Quarterback Decision Looms

[joeshmo]

When you say "they," you're talking about the Cardinals? Because when the Cardinals turn the ball over, they're giving their opponents the short field, and, while I don't want to put words in his mouth, I think that's what Joe is talking about.

I don't see how that fact can be argued. If the Cards' offense doesn't turn the ball over, even if they don't score they're putting distance between opposing offense the the endzone they're defending.

If I'm understanding your post correctly, I don't believe you've "disproved" anything; in fact, I believe earlier in this thread you cited an example of a short field yourself when talking about the first TO of the Seattle game last year. Warner threw a pick and it was returned past the Cards' 50 for a FG.

I dont even have to look very hard to disprove his supposed disproval of my point.

Saints game. INT gives the saints the ball at mid field. Fumbles puts the ball only 7 yards away from a Saints touchdown.

It is really very simple logic. INT or Fumble is going to give the opposing offense greater field position then a Punt, kickoff, or driving further down the field would otherwise.

Not sure why that is even in question?

 

[joeshmo]

uh, no. Unless it's thrown on purpose and there are 10 other guys out there in a scheme designed to take down the guy who intercepted it.

This is really starting to get funny isnt it.

How about the fact that it isnt anything like a punt considering your not throwing the INT on 4th down. You are doing it on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd down when you still have a shot at getting a first down and continue down the field.

A INT is only like a punt in the case of a hail mary or taking a chance on 4th down if you are down a lot in a game.

 

[joeshmo]

great googly moogly, give it a rest.

Score at will? Come on now.

I am astonished. His logic is getting so screwed up that not even Moklerman wants any part of his debate in Warners favor.

 

[Mulli]

I am astonished. His logic is getting so screwed up that not even Moklerman wants any part of his debate in Warners favor.

That is pretty bad.

 

[Pariah]

After thinking about this conversation I think you guys are pulling my leg. There are no words to describe defending TOs in this manner; it's got to be a joke.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Not get his picture printed on the internet partying and using a beer bong for one.

If showing up in the tabloids is benching material, Tom Brady/Tony Romo would have been cut.

 

[Russ Smith]

In all honesty, it really doesn't matter how you view it....not during a game. The results are the same whether you are a first year, 1st round draft pick or a 38 yr old QB. You are making that distinction...not me.



Very true but Leinart doesn't score at will like Warner does....pick your poison.



Very true about his his troubled past but that same fumbler bailed Leinart when he couldn't move the ball last season. On top of that, Leinart still managed to get intercepted more times then he put the ball in the end zone. His very first throw was intercepted....wasn't it? Lets call them equal. Matt is prone to throwing INTs...and has been for 2 years.



That's not what I am saying. Kurt will always have that tendency (imho) but I was just countering your argument that Matt can and is ready to protect the ball. I just gave you an example on why it isn't true. The irony is that Matt held onto the ball just like Warner used to.



Shouldn't that be the plan of every coach? Protect your QB????? I sure hoped they planned on that, I would hate to see a coach not do that for his player. I think it's called pass protection.



See what happens when you have pass protection? Maybe the O-line was meshing...no?



He manages the game differently which is why he was replaced during games.
He protected the ball so good that he didn;t move the ball for the most part and averaged a INT in every game he played in.



They should if that 38 yr old QB is out playing the often hurt 25 yr old viable one.





Wise said a player doesn't lose his job due to injury. He also said the best player plays but if he is holding out the player in pre-season that is supposed compete, what is one to think????

1) I am talking about how an NFL coach views it. you don't look at the performance of a 23-24 year old the same way you do a 35-36 year old because you know the older guy only has so long left and likely isn't going to get better. You assume the young guy will improve, you assume the old guy will just get older. tha'ts the distinction, that's why it may appear to you and Mokler that Matt is getting more slack from fans or coaches, it's because he's younger and we've learned to expect that a young guy needs to learn on the job.

