Quarterback Decision Looms

[moklerman]

What do you call underthrowing Q on the first drive and completely throwing the wrong way on a pass to Fitz? No QB decision will be made off of these few plays, but Kurt wasn't on top of his game either as you seem to be intimating.

I agree that the deep ball to Q wasn't "perfect" but it was pretty well thrown. He didn't have to slow down and the good play by Flowers had more to do with the incompletion than the throw being short. I don't remember the incompletion to Fitz on 3rd and 11 that ended the first drive but Warner did finish 6/7 for 54 yards and a TD drive. He and Fitz not being on the same page wasn't a highlight but that's certainly not in the same category of forcing the ball into coverage or taking an unnecessary risk or fumbling.

Like the time Kurt took the sack instead of throwing it away.. That was a boneheaded move..

Calling a naked boot for Warner was probably the bigger mistake. I thought it was a good thing for him to just take the sack and not fumble or force the ball into coverage though? I don't remember if he was actually outside the tackles when he stopped and tried to side step the tackler but I think he was. The replay wasn't in HD so I couldn't see past the LOS so I don't know if he had an open check down or not. Since he was in the grasp of the defender, eating it was probably a safer choice for Warner rather than trying to throw it somewhere or away.

 

[Joe L]

No. Using that rationale, we would be second guessing our coaching staff. I'm not willing to do that. Are you?

Whats wrong with second guessing the coaching staff? This is only my opinion based upon both player's production last season.
In a perfect world, the coach would ride out the momentum they started during the last stretch of the season. Nothing was wrong with the offensive production ...it was key injuries on defense & offense that kept us from having a better record.

* this alone merits the questioning of the coaching staff.

The offense was great last year so why move it around now? Why replace the experienced player that often came in to bail out the "starter" early in the season last year? Why even chance that? For the "potential" of the future?

Don't you think it merits a least a little skepticism????

 

[ajcardfan]

Leinart's the starter and Warner's the insurance policy. I don't know why people/media are having a hard time figuring that out. It seems pretty straight forward to me.

It's because Whis has called it a competition. When each guy has had a start, it's not surprising people think it's up in the air.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Whats wrong with second guessing the coaching staff? This is only my opinion based upon both player's production last season.
In a perfect world, the coach would ride out the momentum they started during the last stretch of the season. Nothing was wrong with the offensive production ...it was key injuries on defense & offense that kept us from having a better record.

* this alone merits the questioning of the coaching staff.

The offense was great last year so why move it around now? Why replace the experienced player that often came in to bail out the "starter" early in the season last year? Why even chance that? For the "potential" of the future?

Don't you think it merits a least a little skepticism????

Not really. Warner didn't have as good of a year that people here and the media proclaim. In fact, I feel he lost just as many games for us as Rackers did last year.

 

[Mulli]

Not really. Warner didn't have as good of a year that people here and the media proclaim. In fact, I feel he lost just as many games for us as Rackers did last year.

yep!

 

[Cheesebeef]

the main reason I think Matt's the starter going into the season (on a very short leash, I'm thinking 2 games, MAX, if not a game and a half) is because Whiz knows what he's gonna get in Warner at the helm and that's probably a season of a maximum of 9 wins, with the possiblity for less. Look at almost every playoff team and you'll see one constant among them - they all win the battle of turnovers over the course of the season. Now, Warner showed that he can still sling it with the best of them last year, but he also showed that he still turns the ball over at an alarming rate. You just can't hope to be a successful team when you're QB is practically at a 1:1 turnover ratio. At this point, Whiz doesn't know what he has with Matt as far as that's concerned and that why I think he's going with him to start. However, like I said, I think Matt's gonna be on an awful short leash and if he stinks up the joint or looks a lot like last year and we lose Game 1 to that pathetic Niners team and look bad against that pathetic Dolphins team at the half in week 2, I think Whiz will hook him fast, and I'd probably agree with him.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

It's because Whis has called it a competition. When each guy has had a start, it's not surprising people think it's up in the air.

i've always heard him say Matt is the starter.Never have i heard him say it's open.The closest i can recall him saying is that the best player will play. The only reason Warner has a start is because he wanted him to get some live reps with the 1st unit instead of playing him with the 2nd until OL.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Whats wrong with second guessing the coaching staff?

