Kurt Warner's play today?

[green machine]

Not trying to start a fight here, but really you just sound like a hater.

I am not sure what game you watched, but go back and look at the bomb to Fitz and you will see that that pass was absolutely 100% perfect from Warner. He knows Fitz's abilities and put the ball where only he could make a play on it. Neither DB could have even touched it whether Larry went up to get it or not.

The pass to Urban was all Urban. It was impossible for Warner to put the ball in his chest because Urban was turned sideways. Kurt would have to be throwing from the sideline for that to happen. That ball was where it was supposed to be.

As far as him missing targets early in the game, well he did miss a few but he was also hit while throwing three or four times when the ball came up short.

Kurt didn't have his greatest game, but to say that he wasn't good is a sad understatement. Atlanta may not have had the best D, but it wasn't garbage either. They didn't just go to sleep and wake up @ 11-5. it was no accident. We beat a damn good team yesterday and Kurt was a key to that.

That's fair, and to be honest, I probably have been a bit harsh. I was going off what I remember at the game, and having seen some replays, the throws do seem better. So, that's my bad.

And I wont' deny that Kurt has been good for the team, for the most part. Hell, I've given him kudos for his play in the 4th, he came up huge.

Then you're only condemning your own lack of perspective. When it comes to playoffs in general and when compared to what all--ALL the other QB's have done this weekend it's an absurd statement to claim that Warner was awful, bad or average.

One has to consider what all of the others are doing in similar circumstances to understand what is reasonable to expect of Warner. In which case he performed to a level that should be far less criticized.

Like I said, I'm not worried about other QBs. How they played had nothing to do with Kurt and vice versa.

What happens if Tavaris Jackson has even better numbers than Warner today? Should we be saying that Tavaris is better? Because I think that's the logic you're rolling with.

 

[slanidrac16]

Probably the most unbeleivable stat this weekend is we have over 120 post debating Warners performance instead of relishing this glorious victory.

 

[moklerman]

Because I think that's the logic you're rolling with.

Amazing how one little word can make such a huge difference. I wouldn't say he "is" better but I would say he "played" better. Maybe that's part of the problem for some. Rather than thinking about what (you think) Warner "is", think about how he actually played.

I would wager that if Leinart or any other Cards QB had the statline and performance that Warner had the perception would be quite different. If Neil Lomax(a "true" Cardinal) had those two long TD's and a home playoff win he would be at the very top of the Cardinals pantheon. Or Jim Hart. Regardless of age.

 

[green machine]

Amazing how one little word can make such a huge difference. I wouldn't say he "is" better but I would say he "played" better. Maybe that's part of the problem for some. Rather than thinking about what (you think) Warner "is", think about how he actually played.

I would wager that if Leinart or any other Cards QB had the statline and performance that Warner had the perception would be quite different. If Neil Lomax(a "true" Cardinal) had those two long TD's and a home playoff win he would be at the very top of the Cardinals pantheon. Or Jim Hart. Regardless of age.

Haha probably, I'd be singing Leinart's praises, and you and Iawaner would be talking about how he isn't ready to lead the team.

 

[Linderbee]

To a point I'm going to have to agree with this. Is there anything wrong with loving how Kurt Warner has been playing like when we needed him the most. That's what the truely greats do and what Kurt Warner has done this season. Honestly, I am holding Leinart numbers against him a bit and I know that's not completely fair, but who's to say that's not the type of luck he'll have his whole career? If he had at least as many TDs as turnovers it would help me be at ease with the move as a Cardinals fan.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. Warner has been great this year; no denying that, and no harm in loving it.

I think Leinart has learned a TON under Warner, and for that, I am grateful to Warner. His being here will make Leinart a better QB. For that reason alone every one of us should be grateful for Warner's play.

 

[moklerman]

Haha probably, I'd be singing Leinart's praises, and you and Iawaner would be talking about how he isn't ready to lead the team.

When Leinart has shown me he's not Tim Couch v.2 then I'll be more comfortable in singing his praises. That's not an insult on Leinart either. Couch is very comparable in terms of what the Cardinals have in Leinart and I think Couch was the victim of the #1 curse. He would have been a fine QB if drafted later and gone to a team that wasn't so putrid. Leinart may survive because he has those benefits but to this point, Couch showed just as much promise and potential as Leinart at the same stage and even outproduced him on the field in terms of efficiency.

 

[cardsfanmd]

That's fair, and to be honest, I probably have been a bit harsh. I was going off what I remember at the game, and having seen some replays, the throws do seem better. So, that's my bad.

