIP. If we're really going with this line of thinking we should sign Joe Montana and make him our starting QB based on what he did in the 80s

4 turnovers a game? Really? So 6 TOTAL turnovers divided by 3 games, equals 4 a game?

Hmmm, good math, glad I read your post....

My goodness!

 

[Evil Ash]

4 turnovers a game? Really? So 6 TOTAL turnovers divided by 3 games, equals 4 a game?

Hmmm, good math, glad I read your post....

My goodness!

Learn to read ... potential turnovers a game. He has 8 fumbles (luckily for him he has teammates to fall on the ball he dropped) and 4 INTs

8+4 = 12/3= 4

Nice try, I'll give you a B for effort.

 

[Russ Smith]

Are we really comparing these two? I mean none of you take into consideration that Warner is actually responsible for this team winning. He has a small semblance of a running game at best, a porous oline, and a defense, on a good day, that is average.

If you think that any QB in the league could come in and do better in this situation you are seriously kidding yourself. Palmer is still making these mistakes with a top 10 offense and a top 10 defense, a rb who is 4th in the NFL in rushing, and a very good offensive line.

We can blame Warner all we want but frankly I fail to see where any QB could have great success with these issues.

Now having said all of the above, the second point is that he is responsible for this play-period, and that many turnovers are unacceptable. 8 fumbles (who cares if he has only lost 2, that number will certainly rise) and 4 ints is pathetic and he deserves all of the criticism he is getting. And a benching may be in order...

But if you are delusional enough to think that this team, under Leinart, will have better success because he "was a winner in college" or "is the future of the team" or "Is a smart guy" or any other of the flat out dumb-ass reasons I have seen on this board in the last few days, then keep drinking the Leinart koolaid....It will be bitter.

Well given that Josh McCown threw for nearly 400 yards against SF with us LAST year without Edge I'm not overly impressed with Warners numbers against them. Josh started 6 games last year and averaged just under 280 yards passing a game, he's now the sitting behind Kitna fighting Orlovsky for the backup QB job in Detroit. So yes I would argue there's some evidence that there are a lot of other QB's in this NFL that could QB this team and put up similar if not better numbers to Warner. The problem with Kurt is he can't do it for 4 quarters because in the game he takes a few hits and then his performance tails off.

Yes the OL is a work in progress but this offense should be scoring more and warner's TO's are a primary reason it's not.

Leinart is a much smarter QB than Josh ever will be I gotta believe he could thrive in this offense. Sure he'll make mistakes but come on we're already getting those mistakes from Kurt, and if they continue it makes no sense to keep him starting.

 

[PortlandCardFan]

Warner holds on to the ball to long from what I saw. Which is why his sacks are up there and I think his pocket awareness isn't what it once was.

When Warner threw the ball to COAKLEY I was thinking his receiver must of fell because no one was there!! Since reading here it looks like it was a major bonehead mistake (No good camera angles for the replay).

What is killing the Cards is them working their butts off, getting to the Red Zone and then coughing it up. Hell, I settle for last year and getting FG all day long. We aren't even getting those this year!!!

The D was solid Sunday. They had some mental lapses here and there but they kept the Rams out of the end zone most of the day.

 

[JeffGollin]

I disagree with the extreme manner of the anti-Warner rhetoric being hashed out on this thread.

You have a right to state your opinion. I just wanted to let folks know that there are some on this board who don't share your opinions.

The results don't lie - Warner has turned the ball over too often. But the context that frames these results is important.

In Game #1, Warner and his receivers lit up the house.

In Game #2, the offensive line almost got Warner killed several times. Johnny Unitas, John Elway or Joe Montana would have had trouble protecting the ball (and their health) in that environment.

In Game #3, Warner definitely had a "bad hair day" - 2 of his three interceptions were horrible and the fumble is right up there with "The Play" (Picarkic's fumble) in stupidity. His accuracy on other throws was spotty.

To me, that's the reality of the situation. Sunday's performance, in particular, was unacceptable.

But consider the alternative. Put in Leinart and you're entering the Twilight Zone (of the unknown). You can argue about the percentage odds, but here's how I rate the possible outcomes:

- 15% chance Leinart comes in and immediately plays like John Elway. We make the playoffs.

- 40% chance Leinart comes in, gets clobbered and makes more mistakes than Warner. We wind up something like 3 & 13.

- 40% chance Green would try to protect Leinart by relyiing on the run and more conservative pass plays, so that Matt wound up the year with decent but not great numbers. Cards would probably win between 4 and 6 games.

- 25% chance Leinart benefits from his experience under "live" fire.

- 40% chance Leinart repeatedly nailed, gets shell-shocked and it sets back his progress by a year or two (or possibly forever).

- Whatever (substitute your own percentages).