Nothing. Perfect example is the kicking game.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

the main reason I think Matt's the starter going into the season (on a very short leash, I'm thinking 2 games, MAX, if not a game and a half) is because Whiz knows what he's gonna get in Warner at the helm and that's probably a season of a maximum of 9 wins, with the possiblity for less. Look at almost every playoff team and you'll see one constant among them - they all win the battle of turnovers over the course of the season. Now, Warner showed that he can still sling it with the best of them last year, but he also showed that he still turns the ball over at an alarming rate. You just can't hope to be a successful team when you're QB is practically at a 1:1 turnover ratio. At this point, Whiz doesn't know what he has with Matt as far as that's concerned and that why I think he's going with him to start. However, like I said, I think Matt's gonna be on an awful short leash and if he stinks up the joint or looks a lot like last year and we lose Game 1 to that pathetic Niners team and look bad against that pathetic Dolphins team at the half in week 2, I think Whiz will hook him fast, and I'd probably agree with him.

I think that sums things up nicely. Pretty much the way I am going with this as well.

Good to see you CB, how is the back holding up ? Hope you're getting around OK.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I think that sums things up nicely. Pretty much the way I am going with this as well.

Good to see you CB, how is the back holding up ? Hope you're getting around OK.

thanks Rugby. Some days are hell, some days aren't as much hell. still got a ways to go but (very) slowly but surely I'll get back on my feet. it's just taking a lot longer than i expected.

 

[82CardsGrad]

I was with you until you mentioned Breaston and Urban and then you lost me. You seriously think they're among the best 3rd and 4th wrs in the entire NFL on the basis of the 2 preseason games?

I hope you're right and I think Breaston has made a lot of improvement but if anybody has to prove it in games it's those 2.

I think they are showing signs of being the best 3 & 4 receivers... There might be a few, but I honestly can't come up with many that are as good in the #3 & #4 WR positions....Do they still have alot to prove? Of course... they're young and have not had a great deal of opportunities as of yet. IMO, the opportunities that have come their way they have done extremely well with them!

 

[moklerman]

they all win the battle of turnovers over the course of the season.

I agree with this line of thinking but don't agree that it applies to the Cardinals situation. How exactly does Leinart's 2 TD/4 INT in 2007 or 13 TD/16 INT career total equate to protecting the ball better than 27/17? If Warner reverts to his 2004-2006 self and simply can't hang onto the ball anymore then of course, stick the other guy in there and hope for the best. That wasn't the case in 2007 though.

 

[clif]

I agree with this line of thinking but don't agree that it applies to the Cardinals situation. How exactly does Leinart's 2 TD/4 INT in 2007 or 13 TD/16 INT career total equate to protecting the ball better than 27/17? If Warner reverts to his 2004-2006 self and simply can't hang onto the ball anymore then of course, stick the other guy in there and hope for the best. That wasn't the case in 2007 though.

That WAS the case last year and in fact probably the single biggest reason Whiz named Leinart the starter so early. Tack on another 12 fumbles (6 lost) last year alone and then we can accurately compare the two.

BTW Matt didn't fumble at all in his 5 games.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I agree with this line of thinking but don't agree that it applies to the Cardinals situation. How exactly does Leinart's 2 TD/4 INT in 2007 or 13 TD/16 INT career total equate to protecting the ball better than 27/17?

you left out fumbles lost for both guys, probably because it makes 27/23 look a lot of lot less impressive than 27/17. And racking up 23 turnovers in only 12.5 games is pretty scary. I agree that Matt's numbers haven't been good, but most young QB's numbers aren't and he's only played in 17 games and the bottom line is at this point you don't know what he's going to do because this is usually the age when QB's ripen and become better. Thus, I think Whiz looks to see what the MAX potential of the team can be. He already knows what it is with Warner. It's a team that may be able to score points but will constantly lose the turnover and ultimately that will doom them to mediocrity. I think Whiz wants to see if he has more than that.

If Warner reverts to his 2004-2006 self and simply can't hang onto the ball anymore then of course, stick the other guy in there and hope for the best. That wasn't the case in 2007 though.

27/23 is basically a 1:1 TD:turnover ratio and that's begging for mediocrity. Again, 23 turnovers in 12.5 games isn't hanging on to the ball IMO and I assume the coaches. I'm not even saying it sucks. It just is what is. Settling.

 

[PJ1]

Leinart's the starter and Warner's the insurance policy. I don't know why people/media are having a hard time figuring that out. It seems pretty straight forward to me.

I totally agree. Matt is the starter and the job is his to lose. He is the future and it is his third year in the league so you have to see what he can do.

It is nice having Warner as the backup though.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

That's right - the numbers at this stage in preseason are meaningless... It's hard to argue that when Warner is running the offense, it moves the way it should, versus when Matt is running the offense...

Also, according to what Lincoln Kennedy and MJ were saying this morning, it is not at all the case that Matt has done "something" in camp to warrant being named the starter.
IMO - I believe ownership is placing a great deal of pressure on Whiz to run with Matt as the starter... They know Matt is far more marketable than Kurt...

