Quarterback Decision Looms

[Russ Smith]

Martz is a brilliant offensive mind, but was a horrible head coach & administrator. As far as Martz not wanting Warner starting anymore, we all know what happened to Martz don't we. Martz made a lot of bad moves due to his arrogance. He really thinks he can make any qb the greatest ever. He once said that Kitna was the best qb he ever coached. Not necessarily a ringing endorsement of Martz don't ya think?

Go ask most Rams if they feel getting rid of Warner was a good move. Especially given Bulger's performance over the last number of years.

I can't tell if this was an endorsement of kurt or not?

You do remember WHY the Rams got rid of Warner don't you?

I sure as hell do I was in a British pub watching our game and like everyone else in the bar watching the Giants and Rams game in horror waiting for Warner to be carried off the field. Kurt fumbled SIX times in that game, 54 pass attempts, 354 yards passing, but SIX fumbles, 3 lost. After the game they switched to Bulger and Kurt didn't play again until mopup time in the last game of the season.

I'm sure there were some Rams players who didn't like the switch but I would venture a guess that most of the guys who played in THAT game would agree Kurt was benched for a reason, because the Rams coaches liked him to too much to let him soil his reputation by going out like that again.

I think that's something some people have forgotten there IS a reason Kurt Warner was available when we got him and it was because most of the NFL thought he was done, that he simply couldn't physically do it anymore. To his credit he's worked to get better he's not getting sacked as often and he's not fumbling as often, but there were actual reasons why the Rams and Giants got rid of Kurt and we were able to sign him.

The reality was that teh guy who replaced Kurt in both places didn't have near the problems with sacks that Kurt was having or near the fumble problems. It was Kurt not the team in both cases, making the switch proved that. Bulger was sacked 37 times in basically a full season, Kurt was sacked 6 times in his one game(and had 6 fumbles) or once every 9 pass attempts, a pace for about 60 if he had the same number of attempts that Bulger did.

 

[Russ Smith]

It's the same mindset & game he plays to which I speak. With the weapons we have, & if the o-line is able to do their job, that fear can be struck once again. If I'm not mistaken, Warner & the Cards put up more points than anyone in the NFL in the second half of the season, & that's w/ the nagging injuries that beset us all year & w/ Warner throwing w/ one arm tied behind his back. Trust me, opposing teams right now would much rather go against Leinart than Warner.

Talk to some of the fantasy experts & ask who they would rather have. Warner overwhelmingly! There's a reason for that, & it's not b/c of what he did w/ the rams 7 years ago, but rather what they feel he can do NOW.

we have a potentially good offense but nothing close to the Rams. We don't have the speed they had with Bruce, Holt and Faulk, we aren't even close in terms of speed to spread the field.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Geez, Louise. I was just paraphrasing.

can I give you some advice? in the future, when you paraphrase someone, try not to change the meaning of what they said in the process. I don't know about you, but there's a big difference to me between not knowing anything regarding QB decisions in the NFL and not knowing anything about anything else. Hyperbole can derail a convo pretty fast because it's a really intellectually dishonest way of making your point.

I assumed that you would remember what I was referencing and maybe stick to the football talk. Let's not keep re-visiting the personal aspects and interpretations.

You know, if you didn't keep adding new "personal aspects", hyperbole and outright lies to the conversation, we wouldn't have to keep visiting them anew.

I was trying to get you to comment on the Palmer/Kitna scenario since you seemed so adamant when it was first mentioned. You think replacing Kitna with Palmer at the time and in that way was best for the Bengals because....

... much like Warner has since 2001, Kitna has proven over the course of his career that he's nothing more than a stop-gap, mediocre QB, who's TD:Turnover ratio 147:189 is something no team wants from their QB if they have asperations of ever being better than .500 especially when they have a young buck first round pick who could be a potential franchise QB.

Not to mention the fact that Kitna's record with the Bengals as a starter was 16-29, never making the playoffs, while routinely leading the Bengals to amongst the league cellar dwellars on offense, while Palmer's been 32-30, leading the Bengals to the playoffs and 11 wins (which Kitna's never accomplished) while dwarfing his record and having the Bengals amongst the better offenses in the league since his second year.

Again, prior to Kitna's 26:19 TD:Turnover season, he had just come off three straight years off awful QB play, especially turnover-wise posting horrific ratios of 19:25, 12:28, 16:22 and the Bengals weren't satisfied that he could be the guy they could count on, especially with a young possible stud waiting in the wings. Their record improved, as did their offensive efficiency, and the next time Kitna got a shot as a starter, he went right back to being the stumbling, bumbling turnover machine the Bengals thought he was when they replaced him.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Again, good points. But w/ Warner, as w/ Favre, their level of play had more to do w/ their surrounding team than w/ any declining abilities. Warner played reasonably well w/ an absolutely putrid Giants team.

The Giants may have been bad in 2003 (the year prior to Warner getting there), but they had made the playoffs in 2002 and have made the playoffs every year since Warner's been gone (2005-8). When you've gotten to the playoffs in 4 of 6 years, largely with a similar cast of characters, I don't think you could say that team was absolutely putrid because they had one down year during the cycle.

As far as comparing Brett to Warner... I just don't think you can make that comparison. Brett consistently raised his game even though the Packers constantly shuffled different number one WR and RBs on him. For the majority of his career it didn't matter who he was playing with, he was making them better. Hell, even last year when he had no running game whatsoever in the first half of the season, Favre was able to completely light it up. The same just can't be said for Warner since he left the Rams, considering that he's played on offenses with multiple pro-bowlers (Tiki and Shockey on the Giants, and Q and Fitz on the Cards).