2)Matt has 16 picks in 17 NFL games, 16 picks in just under 500 attempts, that's actually quite GOOD for a guy in his first and second year. Most guys picked high on bad teams throw a lot more than that in their first 500 attempts. That's not to say he can't improve on it he certainly can, but he's not INT prone like Warner is. Most guys as they get older learn from mistakes and cut down on their picks.

Even last year in a very good year for him recently Kurt threw more picks, in less attempts, than Matt has his first 2 seasons. So if you think Matt is INT prone you must REALLY think Kurt is?

3) I think you picked out one fumble and then tried to imply from it Matt's not ready to protect the ball. He fumbled once, he's got a ways to go to catch up with Kurt in that regard.

4) yes I know what pass protection is. My point was the coaches knew Warner's habit of holding the ball, getting hit and fumbling, hell listen to Wolfley and Pasch talk about it on radio. Wolfley in particular talked about it repeatedly the last 2 years, a veteran QB should have a clock in his head, Kurt doesn't, he caused a lot of sacks 2 years ago by holding the ball too long. The coaches tried to change things last year to make that less of a problem. I suspect its' one reason why our RB's didn't have many catches last year, they were kept in to pass protect more often.

5) Yes I'm sure it was coincidence the pass protection improved when we played against lousy defensive teams? The point was prior to those 2 games we were having a much tougher time protecting Kurt. I think it's likely that will continue this year if Kurt is starting, he will get sacked more than he got sacked last year.

At the end of the day the coaches are going to play the guy they feel gives them the best chance to win. I don't think Whiz is a dummy he's not going to play Matt if he thinks Warner is better.

 

[Joe L]

I am astonished. His logic is getting so screwed up that not even Moklerman wants any part of his debate in Warners favor.

My logic? Your the one using hypothetical scenarios while I am using actual events in context. Not surprised your easily astonished but...oh well.

 

[Joe L]

After thinking about this conversation I think you guys are pulling my leg. There are no words to describe defending TOs in this manner; it's got to be a joke.

Who's defending TO's for god's sake? This started out on a very different level till you came in half way through and discussing a different aspect of TO's. TO's are bad but not all are momentum changers or momentum stoppers. I gave examples of this but you sem to want to parse words for the sake of argument. If that makes your day so be it....

 

[Pariah]

My logic? Your the one using hypothetical scenarios while I am using actual events in context. Not surprised your easily astonished but...oh well.

The actual event you use is a INT thrown on the opponents 18. Then:

1. you say it's the same as a punt
2. you refuse to acknowledge that the opponent isn't stating from the point of the INT instead of the point on the field where they're brought down
3. You refuse to acknowledge a shorter field makes it easier for an offense
4. You blame the defense for not stopping the opponents from scoring rather than laying those points on the doorstep of the INT


Do I have this right? I must have it wrong. Please tell me where I've misunderstood you.

 

[Cheesebeef]

As far as Cincy replacing Kitna, I think they chose the better QB but I don't know that it was the right move.

Nothing you say regarding any QB situation should ever be taken with even a smidgen of thought after this statement. Choosing Palmer over Kitna may have been the wrong move. WOW.

I'll do this just for fun though.

Sounds like there are a lot of circumstances and context to go along with Leinart's losses. The loss vs. Washington is on Warner but Leinart's turnovers are "doing his job". Seems like a double standard to me.

So Leinart was flawless and his play led to a win vs. the horrific 49ers in 2007, right?

Nope, Matt's was pretty bad that night as was the two minute defense. Then, again, it was only Matt's 12th start of his career and he did only turn the ball over once. What was Kurt's excuse in his 8 season with his 3 turnovers?

Were Leinart's turnovers momentum killing, game changers as well or something else?

yup - but with a young QB, I (and pretty much anyone else) call them growing pains. With an old QB, there called more or the same.