I'll place the arbitrary percentage odds at 65% that Warner will trim his jib and reduce his turnovers in time to save the season. (Since we're already in a W & L hole, we'd probably reach .500 on paper but would have to play over our heads or get lucky to reach 9 & 7 or higher).

Considering everything, I think we're better off with Warner (We can be extremely p*ssed off at him for turning a sure "W" into a "L", but I still think he's the better option right now).

 

[Big T]

As a long, long time not only Cardinal, but NFL fan, this thread seems to me, as much as anything, an example of the present day trend to so many fans being Madden/Fantasy stat oriented without consideration of the actual dynamics of the cause of those stats.

 

[Russ Smith]

As a long, long time not only Cardinal, but NFL fan, this thread seems to me, as much as anything, an example of the present day trend to so many fans being Madden/Fantasy stat oriented without consideration of the actual dynamics of the cause of those stats.

Depends. My point is if Josh McCown can average 280 yards passing with these receivers it tells you that there are a LOT of NFL QB's who can put up good passing yardage numbers with this team. Josh even had a better winning % than Kurt does, and nobody is arguing Josh is a good QB although I think he'd be a viable backup.

The point is even with a worse OL and no viable starting RB we were able to throw the ball last year. We're better in both areas this year I think we're going to be able throw the ball again.

The fumbles and picks are not just the fault of the OL, Warner holds the ball too long, always has, all you have to do is look at his fumble numbers in recent years and ask yourself is he just going from one bad OL to another, or does he hold the ball too long leading to sacks? 2 years ago Kurt got sacked 39 times in 277 attempts with the giants. He then got replaced by a rookie named Eli Manning who everyone said was going to get killed behind that horrible OL. And Manning got sacked 13 times in 197 attempts and only 28 times last year in a full year starting at QB. It wasn't the Giants OL that was causing Warner to get sacked, it was Warner.

You can live with more sacks when you get all the big plays downfield that Warner gave the Rams in his heyday, and he's given us some of that too but the problem is the turnovers are increasing too and that's a killer in the NFL.

You can hate stats all you want but in the NFL one thing is a certainty, teams that turn the ball over a lot don't usually win.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

I suspect that RFIP's friend who emailed him this pack of excuses is Brenda Warner.

The Shark

I think RFIP IS Brenda Warner, unless it's Kurt himself .

 

[dreamcastrocks]

You can live with more sacks when you get all the big plays downfield that Warner gave the Rams in his heyday, and he's given us some of that too but the problem is the turnovers are increasing too and that's a killer in the NFL.

Disagree. Most of the plays that Warner have given us downfield, weren't really downfield. Most of them were short to intermediate passes that Boldin/Fitzgerald made into big plays.

 

[Russ Smith]

Disagree. Most of the plays that Warner have given us downfield, weren't really downfield. Most of them were short to intermediate passes that Boldin/Fitzgerald made into big plays.

True but part of the reason they get YAC is Warner delivers the ball on time in stride, that was what drove me nuts about Josh and the other guy who had a name starting with a J, they could not lead Wr's except into big hits. The offense we run has a lot of slants and crossing routes that if thrown right give the WR room to run, and Kurt CAN do that. Of course so can Leinart he's accurate and has good timing on his throws too.

But yes we're not throwing 60 yard bombs with regularity completely agree with that but its' not because of Kurt it's because our WR's aren't burners.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

True but part of the reason they get YAC is Warner delivers the ball on time in stride, that was what drove me nuts about Josh and the other guy who had a name starting with a J, they could not lead Wr's except into big hits. The offense we run has a lot of slants and crossing routes that if thrown right give the WR room to run, and Kurt CAN do that. Of course so can Leinart he's accurate and has good timing on his throws too.

But yes we're not throwing 60 yard bombs with regularity completely agree with that but its' not because of Kurt it's because our WR's aren't burners.

I am upset that we aren't running more slant patterns. These are the best routes to run with receivers like ours. The slant pattern is probably the hardest play to defend if executed correctly. If the ball is thrown before a zone linebacker can get there, (if at all) it is a complete pass, usually enough for a first down. I only saw about 1 or 2 slants in the game. You would think that we would see a heavy dose of them because our line is bad and it forces the ball out of the QB's hand faster. It is probably the biggest reason why the STL offense was so successful.

I no longer believe that Warner has the arm to throw the ball 40 yards in the air. To BJ vs. Seattle, was about a 35 yard pass in the air.

 

[CardLogic]

I no longer believe that Warner has the arm to throw the ball 40 yards in the air. To BJ vs. Seattle, was about a 35 yard pass in the air.

He may have the arm to do so...

But he doesn't have the thumb to do so!

 

[Big T]

He may have the arm to do so...

But he doesn't have the thumb to do so!

EXACTLY !