 

[Cards232]

Warner didn't play reasonably well with the Giants, he got punch drunk there just like he did here in 06 and couldn't stop turning the ball over. Admittedly they were going to play Manning eventually anyways they were paying him too much not to, but Kurt made it easy he fumbled 12 times including a 3 game stretch where he had 2, 3 and 3 fumbles. Ironically he didn't fumble once the next week against.... wait for it... the Cardinals!

We won that game, Kurt played solid no turnovers but after the game they apparently decided to go with Eli since Kurt only played once the rest of the season. And why did they bench Kurt after that game, because he was sacked 6 times. His last 4 starts he was sacked 6, 5, 7 and 6, quick math tells me he was being sacked on average 6 times a game, 39 sacks in 277 pass attempts. They benched him to save his life. They benched him because it was impossible for them to protect Kurt he was so far gone at the time he was a sack waiting to happen, he had Rob Johnson disease.

Same year same team as a rookie Eli was sacked 13 times in about 200 attempts, so it wasn't just a bad Giants OL that made Warner look that bad, it was Kurt, he was acting like a punch drunk boxer.

I don't argue that if the team is better the player will probably play better my point is it's not a winning bet to assume that's going to be the case every year.

You're kidding me right? The Giants made the playoffs the year before based on their defense & have so since. Their o-line was probably THE worst in the league that year & that was compounded by the fact that Shockey had to stay in & help w/ blocking, Hilliard was crap, & Toomer player w/ a bad hammy all year. Their one & only deep threat, Carter, went on the IR early in the season.

Late in the season I remember reading an article in one of the N.Y. newspapers that Warner's AVG. time to throw before being hit was 2 seconds. 2 SECONDS! When they brought Ely in, they went to a lot more quick hitters & slants to protect him. Warner was never afforded such luxury.

So, given what he had, yeah, I think he had a decent season. They had a winning record, & at that point would have been playoff bound. Look up his comp. %, qb rating, etc. In particular, compare his qb rating to Ely's then, or even since then for that matter.

Ely wasn't what won the SB for them last year, it was their defense. Caughlin said Warner was the best qb he had ever coached as I recall. Too bad for the Giants, he got over ruled. Their loss is our gain. Maybe.

 

[Cards232]

I can't tell if this was an endorsement of kurt or not?

You do remember WHY the Rams got rid of Warner don't you?

I sure as hell do I was in a British pub watching our game and like everyone else in the bar watching the Giants and Rams game in horror waiting for Warner to be carried off the field. Kurt fumbled SIX times in that game, 54 pass attempts, 354 yards passing, but SIX fumbles, 3 lost. After the game they switched to Bulger and Kurt didn't play again until mopup time in the last game of the season.

I'm sure there were some Rams players who didn't like the switch but I would venture a guess that most of the guys who played in THAT game would agree Kurt was benched for a reason, because the Rams coaches liked him to too much to let him soil his reputation by going out like that again.

I think that's something some people have forgotten there IS a reason Kurt Warner was available when we got him and it was because most of the NFL thought he was done, that he simply couldn't physically do it anymore. To his credit he's worked to get better he's not getting sacked as often and he's not fumbling as often, but there were actual reasons why the Rams and Giants got rid of Kurt and we were able to sign him.

The reality was that teh guy who replaced Kurt in both places didn't have near the problems with sacks that Kurt was having or near the fumble problems. It was Kurt not the team in both cases, making the switch proved that. Bulger was sacked 37 times in basically a full season, Kurt was sacked 6 times in his one game(and had 6 fumbles) or once every 9 pass attempts, a pace for about 60 if he had the same number of attempts that Bulger did.

Interesting game to recall. The Rams line that game was a sieve. Strahan noted after the game in the papers that he couldn't believe how easy it was to get through the line. Warner did fumble 6 times that game. You do realize however, he recieved a concussion on about the 6th play of the game. He played the rest of the game w/ a concussion. Ever had a concussion, let alone played qb in the NFL w/ one? The fact that he threw for over 350 yards that game is nothing short of miraculous! The Rams staff knew there was something wrong, but did nothing about it. Smart.

In as far as Bulger's numbers, the Rams went to a far more conservative offense when Bulger took over in 2002 & until the end of 2003.

One of the reasons Warner was so available when we got him was that he got black balled by Martz & co. Interesting enough, Caughlin did the exact opposite, he actually sent out tapes of Warner to many of the teams w/ a glowing endorsement. His hand was being forced, but he still knoew what Warner could do & wanted to help in any way he could.

Lastly, the guys that replaced Warner didn't perhaps have the problems w/ sacks Warner had, but they didn't have nearly the success either. As I stated, look at Ely's qb rating vs. Warner's or Bulger's over tha last while either.

Remember, the whole picture here.

 

[football karma]

boy -- regardless of who ends up starting --

you have to give it to the warner-ites. They are a loyal bunch.

There is still the occasional Warner thread over on the Rams boards that turns into a multi-pager.

 

[Russ Smith]

Interesting game to recall. The Rams line that game was a sieve. Strahan noted after the game in the papers that he couldn't believe how easy it was to get through the line. Warner did fumble 6 times that game. You do realize however, he recieved a concussion on about the 6th play of the game. He played the rest of the game w/ a concussion. Ever had a concussion, let alone played qb in the NFL w/ one? The fact that he threw for over 350 yards that game is nothing short of miraculous! The Rams staff knew there was something wrong, but did nothing about it. Smart.

