Quarterback Decision Looms

[RugbyMuffin]

How anyone can rationalize ML being the better option is kinda funny. You may want Leinart but thats all it is he has NOT proven to be a better option at QB than Warner, come on Warner has won a Superbowl what the heck has ML done? Warner is a more experienced QB period so yes he IS better than Leinart at this point, to argue differently is just silly.

What is silly is to make ridiculous remarks without proper facts to back it up. Warner is 38 and has had eight good games since 2001.

Joe Montana won some Superbowls, lets give him a call and bring him in.

Rationalizing that Warner is the better player based on stats from six years ago is something I just cannot let pass. Especially when it is thrown onto the table in a pretentious way.

Warner is just as much a liability as Leinart, and both have an upside to them.

To make seem that Warner is this football god that is being wrongly treated is just a falsehood. He is a good player, he had a GREAT 8 games last year, and has NFL experience. I will give him that. But he has his flaws. He hasn't started 16 games since 2001, he is a known turnover machine, and is 38 years old. He is a band aid, not a long term solution.

Once again let the best man win, but to bash the coaches and organization for giving Lienart the nod, and then go on to say Warner should be handed the job instead is hyprocracy at its finest.

 

[joeshmo]

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.

Do you watch the games. Proof is in the pudding and the film shows that Matt gets out of jams and can get out of the pocket way better then Warner. Or are you going to argue that Warner is better at then that Matt as well? I am not sure why this is even being debated. It is a fact. This is where the bias is really truely showing. As for the Screens comment, we dont throw any kind of screens except for WR screens and Warner throws jsut as many as Matt does. It is a play that the coaches like to get Boldin the ball and let him run or to give it to Fitz and let Boldin block for him. Also I already took pass attempts into effect when I came up with the Sack ratio you talk about later in your post, and it still shows Matt escapes the rush more so then Matt.

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.
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.

It only improves the fumble rate by 10% improving it to 54%, if you want to pick and choice your games. Still not good and way worse then Matt still.

I raise your healthy elbow and give you if that IMO it is safe to say that Matt will get better considering he has only played in 17 games. So all things being equal now, Matt still is the better QB for not turning the ball over.

 

[football karma]

I really like Kurt -- but that never quit on a play propensity is going to make me crazy.

Case in point against KC: first and ten at the KC 30 yard line. Cards run a waggle ( the old fake the handoff to the left, QB rolls out to the right to pass). KC defensive end stays home, killing the play. Instead of throwing the ball away for 2nd and 10 -- Kurt tries to sidestep the defensive end and gets sacked for a seven yard loss.

I just wish he would accept when a play just isnt going to happen and get rid of the ball.
However, he has been doing this long enough that you have to figure that Kurt isnt changing.

I think the whole Leinart thing is about Wis trying to find a QB that while he wont give you the spectacular highs that Kurt can provide, will also avoid the equally spectacular lows.

 

[nashman]

Ok Rugby first of all I said I want Leinart to take the job and run with it I was NOT bashing any coaching decisions. Warner IS better than Leinart at this point Warners year LAST YEAR not 2001 was better than Leinart has EVER done. Warner uses the weapons and throws the ball down the field and produced Wins last season and the best season the Cards have had in some time. I for one want to win and if its Leinart that can get some wins great but if he can't prove something and I mean the first 2 games then you go with Warner and not let the whole season go down just to play Leinart!

 

[joeshmo]

When he was playing with the varsity boys or the frosh/soph's? Comparing how Leinart "looked" and saying Warner cost the Cardinals the NO game is a far different conversation. Warner had 3 TD 1 INT and 300 yards passing in a full, regular season game. It wasn't enough and he made some costly mistakes but "he" didn't lose the game as it was suggested.

Leinart had 11 pass attempts, 5 of which were against scrubs. By your rationale, Pierre should be starting since his passer rating was 147.9.

First, why do you keep overlooking fumbles. He had a fumble that game as well.