And I wont' deny that Kurt has been good for the team, for the most part. Hell, I've given him kudos for his play in the 4th, he came up huge.

Fair enough, sorry for calling you a hater. Rereading that, I sounded like an ass, my bad.

Like I said, I'm not worried about other QBs. How they played had nothing to do with Kurt and vice versa.

What happens if Tavaris Jackson has even better numbers than Warner today? Should we be saying that Tavaris is better? Because I think that's the logic you're rolling with.

 

[earthsci]

Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. Warner has been great this year; no denying that, and no harm in loving it.

I think Leinart has learned a TON under Warner, and for that, I am grateful to Warner. His being here will make Leinart a better QB. For that reason alone every one of us should be grateful for Warner's play.

As someone who wants to see Leinart lead the team next year, I thought Warner played great. Great as in good enough to win the best game that I have ever been a part of in my life. Really good runs for first downs is what impressed me the most.

 

[moklerman]

As someone who wants to see Leinart lead the team next year, I thought Warner played great.

That's what a lot of fans seem to think and I'm curious as to why?

My guess is that it's because the assumption is Leinart will come in, replicate what Warner has done and the Cardinals will have a QB for the next 10 years. Both of which are such gigantic assumptions that it might as well be wished that they trade Levi Brown for Adrian Peterson.

 

[earthsci]

That's what a lot of fans seem to think and I'm curious as to why?

I think that Leinart will be a great QB and the sooner that we go with him the sooner that we'll see that greatness. The longer that we keep on this path it will be another team that will enjoy his greatness while Warner will be retired or have gone the path of Rich Gannon. He'll be leading another team and we will be stuck with no decent QB. That's just my opinion.

 

[D-Dogg]

That's what a lot of fans seem to think and I'm curious as to why?

My guess is that it's because the assumption is Leinart will come in, replicate what Warner has done and the Cardinals will have a QB for the next 10 years. Both of which are such gigantic assumptions that it might as well be wished that they trade Levi Brown for Adrian Peterson.

I don't think ANYONE believes that leinart will replicate what Warner has done.

He's a different QB, and we'd run a different style of offense. I don't think there is any doubt that Whis wants to run an offense more focused on the run than the pass. I don't think anyone doubts that Kurt Warner isn't exactly the QB mold for that type of system.

The talk about Leinart next season is a combination of a few factors...the system we want to install, Warner's age and need to sign him to a new deal, Leinart's cap hit in 2010, not having a QB plan moving forward,

Leinart might not be the guy...but we aren't going to the smashmouth style with Warner at the helm, and the sooner we move that direction the more successful we will be for the LONG haul.

None of that has to do with Kurt's skills, or with Leinart replicating what Kurt has done. They are apples to oranges in respect to the types of systems they are suited to. Leinart just happens to be better suited for a smashmouth style system than Kurt.

THAT is why people think as they do on the QB situation in Arizona.

 

[moklerman]

I think that Leinart will be a great QB and the sooner that we go with him the sooner that we'll see that greatness....That's just my opinion.

And I value your opinion and would like to know why you think he's destined for greatness. I think it's certainly as possible as many of the other guys who've made it but possible, probable and will be are pretty different.

 

[Shogun]

I know two things for a fact.

Whoever is our 2009 starting QB:

I will be fully behind him.

And so will you.

If it's not Kurt he won't be.

Why are complaining about Kurt after this win?

If he plays like he did yesterday we'll struggle next week and he DOES effect the running game negatively. I don't give a damn what you say.

 

[moklerman]

I don't think there is any doubt that Whis wants to run an offense more focused on the run than the pass.

I do. First, if Arizona does indeed keep Q one way or another, they are not going to be a smash mouth team. Period. You can't argue the fiscal aspects of re-signing Warner and ignore the fact that the team would have even more tied up in it's two WR's.

Second, I know Whis is from Pittsburgh and is influenced by his time with Gibbs but what coach is going to scrap what he's got on offense when it's led to 425+ points, a division title and playoff win? Leinart may indeed be the guy but he will be running an offense that's very similar to what's in place now.

Third, I would really like to know where you're getting the idea that the Cardinals are just biding their time, waiting to install their "real" offense. I haven't heard Whis ever say anything like that and in fact he's continually defending the offensive approach that's in place. Balance, like the last two weeks, is what I think Whis wants.

 

[moklerman]

If he plays like he did yesterday we'll struggle next week and he DOES effect the running game negatively. I don't give a damn what you say.

Prove it in any way.

 

[earthsci]

And I value your opinion and would like to know why you think he's destined for greatness. I think it's certainly as possible as many of the other guys who've made it but possible, probable and will be are pretty different.