In as far as Bulger's numbers, the Rams went to a far more conservative offense when Bulger took over in 2002 & until the end of 2003.

One of the reasons Warner was so available when we got him was that he got black balled by Martz & co. Interesting enough, Caughlin did the exact opposite, he actually sent out tapes of Warner to many of the teams w/ a glowing endorsement. His hand was being forced, but he still knoew what Warner could do & wanted to help in any way he could.

Lastly, the guys that replaced Warner didn't perhaps have the problems w/ sacks Warner had, but they didn't have nearly the success either. As I stated, look at Ely's qb rating vs. Warner's or Bulger's over tha last while either.

Remember, the whole picture here.

I am remembering the whole picture, that both teams CHOSE to unload Kurt.

First off you can't just casually ignore the sack statistics for 2 QB's on the exact same team and chalk it up to they changed the schemes to protect Eli.

You don't think they were trying to protect Kurt too? Hell they openly talked about it for weeks before they benched him, we have to keep this guy standing up somehow but how do we do it. They benched Kurt because it was impossible to pass block for him.
Warner as a veteran was sacked twice as often(sack %) as Manning was as a rookie. That's not just running different plays to protect Manning it's because Warner held the ball and couldn't avoid the rush and was going to get killed if they didn't bench him.

The year before Collins as the Qb had a sack % of 5.3, Warner's was 12, Mannings was 6, (in 2004). In 2005 Manning's was 4.8. Now you look at all those and play the which one is different game and then explain to me it was because the Giants OL was terrible at pass blocking. They were ok at pass blocking the year before Kurt, they were ok after they benched Kurt in 04, and they were ok the year after. The only time they were horrible was when Kurt was the QB.

they were terrible because the QB was Warner and at the time he had Rob Johnson disease. People realized that and completely sold out to pressure him.

Kurt played reasonably well at the beginning but the sacks kept getting worse and worse, the fumbles got more and more and after losing to Detroit, Chicago and us in a 4 game stretch where they could not keep him off his back, they benched him.

And yes I realize Warner had a concussion in that game, he did NOT have a concussion during the 10 fumbles in 3 weeks with the Giants before getting benched. He didn't have a concussion during the 10 fumbles in 4 games with us in 2006 etc. Kurt Warner fumbles alot, always has, always will. The Rams benched him because they were concerned for his health, they were afraid to keep playing him for his own good.

The Giants picked him up and gave him a chance but ultimately decided it was time to play Manning because it was obvious that the hits were piling up on warner and he was not the same player. Lost 3 of his last 4 starts, topped 200 yards passing once in those 4 games, 24 sacks in 4 games, 8 fumbles, 3 INT's. It didnt' take a genius to see that season was going downhill fast anyways so might as well play the future QB and keep Warner safe on the sideline.


I just refuse to accept that both those teams simply forgot how to pass protect when Warner was the Qb and remembered afterwards. The much more logical explanation is that Warner is much harder to protect than was Eli Manning or Marc Bulger. I agree that Kurt was better than Bulger , much better in his peak years, the problem was that Kurt Warner no longer existed and they went to a guy they could protect a bit better in their system.

Do I think both teams changed their offenses a bit after benching Kurt sure, do I think they just refused to pass protect for Kurt but then did exactly that after benching Kurt, of course not that makes absolutely zero sense. Why would 2 NFL coaches intentionally throw Kurt to the wolves like that, especially given your claim that Coughlin liked Kurt so much?

 

[Russ Smith]

You're kidding me right? The Giants made the playoffs the year before based on their defense & have so since. Their o-line was probably THE worst in the league that year & that was compounded by the fact that Shockey had to stay in & help w/ blocking, Hilliard was crap, & Toomer player w/ a bad hammy all year. Their one & only deep threat, Carter, went on the IR early in the season.

Late in the season I remember reading an article in one of the N.Y. newspapers that Warner's AVG. time to throw before being hit was 2 seconds. 2 SECONDS! When they brought Ely in, they went to a lot more quick hitters & slants to protect him. Warner was never afforded such luxury.

So, given what he had, yeah, I think he had a decent season. They had a winning record, & at that point would have been playoff bound. Look up his comp. %, qb rating, etc. In particular, compare his qb rating to Ely's then, or even since then for that matter.

Ely wasn't what won the SB for them last year, it was their defense. Caughlin said Warner was the best qb he had ever coached as I recall. Too bad for the Giants, he got over ruled. Their loss is our gain. Maybe.

no I'm dead serious. There's a reason warner started that first game and never played again until the 16th, and there's a reason the giants benched him too.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/dr_z/11/17/drz.warner/index.html

Through most of the season, Warner did better than people expected. His passes lacked velocity; he couldn't jam the ball into small openings, as he once could with the Rams, but they didn't want him to. Don't take chances, they told him. We can run the ball and we can play defense. Avoid interceptions at all costs.

Which he did. Through nine games he had thrown only four, on pace for a lower rate than he'd had in any of his glory years with the Rams. The flip side was that his TD passes totaled six. In his first year as a starter in St. Louis, he'd thrown 41. His sack total was horrendous. He'd become Mr. Safety First, and according to the coaching staff, he'd gotten to the point where he just couldn't pull the trigger, even when he'd had receivers open.

"Not just against the Cardinals, but all season long," a member of the Giants staff told me. "We could see it in our films, the guys who were open."

That was from Paul Zimmerman of SI and if you read the article not only was he not bashing Kurt, he was defending him, this is by the way probably the article where you heard the 2 second thing because Zimmerman claims in the article he used a stopwatch.