So you can pick and choice when you want to use passer rating to your benefit then? I see know.

Turnovers decide a football game 90% of the time. Warner had turnovers so he may not be at full fault for the NO game becuase it is a team sport. It isnt just the two turnovers it is the context of the two turnovers. The score was still only 14 to 21. Game was still in hand. Then Warner throws an INt to give the Saints a short field at mid field. Then fumbles the ball and give them the ball 7 yards away from a TD. Defense may have given up the poinst but Warner didnt exactly help them by giving the Saints the ball on very short fields both of which accounted for 14 points and putting us out of the game. We were in the game up until Warner had his mistakes, so it is very easy for poeple to say that Warner was the main (Not the whole) culprit for the NO loss. I think anyone else without a bias would say the same.

 

[Cheesebeef]

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

and, what records did those guy's teams have? Oh yeah, 7-9, 7-9, 7-9 and 8-8. Kinda like what I think Warner's capable of leading the team to, even though none of those guys turned it over as much as Warner even though he played fewer games than most of them.

Eli at 24/27?

a guy carried by defense who everyone thought would lead the Giants nowhere. Then, tell me, what happened in the playoffs that made the Giants so tough? Oh yeah, he stopped turning the ball over and the Giants ended up beating the best teams in the league. Shocking the way that works.

Rivers at 22/21?

so, do you think it's a coincidence that the Chargers went 14-2 the year he threw for 21 and 10, versus 22 and 21 when they went 10-6? Sure they made it further in the playoffs, but it wasn't because of Rivers who played a mediocre game against a woeful Titans team and then was injured when they beat the Colts.

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.

pretty good? Not in any universe where you hope to have a playoff team and it sure as hell isn't good when it's 23 turnovers.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Almost beating the Bears counts to me as much as almost beating the 49ers probably counts for you. That game is a micro chasm of Leinart's career thus far though. A fast start, hopes and potential abound, not a very good finish.

not a very good finish? Against the best defense in the league (and at that point, a record setting D), a rookie QB, without Fitz, playcalling that was mind-numbing and no running game leads the team down the field for a 39 yard FG which Rackers of course missed and that wasn't a very good finish? Look, I'm not quibble about where Matt is as a QB at this point, but saying the Bears game is somehow a micro-casm of Matt's career just makes zero sense whatsoever. If anything that game showed why we have hope in the kid in the first place.

 

[moklerman]

Warner is 38 and has had eight good games since 2001.

I count 20 games of 90+rating out of 43 played(not counting a couple brief appearances here and there).

Do you watch the games. Proof is in the pudding and the film shows that Matt gets out of jams and can get out of the pocket way better then Warner.

I'm not sure how to measure this. Warner was sacked 20 times in 488 passing plays(sacks+pass attempts+rushing attempts)(4.1%) in 2007 and Leinart has been sacked 25 times in 547(4.6%) in 2006/2007. Seems like Warner, at 37, is taking fewer sacks.

As for the Screens comment, we dont throw any kind of screens except for WR screens

That isn't true at all. JJ, Shipp and Edge have all been targeted on a regular basis--by Warner and Leinart. My point was that Leinart has been utilizing, almost exclusively, a short passing game and relying on YAC. I want to see more than that from him because I don't think those plays will be there with any kind of regularity during the regular season and I want to know now how or if he's going to be able to get the ball down the field.

It only improves the fumble rate by 10% improving it to 54%, if you want to pick and choice your games. Still not good and way worse then Matt still.

I raise your healthy elbow and give you if that IMO it is safe to say that Matt will get better considering he has only played in 17 games. So all things being equal now, Matt still is the better QB for not turning the ball over.

I think it will be hard to quantify an actual rate of fumbling that is accurate. I know for a fact that all of their fumbles didn't occur in sack situations so I don't find the sack/fumble stat's particularly accurate.