Healthy QB's have never won a game doing those things? Not to mention the fumble didn't lead to any points and the Cards got the ball back at least two more times after that.

you're right. The fumble didn't lead to any points but it sure as hell destroyed a golden opportunity to get points as we had the ball inside the Skins 20 yard line.

How about Rackers missing an extra point in that game? Cards lost by two but in reality, a competent special teams effort has them tied at 21.

I agree with you on Rackers, REPEATEDLY. The funny thing is that you don't see that Rackers and Kurt BOTH repeatedly made huge gaffes.

So, with the dislocated elbow Warner had the Cardinals in a position to win and for all intents and purposes should have been tied anyway vs. a playoff team in their stadium and it's not good enough to you.

in a position to win. When you're down 9 points with 30 seconds to play, you're not "in a position" to win. You're in a position to need a miracle (A TD, an onside kick and 55 yard FG all within 30 seconds) to win. Bravo.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

After thinking about this conversation I think you guys are pulling my leg. There are no words to describe defending TOs in this manner; it's got to be a joke.

keep reading......

 

[Mulli]

 

[Pariah]

Who's defending TO's for god's sake? This started out on a very different level till you came in half way through and discussing a different aspect of TO's.

Sorry, Joe. You go on telling us how Joeshmo is wrong about the short field affecting the defense. I didn't mean to confuse the issue with...what? I thought I was talking about how the short field affects the defense.

If I'm misrepresenting you by parsing words, by all means, explain your position.

 

[joeshmo]

Sorry, Joe. You go on telling us how Joeshmo is wrong about the short field affecting the defense. I didn't mean to confuse the issue with...what? I thought I was talking about how the short field affects the defense.

Dont you know, if a team starts as the opposite 20 yard line or the goal line it doesnt matter, doesnt effect the defense any any way what so ever.

It doesnt make it easier for the offense to score. It doesnt put the defense out on the field longer then they have to getting tired faster.

INT and Fumbles are just like Punts except for the fact that you dont have 11 special teamers on the field whose main job it is to tackle the returner, you dont do it on 4th down, you dont throw the ball in the air for a 4 second hang time. But hey other then that its the same.

 

[joeshmo]

After thinking about this conversation I think you guys are pulling my leg. There are no words to describe defending TOs in this manner; it's got to be a joke.

You have been punked.

 

[Russ Smith]

FWIW last time I saw the stat from Stats inc a possession is worth on average about 3.5 points. So a punt is worth 3.5 to the receiving team, a turnover is worth 7 because it's 3.5 to the receiving team and -3.5 to the team that turns it over.

That's why an INT or a fumble is worse than a punt.

 

[Cards232]

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.

No offense man, but your argument is either disingenuous or ignorant. The fumble at the end of the Niners game was caused by Warner's primary and secondary options running into each other. The way the play unfolded, Warner ended up in the back of the endzone w/ the pocket collapsing in front of him. He had nowhere to scramble! If he throws the ball away, safety & game over. If he takes the sack, which was ultimately the case, game over. Because of the unabated rush, Warner had about 3 seconds to make the decision, it took 2 seconds for the receivers to run into each other. That leaves Warner w/ about 1 second to make a snap decision on a play where his primary & secondary options blew up.

As a coach, I can tell you, a qb doesn't have time to go to a third option under those circumstances. Period. For you & others here to make a big deal about that fumble, when any other option would have come w/ the same result, is ridiculous to say the least. So, practically speaking, Warner had a 2td & 2int. game in which he passed for close to 500 yards. I think he did more than his fair share to win the game. If you conclude that Warner lost the game on the last play, then you show your ignorance for the game & undoubtedly b/c you've never played it.

You must be registered for see images

If you want to talk about Warner having a bad game in Seattle where pushed a little to hard, then we can talk & perhaps find agreement. But please don't bring up the Niner game canard. There's not a qb in the league that would have produced a different result short of a miracle.

 

[Joe L]

The actual event you use is a INT thrown on the opponents 18. Then:

1. you say it's the same as a punt

I said it can be viewed as a punt considering where the the play occurred. I never said it was the same as a punt. That play was deep in SEA territory and not considered "short" field.