That is why they benched Kurt, because their own game films showed them that when they asked Kurt to protect the ball and not turn it over, he simply stopped throwing the ball and took sacks.

 

[Cheesebeef]

You're kidding me right? The Giants made the playoffs the year before based on their defense & have so since. Their o-line was probably THE worst in the league that year & that was compounded by the fact that Shockey had to stay in & help w/ blocking, Hilliard was crap, & Toomer player w/ a bad hammy all year. Their one & only deep threat, Carter, went on the IR early in the season.

their O-line was the worst in the league even though Tiki Barber was a Pro-Bowler and Eli's sack totals went considerably down after he replaced Warner? Okay.

Late in the season I remember reading an article in one of the N.Y. newspapers that Warner's AVG. time to throw before being hit was 2 seconds. 2 SECONDS! When they brought Ely in, they went to a lot more quick hitters & slants to protect him. Warner was never afforded such luxury.

So, given what he had, yeah, I think he had a decent season. They had a winning record, & at that point would have been playoff bound. Look up his comp. %, qb rating, etc. In particular, compare his qb rating to Ely's then, or even since then for that matter.

they were mediocre on offense and Warner was one of the main reasons. Through 9 games, he had thrown a whopping 6 TDs and had 8 turnovers. again, you're gonna play the give away game and do as much harm as you do good, and you're likely leading your team to mediocrity, which is exactly where the Giants were headed.

Ely wasn't what won the SB for them last year, it was their defense. Caughlin said Warner was the best qb he had ever coached as I recall. Too bad for the Giants, he got over ruled. Their loss is our gain. Maybe.

Eli's pretty much perfect play in the playoffs to go along with very good D is what one them the Super Bowl last year and to say it was all their D, just ignores how well he played in the playoffs and Super Bowl. Again, what made the 2007 playoff Giants so different from the regular season 2007 Giants or any of the Eli Giants? Limiting turnovers.

As far as "too bad for the Giants"? Yeah, they sure are hurting and feeling the loss of three straight playoff appearances and a Super Bowl Trophy with a guy who looks like he's the QB of the future of that Super Bowl team for years to come. We sure cleaned up on that deal!

 

[Cheesebeef]

Lastly, the guys that replaced Warner didn't perhaps have the problems w/ sacks Warner had, but they didn't have nearly the success either.

Success how? As far as success in Ws, I don't know how someone can say Eli hasn't had success like Warner has since he left the Rams considering he was the QB of an offense that scored 24 ppg the last three years, went to the playoffs 3 straight years, and then came of age in the playoffs last year, playing near perfect ball and winning the Super Bowl MVP while finally doing the one thing a team absolutely needs to win football games - win the turnover battle. But, do you just mean statistical success?

Because, if that's the case, and W-L doesn't matter, then, yeah, Bulger's was horrible last year, but his numbers across the board are better than Warner's from the last seven years, passer rating, even including last year's abomination of a season, so what's your point?

I'm not sure how anyone can think Warner, with his poor W-L record corresponding to his well below averaged TD:Turnover (54:70) ratio can be deemed ANY kind of success over the last seven years.

 

[Cards232]

Here's some interesting stats in the Warner vs. Eli saga for 2004 when Eli replaced Kurt:

Warner - 63% completion, 7.4 ypa, 228 yards per game, qb rating 86.5

Manning - 48% completion, 5.3 ypa, 115 yards per game, qb rating 55.4

Also, Warner was 5-4 w/ a chance at the playoffs. How many games did Eli win? 1 or 2?

I can definitely see why they benched Warner for all those sacks w/ an avg. of 2 seconds to throw the ball! It takes the avg. qb 2 seconds or more just to drop back to throw the ball. He had just enough time for 1 read. How do you go to a second or third option w/ 2 seconds? If the first guy wasn't open, which often was the case, he had not time to check off. Frankly, the whole argument is absurd.

Again, I think some here expect Warner, or perhaps any other qb, to be super human. Avg. 2 seconds to throw the ball, & he still ends up w/ the numbers listed above? Maybe that's why you expect him to be super human, maybe he is! I don't know of too many qb's in this league who could put up those kinds of #'s averaging 2 seconds to throw. Especially the accuracy numbers. Just my humble opinion of course.

 

[Russ Smith]

Here's some interesting stats in the Warner vs. Eli saga for 2004 when Eli replaced Kurt:

Warner - 63% completion, 7.4 ypa, 228 yards per game, qb rating 86.5

Manning - 48% completion, 5.3 ypa, 115 yards per game, qb rating 55.4

Also, Warner was 5-4 w/ a chance at the playoffs. How many games did Eli win? 1 or 2?

I can definitely see why they benched Warner for all those sacks w/ an avg. of 2 seconds to throw the ball! It takes the avg. qb 2 seconds or more just to drop back to throw the ball. He had just enough time for 1 read. How do you go to a second or third option w/ 2 seconds? If the first guy wasn't open, which often was the case, he had not time to check off. Frankly, the whole argument is absurd.

Again, I think some here expect Warner, or perhaps any other qb, to be super human. Avg. 2 seconds to throw the ball, & he still ends up w/ the numbers listed above? Maybe that's why you expect him to be super human, maybe he is! I don't know of too many qb's in this league who could put up those kinds of #'s averaging 2 seconds to throw. Especially the accuracy numbers. Just my humble opinion of course.

you're missing the point. Nobody said Manning played better than Kurt, but he was a rookie. And Warner's performance was declining, he was 5-4, but 1-3 in his last 4 starts, with losses to not very good teams. I think the Giants correctly decided we're not going anywhere this year so let's get Eli on the field.