As far as Leinart getting better, I think there is very little to base that on. I'm all for trusting one's instincts but I would be much more inclined to agree with your opinion if Leinart had been showing any kind of progression over the last two years. Injuries and inconsistency are the only verifiable items we can see from Leinart's play on the field so far. Warner isn't without risk either but has shown the ability to excel at the NFL level, even if the majority of his success was in the past. He has also shown the possibility that he may have regained a good portion of that excellent ability.

 

[moklerman]

First, why do you keep overlooking fumbles. He had a fumble that game as well.

I'm not overlooking it, I even pointed it out earlier. I'm glad you agree that Warner didn't lose the game all on his own. Which was the point.

Game was still in hand.

Warner also had the Card's up by 7 and tied at 14 and the defense kept giving up points and not getting the ball back. It was a team failure.

and, what records did those guy's teams have? Oh yeah, 7-9, 7-9, 7-9 and 8-8. Kinda like what I think Warner's capable of leading the team to, even though none of those guys turned it over as much as Warner even though he played fewer games than most of them.

Most didn't produce as much either and most aren't considered the sole reason for many of their team's losses.

Oh yeah, he stopped turning the ball over and the Giants ended up beating the best teams in the league.

No, he stopped turning the ball over AND produced. Jeff Garcia simply didn't turn the ball over and that's more what Leinart seems to be offering at this point.

Sure they made it further in the playoffs, but it wasn't because of Rivers who played a mediocre game against a woeful Titans team and then was injured when they beat the Colts.

4 TD 2 INT and a fumble and they beat Tennessee and Indianapolis. Are we all sure that the Cardinals "can't" win unless they play mistake free football? Quick slants and WR screens aren't going to cut it folks. You couldn't ask for a better ratio than what Garrard had last year and they had a good defense and a helluva running game. If you don't have some juice in the passing game, or threat of it, playing mistake free won't matter. I'm not advocating turnovers but you just have to get some production out of the QB position in most cases.

pretty good? Not in any universe where you hope to have a playoff team and it sure as hell isn't good when it's 23 turnovers.

I'm still curious what some fans actually expect or want from the QB position. I agree that the turnovers need to come down but I don't agree that they are so clearly mistakes by Warner alone that benching him is the solution. Does it occur to anyone that he might also benefit from being in the 2nd year of the program or from more coaching from Whis/Haley when they revitalized his career in less than one season? That's where my perception gets thrown out of whack on the situation. Warner by far showed improvement and results compared to what he did in '06 yet he "can't" improve more, etc. I just don't agree.

 

[slanidrac16]

What is silly is to make ridiculous remarks without proper facts to back it up. Warner is 38 and has had eight good games since 2001.

Joe Montana won some Superbowls, lets give him a call and bring him in.

Rationalizing that Warner is the better player based on stats from six years ago is something I just cannot let pass. Especially when it is thrown onto the table in a pretentious way.

Warner is just as much a liability as Leinart, and both have an upside to them.

To make seem that Warner is this football god that is being wrongly treated is just a falsehood. He is a good player, he had a GREAT 8 games last year, and has NFL experience. I will give him that. But he has his flaws. He hasn't started 16 games since 2001, he is a known turnover machine, and is 38 years old. He is a band aid, not a long term solution.

Once again let the best man win, but to bash the coaches and organization for giving Lienart the nod, and then go on to say Warner should be handed the job instead is hyprocracy at its finest.

This very well could be the best post in this entire thread!

 

[CarterAZ]

My two cents…

If it is truly based upon an open competition…

And, if the overall result proves to be reasonably close between the two, then we go with ML and take our chances.

But, if Warner turns out to be clearly much further ahead, then IMHO, we’d be crazy to try and come out of the blocks fast with Matt continuing to learn on the job.

I’d love to find out what we have in Matt for the long-term, but I’d really prefer having the best chance to win this year, and if that means KW, I’m not going to gnash any teeth over it.

 

[moklerman]

This very well could be the best post in this entire thread!

An inaccurate, opinionated, sarcastic post that takes a few easy potshots at Warner sounds pretty much par for the course. Why not applaud it as well.