Christ, I knew that you were going to do this. It's my opinion based on three years at the collegiate level. He didn't come out of nowhere, he was a great QB for three years at USC. Someone can't even come on here and say "I like Leinart but good job Warner." I've seen Warner look bad a few times this year and IN MY OPINION that will happen more and more as he gets older.

 

[moklerman]

Christ, I knew that you were going to do this.

Wow, sorry I wanted to know why you thought something. Since we're dispensing with pleasantries and politeness, Leinart playing well at USC means squat. His overloaded college team that steamrolled the relatively weak defensed Pac-10 was an offensive team that thrived on short dump-off passes that padded his stat's. When he did get the ball to his wide open receivers it wasn't much of a surprise due to the eternity in the pocket he had to find them. None of any of that warrants or predicates success in the NFL and isn't the type of offense that the Cardinals currently run.

 

[D-Dogg]

I do. First, if Arizona does indeed keep Q one way or another, they are not going to be a smash mouth team. Period. You can't argue the fiscal aspects of re-signing Warner and ignore the fact that the team would have even more tied up in it's two WR's.

Q and Hines Ward are the same type of player. Q fits a smashmouth system to a T because he a) can block very well and b) has no fear on crossing routes. You tie up your money in athletes and you don't worry which positions they play.

Second, I know Whis is from Pittsburgh and is influenced by his time with Gibbs but what coach is going to scrap what he's got on offense when it's led to 425+ points, a division title and playoff win? Leinart may indeed be the guy but he will be running an offense that's very similar to what's in place now.

Third, I would really like to know where you're getting the idea that the Cardinals are just biding their time, waiting to install their "real" offense. I haven't heard Whis ever say anything like that and in fact he's continually defending the offensive approach that's in place. Balance, like the last two weeks, is what I think Whis wants.

Whis has mentioned improving the run in interviews, and he has mentioned that we are doing what works but that he wants to run better.

Do you remember the offense we ran at the first of last year? It wasn't this offense, and we struggled (didn't have the personnel for one). But that's the offense Whis wants to run. Here's an article from his signing with us:

I just think back to what happened to Whisenhunt shortly after he was named the Steelers' offensive coordinator. At his first meeting with then-head coach Bill Cowher, he was told the Steelers were returning to what they did best -- namely, running the ball -- and was instructed to devise plays to improve the league's 31st-ranked attack.

So Whisenhunt did, and when the 2004 season ended Pittsburgh was second in the NFL in rushing. The Steelers not only ran for nearly 1,000 yards more than the previous season, they won more, too. A lot more. They were a league-best 15-1.

That is why I hold out hope for this year's Cardinals. Look, there's talent everywhere. Only now the emphasis is in the right place. When Whisenhunt looks at his offense, it's not quarterback Matt Leinart and wide receivers Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin who have his attention. It's his running backs and offensive line.

Whisenhunt knows Leinart & Co. will be fine. He also knows they'll be harder to defend if Arizona can run the ball, because that's what happened in Pittsburgh. In 2004 the Steelers averaged nearly 11 fewer passes per game, yet their touchdowns were up. So was their passing efficiency -- from 76.4 to 93.2.

Some of that had to do with then-rookie quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. But most of it had to do with a running game that jumped from 3.3 yards per carry to 4.0, improving its per-game output by 61 yards. If Arizona -- which last year ranked 30th in rushing, with a league-worst average of 3.2 yards a carry -- can achieve similar results, then maybe, just maybe, the Cardinals win more than they lose. Trust me, that's an achievement.

"The situations are similar in terms of the emphasis on the run," Whisenhunt said Monday, "but the big difference in Pittsburgh was that we had an offensive line that had been together. So there will be an adjustment period in terms of guys meshing on double teams and zone blocks."

OK, I understand. But Whisenhunt is ahead of the game there. He has the same offensive line coach in Arizona he had in Pittsburgh, and if there's going to be an adjustment period, I want my guys adjusting under the direction of Russ Grimm.

It's Grimm, and not Levi Brown or Alan Branch, who was Arizona's biggest offseason acquisition. Grimm is an outstanding teacher Cowher valued so highly he made him his assistant head coach, the only assistant with that designation in Cowher's 15 years with the Steelers.

Grimm was expected to succeed Cowher but lost out to Minnesota assistant Mike Tomlin, and lucky for Whisenhunt. With Grimm out in Pittsburgh, he could be in at Arizona, where he and his head coach try to recreate what they manufactured three years earlier.

"There's no coaching of the coaches," said Whisenhunt. "He understands what we want to get done with the run. If you look back to 2004, we made a commitment to the run, and that's what we need to do here. And if we do, we have a chance."