And where are you getting this "average" of 2 seconds? Zimmerman said by his stopwatch there were a few plays where Kurt had just over 2 seconds from snap to when he had to get rid of the ball or eat it. But he also said several more plays he had 3 or more and that people around the team had told him there were plays were Kurt held the ball as long as 6 seconds which is preposterous in the NFL. That's why Zimmerman used the stopwatch he thought there's no way that's true I want to see for myself.

But in no way did he say the average time Kurt had was 2 seconds.

Kurt was the better QB at the time but they were seeing an obvious and steady decline in his play. The sack rate for him was more than double what it was for every other QB before and immediately after him on the Giants, it's damn near impossible to believe that wasn't because of him..

I should add, you said before that they completely changed the offense to protect Eli but didn't give Kurt that luxury. So you're telling us in a wide open offense with no max protect that in 9 starts Kurt had only 6 TD passes? Doesn't the low numbers in INT's and TD's go completely in line with what was in the Zimmerman bit that they asked Kurt to just protect the ball and let the defense and run game win for them? That sure doesn't sound to me like a wide open offense that they had to revamp for Eli.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Here's some interesting stats in the Warner vs. Eli saga for 2004 when Eli replaced Kurt:

Warner - 63% completion, 7.4 ypa, 228 yards per game, qb rating 86.5

Manning - 48% completion, 5.3 ypa, 115 yards per game, qb rating 55.4

Also, Warner was 5-4 w/ a chance at the playoffs. How many games did Eli win? 1 or 2?

rookie QBs usually lose most of their games. Meanwhile, with Warner, a veteran with years under his belt was 5-4 and destined, for what? 8-8, 9-7? Mediocrity at best. So, why pull him? Because some teams aren't content with being mediocre when they've got a young gun on the bench, so they take a step back to go forward, which they did the next year as Eli had a better TD:Turnover margin, led the Giants to more points per game than Warner did and ended up 10-6. Oh yeah, then, he continued his ups and downs like most young QBs and ended up winning the Super Bowl MVP after playing near flawless football in the playoffs.

I can definitely see why they benched Warner for all those sacks w/ an avg. of 2 seconds to throw the ball!

They benched Warner because they saw pretty much what every single team has seen with Warner since 2001. He's a tease. He's going to put up some pretty stats, but you just can't be anything more than mediocre when your QB turns the ball over at the rate he does and if you're not content being 8-8 and have something that might be better behind him, you've got to give it a shot.

Again, I think some here expect Warner, or perhaps any other qb, to be super human.

hello hyperbole! No one wants a super-human QB. People just want a QB who's not going to turn the ball over more than almost any other QB in the league, which continually puts out D in bad positions. They D is usually bad enough without Warner helping the other team out.

 

[Cards232]

you're missing the point. Nobody said Manning played better than Kurt, but he was a rookie. And Warner's performance was declining, he was 5-4, but 1-3 in his last 4 starts, with losses to not very good teams. I think the Giants correctly decided we're not going anywhere this year so let's get Eli on the field.

And where are you getting this "average" of 2 seconds? Zimmerman said by his stopwatch there were a few plays where Kurt had just over 2 seconds from snap to when he had to get rid of the ball or eat it. But he also said several more plays he had 3 or more and that people around the team had told him there were plays were Kurt held the ball as long as 6 seconds which is preposterous in the NFL. That's why Zimmerman used the stopwatch he thought there's no way that's true I want to see for myself.

But in no way did he say the average time Kurt had was 2 seconds.

Kurt was the better QB at the time but they were seeing an obvious and steady decline in his play. The sack rate for him was more than double what it was for every other QB before and immediately after him on the Giants, it's damn near impossible to believe that wasn't because of him..

My 2 seconds came from the N.Y. press, not Zimmerman. The only time Warner had 6 seconds to throw the ball was in warmups

You must be registered for see images

Your point about the sacks could be valid. Manning was a far better scrambler & was able to avoid many more sacks while running for his life. Kurt is far more similar to Marino than Vick when it comes to movement. Marino would have had as many if not more sacks than Warner that year. Qb's like that must have a pocket. That's their one weakness. But give them time & it's lights out!

I understand what your saying in regards to the sacks, but in the overall scheme of things, how does that relate to the overall numbers? Manning had less sacks. He also was about half of Warner's other numbers across the board. If one doesn't have passpro, would you rather give up sacks to get the other numbers or visa versa? I'll take the other numbers, they equated to far more wins & far more overall production.

BTW, Warner's numbers have far surpassed Manning's since he left as well, including last year when Manning won the SB b/c of his team's defense.

The bottom line is this, great qb's play on great teams. As I've stated in previous threads, if Montana had played for the Saints during his career, the only way he would have gotten into the HOF is w/ a general admission ticket. When Warner has played w/ good teams, he has shined. When he's played for poor teams, not so much so, at least in comparison. Same can be said for any of the greats. Hopefully this year will be yet another testament to that.

 

[Cheesebeef]

BTW, Warner's numbers have far surpassed Manning's since he left as well,

all the numbers except ppg for offense, wins, TD:Turnover ratio (44:45 for Warner versus 77:67 for Manning) and games played due to durability.

including last year when Manning won the SB b/c of his team's defense.

he made the playoffs because of the Giants D, but he was just as important as anyone else on that team in the playoffs, playing near perfect football.

Give me a young guy who's gonna make some mistakes like a young QB does, lead the team to a better PPG average and can play every week over an old guy who's still making the same mistakes the young QB is, leads his team to a lower PPG and is an injury just waiting to happen.