 

[Assface]

An inaccurate, opinionated, sarcastic post that takes a few easy potshots at Warner sounds pretty much par for the course. Why not applaud it as well.

LOL You're going to accuse someone else of an inaccurate, opinionated post? You're not even a Cardinals fan, you're a Warner fan. You're only here because of Kurt and if he got traded you'd be on that new team's message board the same day singing the praises of Kurt. It's fine that you're a fan of his but don't try to pass it off like it's everyone else who's biased.

 

[Assface]

That isn't true at all. JJ, Shipp and Edge have all been targeted on a regular basis--by Warner and Leinart. My point was that Leinart has been utilizing, almost exclusively, a short passing game and relying on YAC. I want to see more than that from him because I don't think those plays will be there with any kind of regularity during the regular season and I want to know now how or if he's going to be able to get the ball down the field.

Look at his stats, Edge has had the lowest receiving totals of his career here. Manning threw to Edge far more than Matt ever has.

The majority of Arrington's catches came from Kurt. No sign of Matt throwing everything to the RB here. http://www.nfl.com/players/j.j.arrington/gamelogs?id=ARR194145&season=2007

Shipp had 4 catches all year, 3 of which came from Warner.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Most didn't produce as much either and most aren't considered the sole reason for many of their team's losses.

I've never said Kurt was the sole reason for many of this team's losses. I just think there's only so far and so many games you can win with a QB who turns the ball over at the rate he has the majority of his career. When you're TD:Turnover ratio is as close as Kurt's is, I just... this pointless. I've said this many times and you're evidence that I'm wrong is to bring up a bunch of guys who only backed up my point that average QB play will for the most part only net average amount of Ws.

No, he (Eli) stopped turning the ball over AND produced.

"AND produced"... meaning what? There was no virtually no distinction between his play in the playoffs and his play in the regular EXCEPT for ONE thing - his lack of turnovers.

regular season: 16 games - 24 TDs for an average of 1.5 TDs per and 208 yards per game on 57% passing.

playoffs: 4 games - 6 TDs for an average of 1.5 TDs per and 213 yards per game on 60% passing.

Jeff Garcia simply didn't turn the ball over and that's more what Leinart seems to be offering at this point.

4 TD 2 INT and a fumble and they beat Tennessee and Indianapolis. Are we all sure that the Cardinals "can't" win unless they play mistake free football?

who's talking about "mistake free football"? I just don't think ANY team can be a playoff team playing mistake PRONE football and Warner's cemented himself as a mistake prone player over the last 7 years.

Quick slants and WR screens aren't going to cut it folks. You couldn't ask for a better ratio than what Garrard had last year and they had a good defense and a helluva running game. If you don't have some juice in the passing game, or threat of it, playing mistake free won't matter.

uh, are you trying to insinuate that the Jags somehow weren't good last year? The won 11 games and a playoff game on the road. I'd say playing mistake free mattered quite a bit for them. If you're trying to say something else, well, then I'm dumbfounded why you brought Garrard up.

I'm not advocating turnovers but you just have to get some production out of the QB position in most cases. I'm still curious what some fans actually expect or want from the QB position. I agree that the turnovers need to come down but I don't agree that they are so clearly mistakes by Warner alone that benching him is the solution. Does it occur to anyone that he might also benefit from being in the 2nd year of the program or from more coaching from Whis/Haley when they revitalized his career in less than one season? That's where my perception gets thrown out of whack on the situation. Warner by far showed improvement and results compared to what he did in '06 yet he "can't" improve more, etc. I just don't agree.

I think Warner's benefited heavily from playing against an incredibly weak schedule though and that ain't gonna be the case this year. Against defensive dogs like the Rams, Falcons, Lions, he looked like a somewhat decent QB (even though he still had turnover problems), but against the only 3 playoff teams he faced (Washington, Seattle and Tampa Bay), he had 10 turnovers to 5 TDs. And that's pretty much been Kurt's problem since he got here. He'll tease you with some good games against sup-bar competition, but put him up against any D with a pulse and he's going to become a turnover machine. Is he THE sole reason we lost games last year? Absolutely not, but he just turns the ball over too much to expect anything better than .500.