Hopefully Matt will step up and prove so many doubters wrong...

Really! What evidence do you have that Whis' hand is being forced?

And, have you thought through the affect on Whis and the team if this were true?

PS: The best marketing is not a good looking guy; it's a winning record, and I'm inclined to believe that the Bidwill's know that.

 

[moklerman]

BTW Matt didn't fumble at all in his 5 games.

He didn't really do a whole lot of anything. 4 sacks in 5 games wouldn't present much of an opportunity to make any mistakes. He fumbled 8 times in 21 sacks in '06 so he's not immune to losing the ball in that way either. He fumbled vs. KC.

you left out fumbles lost for both guys, probably because it makes 27/23 look a lot of lot less impressive than 27/17.

Actually, I left it out because all QB's fumble. Carson Palmer fumbled 15 times in '06 and I wouldn't bench him for it considering everything else he offers. Warner's past dictates that any fumble he has will be magnified in significance but most QB's that throw it around 500 times are going to have around 10 fumbles. It just goes with the territory.

Warner still fumbled a little more than should be acceptable though but I think the dislocated elbow might have had something to do with that. Might have. I think Warner's TD's from 2007 could go up and his turnovers could go down just by having a healthy elbow so I would be willing to find out from the start of 2008. Leinart's light may go on but it's a total unknown. Each year he's started he's had more INT than TD.

p.s. Warner had 28/23 if you want to count everything.

 

[Totally_Red]

the main reason I think Matt's the starter going into the season (on a very short leash, I'm thinking 2 games, MAX, if not a game and a half) is because Whiz knows what he's gonna get in Warner at the helm and that's probably a season of a maximum of 9 wins, with the possiblity for less. Look at almost every playoff team and you'll see one constant among them - they all win the battle of turnovers over the course of the season. Now, Warner showed that he can still sling it with the best of them last year, but he also showed that he still turns the ball over at an alarming rate. You just can't hope to be a successful team when you're QB is practically at a 1:1 turnover ratio. At this point, Whiz doesn't know what he has with Matt as far as that's concerned and that why I think he's going with him to start. However, like I said, I think Matt's gonna be on an awful short leash and if he stinks up the joint or looks a lot like last year and we lose Game 1 to that pathetic Niners team and look bad against that pathetic Dolphins team at the half in week 2, I think Whiz will hook him fast, and I'd probably agree with him.

Not trying to defend Warner's penchant for turnovers, but the second half of the season, the running game went to he!! in a handbasket and the defense really went south after A-Dub and Berry went down. No excuse for all the fumbles, but the interceptions are understandable when you realize the passing offense was the only sound part of the team for much of the second half of the season. And Warner and Haley and were outstanding once we got to the red zone.

I really don't know how long either QB will stay healthy if the Cardinals offensive line doesn't get SOME push in the running game, and take some pressure off the passing game.

The Cardinals need to start no worse than 4-1 to be in the playoff hunt IMO. The last 5-6 games of the schedule are brutal with New England, Minnesota, Seattle, the Giants, and Philly. The only cupcake is the Rams at home.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Actually, I left it out because all QB's fumble. Carson Palmer fumbled 15 times in '06 and I wouldn't bench him for it considering everything else he offers.

you also probably don't bench him for that because it was a one year complete abberation as his previous three seasons he fumbled 2, 5 and 5 times, only losing them 1, 2 and 2 times. You also probably don't bench him because he doesn't throw as many picks as Warner does and has been able to stay healthy for most of his career, while putting up impressive TD numbers. All that being said, Carson Palmer's got a lot to prove having been relatively pedestrian since returning from the injury he suffered in the Pittsburg playoff game.

p.s. Warner had 28/23 if you want to count everything.

which isn't impressive either.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Not trying to defend Warner's penchant for turnovers, but the second half of the season, the running game went to he!! in a handbasket and the defense really went south after A-Dub and Berry went down. No excuse for all the fumbles, but the interceptions are understandable when you realize the passing offense was the only sound part of the team for much of the second half of the season. And Warner and Haley and were outstanding once we got to the red zone.

15 turnovers in the last 8 games for Warner. You're QB simply can't turn the ball over like that if you have assperations for anything more than 8-8, I don't care what the circumstances are, especially considering these weren't games where Warner was behind a lot and had to take chances to get us back into games. Every single one of those games were close (save the Seahawks game where Kurt opened the game up with a INT on his first drive and then turned the ball over 4 more times).