 

[Russ Smith]

My 2 seconds came from the N.Y. press, not Zimmerman. The only time Warner had 6 seconds to throw the ball was in warmups

You must be registered for see images

Your point about the sacks could be valid. Manning was a far better scrambler & was able to avoid many more sacks while running for his life. Kurt is far more similar to Marino than Vick when it comes to movement. Marino would have had as many if not more sacks than Warner that year. Qb's like that must have a pocket. That's their one weakness. But give them time & it's lights out!

I understand what your saying in regards to the sacks, but in the overall scheme of things, how does that relate to the overall numbers? Manning had less sacks. He also was about half of Warner's other numbers across the board. If one doesn't have passpro, would you rather give up sacks to get the other numbers or visa versa? I'll take the other numbers, they equated to far more wins & far more overall production.

BTW, Warner's numbers have far surpassed Manning's since he left as well, including last year when Manning won the SB b/c of his team's defense.

The bottom line is this, great qb's play on great teams. As I've stated in previous threads, if Montana had played for the Saints during his career, the only way he would have gotten into the HOF is w/ a general admission ticket. When Warner has played w/ good teams, he has shined. When he's played for poor teams, not so much so, at least in comparison. Same can be said for any of the greats. Hopefully this year will be yet another testament to that.

Well unless the NY media used a stopwatch their numbers aren't reliable. Zimmerman did, he too said 6 seconds wasn't accurate but there were plays where Kurt held the ball as long as 4.5 seconds which he agreed a veteran QB should know you can't do in the NFL.

IT's a myth that mobile Qb's reduce sack totals, especially early in their career. In general good running QB's get sacked more early in their career because they think they can outrun pass rushes and find out they can't.

Vick's last full year he was sacked 46 times. Did Manning elude some sacks sure he probably did but the main reason he got sacked less is he threw the ball quicker. Note, that's probably also part of why his completion % was lower, he threw more balls away. Now he's not an accurate Qb and never has been so warner is typically going to have a higher %, but part of that is Kurt never throws balls away, he holds it.

Again for someone who talks about the big picture you're missing it. Both the Giants and Cards brought Warner in for the same reason, stopgap while they groomed their young QB of the future. That was the plan from day 1. You don't abandon that plan because the stopgap has you at 5-4, 1-3 in the last 4 games, is getting sacked at a rate of 6 a game in those 4, and is showing clear signs of brainlock in the pocket(not throwing the ball to open guys downfield). At some point you do what they did, the way this is going we're not making the playoffs anyways, eli is progressing in practice, let's put him in games .

the Cards did the same thing just quicker and because it was more urgent to do so after the way Kurt was dropping the ball left and right and the way the Rams loss ended. It was apparent things were getting worse week to week so they had to bench him.

he recovered nicely last year and played quite well, my personal guess is if he plays that much again this year we'll see something closer to the prior few years than what we saw this year.

 

[moklerman]

I agree that the Giants o-line was pretty bad in '04, due in large part to youth and lack of playing time together. I agree that the Giants had nothing on offense in terms of the passing game. Toomer's hamstring, Carter hurt, Hilliard worthless and I'm pretty sure Stone Hands Shockey had an ankle problem for most of the year.

His last days as a Ram got to the point where Martz didn't even act like he was going to run. At this point, I'm not sure if it was to teach Warner a lesson or because he thought Warner could somehow succeed while always throwing. But the opsided pass/rush ratio and lack of rush attempts overall are all pretty glaring especially compared to how the games were called with Bulger at QB.

All of those things and continued problems of a similar nature when he got to the Cardinals made it hard for me to truly identify if Warner had always had a fumbling problem and just wasn't hit or targeted as much in his early days or if it was just being magnified by the truly bad line play he was behind. Which I agree that the week 1 '03 Rams, '04 Giants and '05-'06 Cardinals all had BAD o-lines. However, I have come to agree that that Kurt Warner was no longer a viable option as a starting NFL QB. I'm not sure about the current version. I think it's clear that he's improved quite a bit over his stumbling/bumbling days in his last 16 games(last two games of '06 when Leinart got hurt and '07).

In what amounts to a full season's worth of play he had 12 fumbles and I don't recall any of them of the variety exhibited during '03-'06. Maybe I've forgotten a couple of them but in general, the 12 seem to be of the "normal circumstances" variety. I remember a bad shotgun snap he got a finger on and a handoff to Edge that was dropped by Edge but credited to Warner that I think falsely elevated his total but in general, whether he deserved them or not, they weren't the plain old drops that earned him pine time.

I understand those that think his '03-'06 numbers are vital to the conversation but don't agree about discounting his most recent 16 games as a fluke or anomaly. Part of his struggles those four seasons were three different sets of "new" o-lines. Part was a new coach/system in New York. Part was "Mad" Martz and part was Warner, his decision making and injuries. There is now a sampling that supports the idea that Warner may be past a lot of that. I would like to know what Whis has been able to do with him while getting some first team attention.

I think it's worth finding out if Warner's production can be meshed with Whis/Haley's focus on not turning the ball over.

 

[Russ Smith]

I agree that the Giants o-line was pretty bad in '04, due in large part to youth and lack of playing time together. I agree that the Giants had nothing on offense in terms of the passing game. Toomer's hamstring, Carter hurt, Hilliard worthless and I'm pretty sure Stone Hands Shockey had an ankle problem for most of the year.

.

Again why did that "bad" OL play so much better as soon as Kurt was holding a clipboard?