 

[Joe L]

Sacked in the end zone vs. SF (you can call that a wash as they ((Rackers) both screwed up that one)

That was either a sack or intentional grounding. He put them in a situation to win. That was ABSOLUTELY not his fault.

5 INT game against Seattle

Dude, what would you do if you fell so far behind in the first QTR? He tried to make things happen. He also brought us back in that game till he got intercepted after the onside kick. I will give you half credit.

The DEFENSE put us in a position where we had no choice but to air it out. Didn't Seattle have 21 points after the first qtr? One of those INT was a hail mary before the half.

2 fumbles and 2 INTs against Washington

Again, we were in a position to win the game. Remember Rackers?

Are you just pointing out his mistakes or are you blaming him for the game?

Let me refresh your memory:

Originally Posted by dreamcastrocks
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.

Craptastic 10/30 2INT game against TB.

You want me to keep going?

On that one , he stunk it up...no doubt. It was the #1 ranked defense in the league though.

 

[Joe L]

I wouldn't lay NO on Warner. The defense was HORRENDOUS that day. 80% 300 yds and 2 TD for Brees and 100 yds and 2 TD for Stecker(Aaron freakin' Stecker?!?). Warner had a pick in the first half and a fumble to start the 3rd but had 300+ yards 3 TD and a 100+ rating and led the team to 10 points after the fumble to get within 7. Defense let NO run the clock out with 7 minutes to go in the game.

SF is on Rackers. A win wouldn't have been all Warner but a two minute drive to tie the game and down to the 19 in OT should have been enough by the rest of the team. Rackers should have been cut for missing a 32 yarder.

Preach on!

 

[Mitch]

That was either a sack or intentional grounding. He put them in a situation to win. That was ABSOLUTELY not his fault.



Dude, what would you do if you fell so far behind in the first QTR? He tried to make things happen. He also brought us back in that game till he got intercepted after the onside kick. I will give you half credit.

The DEFENSE put us in a position where we had no choice but to air it out. Didn't Seattle have 21 points after the first qtr? One of those INT was a hail mary before the half.



Again, we were in a position to win the game. Remember Rackers?

Are you just pointing out his mistakes or are you blaming him for the game?

Let me refresh your memory:





On that one , he stunk it up...no doubt. It was the #1 ranked defense in the league though.

Good points LACARDJoe. Let's not forget that Warner threw for over 500 yards in the SF game...and Rackers missed a chip shot FG. Warner did more than enough to win that game.

 

[Assface]

Good points LACARDJoe. Let's not forget that Warner threw for over 500 yards in the SF game...and Rackers missed a chip shot FG. Warner did more than enough to win that game.

484 yards, actually and he had more turnovers than touchdowns. 2 TDs, 2 INTs and 2 fumbles, 1 lost. The fumble he lost was the deciding score.

 

[ajcardfan]

Good points LACARDJoe. Let's not forget that Warner threw for over 500 yards in the SF game...and Rackers missed a chip shot FG. Warner did more than enough to win that game.

Those games I pointed out earlier, if you were to go back and look at the threads thrashing Kurt after those games, you'd see that I defended all of those as team losses. Our defense and special teams were just as bad as Warner, and they, perhaps, could've pulled those games out had they been decent. But, Warner's mistakes were just as painful as everyone else's. It does no good to pretend like they are not. UNLESS, you just blindly want to pull for one guy to be a clear choice as the starter.

That's the problem for Whis. There isn't a clear-cut choice right now. Each guy has very good pros and some very real cons. I'm just glad we actually have "pros" to argue about. As opposed to arguing about levels of suckage and hopelessness at QB like we did in the past with McCown, Blake, King, etc.