 

[joeshmo]

He didn't really do a whole lot of anything. 4 sacks in 5 games wouldn't present much of an opportunity to make any mistakes. He fumbled 8 times in 21 sacks in '06 so he's not immune to losing the ball in that way either. He fumbled vs. KC.

Fewer sacks is exactly one of the reasons why he makes fewer fumbles and should be apart of the equation, saying he didnt have the opporunity to make that mistake is only a postitive in Matts favor on this subject, saying he didnt get sacked is a positive and should be apart of the equation shouldnt it. 5 games is plenty of opporunity to make that mistake.

Actually, I left it out because all QB's fumble. Carson Palmer fumbled 15 times in '06 and I wouldn't bench him for it considering everything else he offers. Warner's past dictates that any fumble he has will be magnified in significance but most QB's that throw it around 500 times are going to have around 10 fumbles. It just goes with the territory.

Everyone does fumble. But its a matter of how often or the rate of fumbling.

In 2006 and 2007 -

Warner threw the ball 619 times and got sacked at a rate of 5.49% (34 sacks / 619 attempts). He fumbled the ball at a rate of 64.71% (22 fumbles / 34 sacks).

Compare that to Matt who threw the ball 489 times and got sacked at a rate of 5.11% (25 sacks / 489 attempts). He fumbled the ball at a rate of 32% (8 fumbles / 25 sacks).

The difference is pretty clear.

As for Carson Palmer I think you can easily say that his 15 fumble season was out of the norm and not a constant. Considering he has only fumbled the ball 5 or fewer times 3 out of the 4 years he has been a starter. Which is not the case of Warner. Who has fumbled the ball 9 or more times out of the 8 years he has with 150 or more pass attempts. That is the norm for Warner, while the the Norm for Matt has not been established yet but has shown that it will not be the norm and can get better at it.

You can find a bad year in any statisitcal category for any player in the league even the good ones. No ones perfect. Bringing up one bad year doesnt prove anything. A consistent baseline would.

 

[clif]

moklerman,

If you don't think Kurt has a fumbling problem, then I really dont know what to tell you.

 

[moklerman]

which isn't impressive either.

How about Brees at 28/22? Palmer at 26/21? Cutler at 21/18? Eli at 24/27? McNabb at 19/12? Rivers at 22/21?

I agree that Warner isn't in the Ben/Brady/Peyton/Romo upper-echelon of QB's but I don't think his 2007 warrants poo-poo'ing. A +5 TD/TO ratio is pretty good.

 

[clif]

How about Brees at 28/22? Palmer at 26/21? Cutler at 21/18? Eli at 24/27? McNabb at 19/12? Rivers at 22/21?

I agree that Warner isn't in the Ben/Brady/Peyton/Romo upper-echelon of QB's but I don't think his 2007 warrants poo-poo'ing. A +5 TD/TO ratio is pretty good.

Which is a direct correlation of their mediocre, playoff missing seasons save for Rivers who only had an all world running back and stellar defense to carry him through.

 

[moklerman]

You're QB simply can't turn the ball over like that if you have assperations for anything more than 8-8

Context is everything. That Seattle game was a nightmare in which the D, running game and a healthy Fitz and Q were nowhere to be found. Let's not paint it like Warner had a horrible game and the Cards would have won otherwise. If Rackers makes a kick, Warner has 21td/11int and the Cards are 6-2 the 2nd half of the season. With a dislocated elbow and missing the Q/Fitz tandem and losing two TD's to Rattay. Warner and the Cardinals were deadly all year in the red zone so it's not a reach to think that he would have completed at least 1 of the TD's that Rattay did. A 2/1 ratio is perfectly acceptable at the very least.

saying he didnt get sacked is a positive and should be apart of the equation shouldnt it.

When Marino's quick release averts a sack then yes. When Leinart's only throwing 21 passes per game and essentially handing off and throwing screens, no.

Warner threw the ball 619 times and got sacked at a rate of 5.49% (34 sacks / 619 attempts). He fumbled the ball at a rate of 64.71% (22 fumbles / 34 sacks).

I appreciate you taking the time to do some research and in that spirit, which I know will send a certain poster right off the deep end, look at Warner's numbers from week 16 of '06 until the end of '07. That's when he started wearing the gloves.

You can find a bad year in any statisitcal category for any player in the league even the good ones. No ones perfect. Bringing up one bad year doesnt prove anything. A consistent baseline would.

I agree but I also think the possibility for Warner to have improved his problem is there. The possibility that the gloves will continue to make a positive difference and that a healthy elbow will allow him to perform at a higher level than in 2007 is very realistic in my opinion.

If you don't think Kurt has a fumbling problem, then I really dont know what to tell you.

I didn't write that he doesn't have a problem did I?