Did they magically gell exactly when Manning came in? Nobody is saying the 04 Giants were a juggernaut or anywhere near as good as they were last year but there's very clear evidence that the sack problems that year were on Warner not on the OL. they had the exact same difference in 03 with Collins and Jesse Palmer. Palmer was sacked twice as often behind the exact same OL, was the OL just bad for one player or did it maybe indicate that Palmer held the ball too long?

You can't make something be true by just saying it over and over. The facts are pretty clear in a 3 year period the one starting QB who that "bad" OL couldn't protect was Warner. the only other guy who had any problems was "the bachelor", a guy who'd barely played and was essentially out of the league once teams actually saw him play.

BTW Shockey played in 15 games and had a then career high in Td catches that year so if he was playing on a bum ankle with stone hands he did pretty well in spite of it. Based on games played that bad ankle was the prior year.

 

[moklerman]

... much like Warner has since 2001, Kitna has proven over the course of his career that he's nothing more than a stop-gap,

Warner was THE best for 3 years. Let's not forget what he's done and may still be capable of. He may not be able to get back to those numbers but the worm turns rather quickly.

Not to mention the fact that Kitna's record with the Bengals as a starter was 16-29, never making the playoffs, while routinely leading the Bengals to amongst the league cellar dwellars on offense, while Palmer's been 32-30, leading the Bengals to the playoffs and 11 wins (which Kitna's never accomplished) while dwarfing his record and having the Bengals amongst the better offenses in the league since his second year.

When a team goes from 2-14 and a lame duck coach to 8-8 and almost in the playoffs the QB is a big part of that. When he got benched, he was playing the best football of his career and had helped the team to a 6 game improvement. I can't say for sure that he wouldn't have sustained those numbers or even improved had he been allowed to continue with the offense. The offense certainly took a step back at the QB position in '04 with Palmer as a rookie. Comp. %, YPA, TD% and INT% were all worse than Kitna put up in '03. A team that was 8-8 and almost in the playoffs took a year off to develop the rookie out of USC. Sounds familiar. Now, after a really good '05, they have gone 8-8 and 7-9 and Palmer's had 54 TD and 53 INT/FUM. One stellar year and 3 years of mediocrity is what I see from Carson's numbers. I mean, if numbers "prove" that Kitna is mediocre most of the time with flashes of goodness and his teams are usually at .500 then they also suggest the same for Palmer.

Again, prior to Kitna's 26:19 TD:Turnover season, he had just come off three straight years off awful QB play, especially turnover-wise posting horrific ratios of 19:25, 12:28, 16:22 and the Bengals weren't satisfied that he could be the guy they could count on,

Kitna wasn't Holmgren's guy and he wasn't Lewis' guy. That has a large part to do with these situations. Jeff Blake went to the Pro-Bowl and generally put up good numbers for the Bengals in the years prior to Kitna and Palmer and they were still a horrible team. In his first full year as a starter in Seattle Kitna put up 23/16 started to struggle the following 4 years(2 teams and 3 coaches) and then got back to 26/15. Seems like the wrong time to give up on him.

 

[moklerman]

Again why did that "bad" OL play so much better as soon as Kurt was holding a clipboard?

I don't know that it did. Eli was sacked 5 times in 21 pass attempts in his second start. Even in the Zimmerman article he talked about the general lack of time Warner had to throw the ball. When you add the fact that the offense was new for the whole team, the o-line had never played together and guys were not playing their natural position it's easy to see why they struggled in their first season together. The offense with Eli was also geared for maximum protection. He got lit up the first time he played in live action and I don't think Accorsi wanted to see much more of that in a year they were throwing away anyway. Eli's 5.3 ypa were over 2 yards less than what Warner was doing so it's kind of obvious they were in short pass/max protect mode with Eli.

Nobody is saying the 04 Giants were a juggernaut or anywhere near as good as they were last year but there's very clear evidence that the sack problems that year were on Warner not on the OL.

Why does it have to be either/or? Couldn't the line be bad AND Warner was holding the ball too long?

Palmer was sacked twice as often behind the exact same OL, was the OL just bad for one player or did it maybe indicate that Palmer held the ball too long?

I don't think this is a good example. Palmer was a first time starter who eventually washed out. He was simply incapable of dealing with NFL speeds. Warner has prior and since showed that he can handle the speed of the game as well as not take sacks. Of course, I'm not arguing that Warner wasn't taking sacks in New York or that part of them weren't his fault. But that line was not good.

You can't make something be true by just saying it over and over. The facts are pretty clear in a 3 year period the one starting QB who that "bad" OL couldn't protect was Warner.

??? That line's first time playing together was in '04. They had 3 new starters on the line including a new center, a rookie and a guard trying to learn to play tackle.

BTW Shockey played in 15 games and had a then career high in Td catches that year so if he was playing on a bum ankle with stone hands he did pretty well in spite of it. Based on games played that bad ankle was the prior year.

Well, I know he had bad hands and I recall at least two dropped TD's that year. I was pretty sure that his ankle was never right but maybe my memory of his seasons is starting to blend together. The point is, when Shockey is the only threat of a team's passing attack then they don't actually have a passing attack. His TD total would seem to indicate that he became more of the primary option. '04 was the only year out of his first 5 that he didn't make the pro-bowl so even though his TD's were up(from 2, 2) it doesn't mean he was healthy.