 

[ajcardfan]

My two cents…

If it is truly based upon an open competition…

And, if the overall result proves to be reasonably close between the two, then we go with ML and take our chances.

But, if Warner turns out to be clearly much further ahead, then IMHO, we’d be crazy to try and come out of the blocks fast with Matt continuing to learn on the job.

I’d love to find out what we have in Matt for the long-term, but I’d really prefer having the best chance to win this year, and if that means KW, I’m not going to gnash any teeth over it.

Good post. Whatever happens, happens. And, I agree, no need to gnash teeth either way.

After these last two games though, Leinart would have to stink it up severely to not get the nod on the 7th. At least, that's my belief.

 

[Joe L]

484 yards, actually and he had more turnovers than touchdowns. 2 TDs, 2 INTs and 2 fumbles, 1 lost. The fumble he lost was the deciding score.

...and Warner was still able to put Rackers in a position to win the game from the 14 freaking yard line! Who's fault was THAT! Cause and effect brutha...cause and effect. At that point, whatever happened after that was a by-product of that mistake. What about the illegal block that put us on the 3 yrd line? Do you think it is fair to say that those two mistakes prior to the fumble
were more to blame than the actual fumble? Especially after Warner practically gave the game to Rackers?

Finally, who in their right mind calls a pass play on your own 3 yrd line? Why not work your way out of a hole by running the ball? Isn't Wise a conservative
"work the clock" kind of coach? I also blame him for that fiasco. Blaming Warner for a broken up play that was doomed from the start just shows how desperately you want to blame Warner for the fault of others. That fumble was either an intentional grounding or a sack. Should he have tried to run it out or just hold on to it? Would you have preferred a sack? Cause that's what was going to happen anyway. Geesh!

 

[conraddobler]

I think Matt has been turned upside down and backwards by whis.

Now ultimately that might be the wrong thing to do in terms of Matt but in terms of how I like my coaches, I'm fine with it.

Whis is probably either the best possible coach for Matt or the worst, and I'm leaning towards the worst.

Matt's confidence is just been shredded, burnt and torn down, now he's a reasonably bright kid with talent so he's not collapsing but he's not thriving either.

The reason is probably complete shock, his career has taken a wild U turn from annointed starter to constantly being hounded.

Imagine you're Matt, one minute you're on a team with wildly superior talent, coached by Pete C and then you're drafted later than you thought by the Cardinals who at least have some weapons with an offensive minded coach.

You're annointed the starter, you make some progress then your coach gets fired, Whis comes in and he seems to hate you. I honestly think Whis does hate aspects of Matt, not the guy himself but the annointed starter laid back part.

So he sets about destroying any vestiges of that personality he hates, and that might destroy Matt here at least or it might make him a good pro QB, jury is out yet but I wouldn't have it any other way because the message it sends to the team is no one is safe, play or ride pine and I like that.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Dude, what would you do if you fell so far behind in the first QTR? He tried to make things happen. He also brought us back in that game till he got intercepted after the onside kick. I will give you half credit.

The DEFENSE put us in a position where we had no choice but to air it out. Didn't Seattle have 21 points after the first qtr? One of those INT was a hail mary before the half.

Kurt threw a pick on the first series of the game that was returned deep into our territory which set the tone and put us behind immediately. That wasn't a matter of him trying to make things happen down big. It was a matter of him being the turnover machine he always is against any defense with a pulse.

Again, we were in a position to win the game. Remember Rackers?

I think Rackers sucks, but I ain't gonna lay blame for the Skins game against him for missing a hurried 55 yard FG after Warner had three turnovers, including a pick 6 after the D only game up 14 points all game.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Warner: 27 tds - Interceptions: 17 lost fumbles: 7 = +3

If Leinart gives us + 4 - I won't complain.

(It was my view when we were having the neverending debate about "Big". If Gandy had less penalties at end of season, I'd be content: He did... I was.)

A bit facile, I know... but, my signature is the Latin Orantus Vitandus Stulte (Keep it simple stupid)