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10181745

That is what Whis did in Pittsburgh, and what he believes in. And what he will go to because it is winning football. While it worked, having to convert 3rd and 16 and passing to run out the clock is not his style. And we've lost games because we couldn't run out the clock.

Yes, the team looks good when it's balanced like the last two weeks. That's more along the lines of what he wants to do. But that's not the offense we ran all season either. It wasn't the "spread em out" offense that Kurt loves. So yeah, I do think we will move more and more toward the kind of offense Whis created in Pittsburgh that turned a league worst rushing attack into one of the league's best.

 

[Shogun]

Prove it in any way.

Prove to me how he helps the run game. We pretty much are on opposing sides of an argument and won't budge, so I dunno why I'm stating something that's 99% probably been posted in this thread.

We cannot cultivate a running game when our QB is hardwired to audible to a pass play, where he is obviously more comfortable. In St. Louis that was fine because an good line, a HOF back, and a system that fits his mentality to a T. This issue is magnified as the offensive line can't run block consistently and our running backs are average. It's silly and unfair to give the line 100% of the blame when we've seen the team have successful running days even going back to last year with a less talented OL group.

I'm not saying that it's totally on him, but he does contribute to the formula behind our rush issue. To deny that is asinine. But we're winning with him, so I don't really care.

To the first point, Kurt played well and I don't really have a problem with how he played. However, we'll be playing away against one of the top seeds in their house and if we want to win the guy who is orchestrating this offense simply needs to play better because of the pending outside conditions.....?

 

[D-Dogg]

Do you remember the offense we ran at the first of last year? It wasn't this offense, and we struggled (didn't have the personnel for one). .

BTW, before you argue about the QB in that regard, major problems were Edge is simply NOT made for that system either...he had problems running behind the fullback and that had to be abandoned, and our TEs were woefully bad at blocking too, so that didn't help.

 

[Shogun]

Wow, sorry I wanted to know why you thought something. Since we're dispensing with pleasantries and politeness, Leinart playing well at USC means squat. His overloaded college team that steamrolled the relatively weak defensed Pac-10 was an offensive team that thrived on short dump-off passes that padded his stat's. When he did get the ball to his wide open receivers it wasn't much of a surprise due to the eternity in the pocket he had to find them. None of any of that warrants or predicates success in the NFL and isn't the type of offense that the Cardinals currently run.

So you're going to discount a player who did what he was supposed to do in an NFL offensive system and thrived just because he was surrounded with NFL talent at one of the bigger programs in college....?

That's like saying Adrian Peterson wasn't going work out in the NFL because all he does is move forward with the football in the holes the offensive line gave him. Do you know how silly that sounds?

 

[Spielman]

Some have legitimately complained about those that treat Warner as a God, as someone who is infalible, but yet on the other hand, expect him to play as if he were. I find that curious. Just food for thought.

Honestly, I get a bit annoyed with the people who think Warner can do no wrong. But when there are people carping about a pass that went 50 yards in the air to a spot where Fitzgerald had a great shot at it and neither defender did, saying that it was just a jump-ball, or "got where it needed to go and I guess that's all that matters", or saying that the Urban tip-job was Warner's fault, it looks to me like there's an issue going the other direction too.

Honestly, I saw Lions fans in the '80s cut more slack to Eric Hipple than some people here do to Warner.

I'd think it was just the general fan tendency to put excessive emphasis on the QB after a loss... except they won. I don't get it.

 

[ajcardfan]

Christ, I knew that you were going to do this. It's my opinion based on three years at the collegiate level. He didn't come out of nowhere, he was a great QB for three years at USC. Someone can't even come on here and say "I like Leinart but good job Warner." I've seen Warner look bad a few times this year and IN MY OPINION that will happen more and more as he gets older.

If I was asked the question, I'd say he showed promise at the NFL level in the Chicago monday night game, the Kansas City game, and the second half of the Pittsburgh game. That's what I remember off the top of my head. He wasn't awesome all of the time, but he sure wasn't dogcrap all of the time either. Like most QBs who have played about one season of games. There is just not enough data to decide anything about him one way or the other.

 

[IAWarnerFan]

Did this really have to be a 10 page topic? All I did was gave Kurt Warner and the rest of the team a pat on the back and asked if anyone disagreed with it.

 

[TJ]

Did this really have to be a 10 page topic? All I did was gave Kurt Warner and the rest of the team a pat on the back and asked if anyone disagreed with it.

By doing that, you are lighting a match in a gas-filled room....you weren't here in preseason.