 

[Russ Smith]

Eli's 5.3 ypa were over 2 yards less than what Warner was doing so it's kind of obvious they were in short pass/max protect mode with Eli.
Why does it have to be either/or? Couldn't the line be bad AND Warner was holding the ball too long?
I don't think this is a good example. Palmer was a first time starter who eventually washed out. He was simply incapable of dealing with NFL speeds. Warner has prior and since showed that he can handle the speed of the game as well as not take sacks. Of course, I'm not arguing that Warner wasn't taking sacks in New York or that part of them weren't his fault. But that line was not good.
??? That line's first time playing together was in '04. They had 3 new starters on the line including a new center, a rookie and a guard trying to learn to play tackle.
Well, I know he had bad hands and I recall at least two dropped TD's that year. I was pretty sure that his ankle was never right but maybe my memory of his seasons is starting to blend together. The point is, when Shockey is the only threat of a team's passing attack then they don't actually have a passing attack. His TD total would seem to indicate that he became more of the primary option. '04 was the only year out of his first 5 that he didn't make the pro-bowl so even though his TD's were up(from 2, 2) it doesn't mean he was healthy.

actually I already explained part of why Manning had a much lower YPA figure, because he had a much lower completion %. 2-3 24 yards is 8 YPA. 2-4 24 yards is only 6 YPA. thats roughly the difference in % between the 2 Warner was about 63, Manning about 48.

Actually that's precisely why I used Palmer. Because like most inexperienced Qb's he got in and got sacked a ton because he held the ball too long. Manning was inexperienced too but when he got in he didn't get sacked a ton.

That would suggest that Manning was doing something Palmer wasn't, largely throwing the ball quicker.

I'm sure that NY changed some things to help Manning but again Warner had only 6 Tds in 9 games the argument that they went from wide open to max protect is completely incorrect. And it wasn't Eli taking off and running regularly either he only had 6 rushing attempts that whole season.

As raw as Manning was he still had 6 TD passes in just under 200 attempts the exact number that Warner had in his 9 starts with well over 200 attempts.
As badly as Eli played, he still actually had a higher TD pass % than Warner. Sort of makes one wonder how he did that in such a restricted offense?

I didn't say the OL was good I just said that saying it was the worst in the NFL is based entirely on how often Warner got sacked, and that it magically got better as soon as Manning became the starter. That 5 sack game against the Eagles was actually below what Kurt was averaging his last 4 starts, and Eli was only sacked 6 more times the rest of the season after that.

 

[moklerman]

I didn't say the OL was good I just said that saying it was the worst in the NFL is based entirely on how often Warner got sacked, and that it magically got better as soon as Manning became the starter. That 5 sack game against the Eagles was actually below what Kurt was averaging his last 4 starts, and Eli was only sacked 6 more times the rest of the season after that.

The 5 sack game also shows that it didn't just magically get better. The were still shaky and how they finished the season has nothing to do with how they started the season. The '03 Rams were in much the same situation. They didn't even play as a unit in that preseason and Turley was off the juice and had a bad back at that point. A new QB, new line, new system, injured players, etc. all contributed to those teams and their struggles. Three different teams, the o-lines with at least 2 new starters and guys out of position. None of which are conducive to immediate good line play.

And I'm still not arguing that Warner was faultless. He was certainly part of the problem on those teams but those types of problems are cyclical. He has the habit of holding the ball as long as possible under ideal situations so bad line play is only going to magnify whatever bad habits he already had.

Of course, last year he was at 4.2% in sack rate which is the best of his entire career so is he getting better or was the line the best he's ever had?

 

[Russ Smith]

The 5 sack game also shows that it didn't just magically get better. The were still shaky and how they finished the season has nothing to do with how they started the season. The '03 Rams were in much the same situation. They didn't even play as a unit in that preseason and Turley was off the juice and had a bad back at that point. A new QB, new line, new system, injured players, etc. all contributed to those teams and their struggles. Three different teams, the o-lines with at least 2 new starters and guys out of position. None of which are conducive to immediate good line play.

And I'm still not arguing that Warner was faultless. He was certainly part of the problem on those teams but those types of problems are cyclical. He has the habit of holding the ball as long as possible under ideal situations so bad line play is only going to magnify whatever bad habits he already had.

Of course, last year he was at 4.2% in sack rate which is the best of his entire career so is he getting better or was the line the best he's ever had?

Why did you pick the 5 sack game and not the one the week before where he was sacked only once against Atlanta? The OL got good that week but then went back to bad the next week?

I would add the Eagles did wrap up their 4th consecutive NFC east title with that win (in the 11th game of the season) and they finished that year 13-3 2nd best in the NFL in points allowed and they had 45 sacks for the season, they were notorious for blitzes and sacks they weren't exactly a pedestrian defense teeing off on a bad OL.

In fact a quick check produces a quote from Jimmie Johnson that sort of explains what happened to Manning.


Manning finished 6-of-21 for 148 yards and two critical interceptions. He was also sacked five times and seemed confused by the Eagles’ frequent blitzes.

“That’s a tough situation, all rookies are going to struggle,” Eagles defensive coordinator Jim Johnson said. “The game is fast. He had never gone against the Eagles.”

I guess Johnson forgot to blame the OL for the sacks?

 

[moklerman]

Why did you pick the 5 sack game and not the one the week before where he was sacked only once against Atlanta? The OL got good that week but then went back to bad the next week?

Because it was an example of the line not magically being better. They still had issues. I don't even know what you're arguing. I think they were a bad line in front of Eli and Warner. Eli took fewer sacks and Warner was struggling. What are you disagreeing with? They gradually continued to improve throughout the year and Eli finished pretty strong if I remember correctly. But that doesn't mean they were a cohesive, effective unit to start the year and for much of it leading up to the switch at QB.

Are you saying that you think the line was good or fine? Did you watch any of the first 9 games of that year?