2. you refuse to acknowledge that the opponent isn't stating from the point of the INT instead of the point on the field where they're brought down

Who's refusing to acknowledge that? Where have I denied that?

3. You refuse to acknowledge a shorter field makes it easier for an offense

again, find a post where I refused to acknowledge that? I said the 3 TD's were not short field. I am specifically addressing the SEA game and not speaking in general terms. I agree that a short field plays into the offense but
again, the 3 td's IN THE SEATTLE GAME were not short field! 2 were punts into Seattle territory & one was a change of possession when Rackers missed a field goal. Those had nothing to do with Warner. And those returns were not
SHORT FIELD... what don't you get about that? I am not disputing the fact that short fields are a detriment to a defense but those TD"S WERE NOT SHORT FIELD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4. You blame the defense for not stopping the opponents from scoring rather than laying those points on the doorstep of the INT

If you read the start of this thread you will see that I conceded the fact that Warner blew it in the first drive but the INT didn't result in SHORT FIELD. On top of that, the defense stopped them with just a field goal. After that, the defense let them score at will....without a SHORT FIELD!

Do I have this right? I must have it wrong. Please tell me where I've misunderstood you.

see above.


By the way, since your so caught up in short field, what do you consider a short field? Let me know since you seem to be the one asking the questions.

 

[Joe L]

No offense man, but your argument is either disingenuous or ignorant. The fumble at the end of the Niners game was caused by Warner's primary and secondary options running into each other. The way the play unfolded, Warner ended up in the back of the endzone w/ the pocket collapsing in front of him. He had nowhere to scramble! If he throws the ball away, safety & game over. If he takes the sack, which was ultimately the case, game over. Because of the unabated rush, Warner had about 3 seconds to make the decision, it took 2 seconds for the receivers to run into each other. That leaves Warner w/ about 1 second to make a snap decision on a play where his primary & secondary options blew up.

As a coach, I can tell you, a qb doesn't have time to go to a third option under those circumstances. Period. For you & others here to make a big deal about that fumble, when any other option would have come w/ the same result, is ridiculous to say the least. So, practically speaking, Warner had a 2td & 2int. game in which he passed for close to 500 yards. I think he did more than his fair share to win the game. If you conclude that Warner lost the game on the last play, then you show your ignorance for the game & undoubtedly b/c you've never played it.

You must be registered for see images

If you want to talk about Warner having a bad game in Seattle where pushed a little to hard, then we can talk & perhaps find agreement. But please don't bring up the Niner game canard. There's not a qb in the league that would have produced a different result short of a miracle.

Thank you!!!!!! finally, someone understands!

 

[cardsloco]

No offense man, but your argument is either disingenuous or ignorant. The fumble at the end of the Niners game was caused by Warner's primary and secondary options running into each other. The way the play unfolded, Warner ended up in the back of the endzone w/ the pocket collapsing in front of him. He had nowhere to scramble! If he throws the ball away, safety & game over. If he takes the sack, which was ultimately the case, game over. Because of the unabated rush, Warner had about 3 seconds to make the decision, it took 2 seconds for the receivers to run into each other. That leaves Warner w/ about 1 second to make a snap decision on a play where his primary & secondary options blew up.

As a coach, I can tell you, a qb doesn't have time to go to a third option under those circumstances. Period. For you & others here to make a big deal about that fumble, when any other option would have come w/ the same result, is ridiculous to say the least. So, practically speaking, Warner had a 2td & 2int. game in which he passed for close to 500 yards. I think he did more than his fair share to win the game. If you conclude that Warner lost the game on the last play, then you show your ignorance for the game & undoubtedly b/c you've never played it.

You must be registered for see images

If you want to talk about Warner having a bad game in Seattle where pushed a little to hard, then we can talk & perhaps find agreement. But please don't bring up the Niner game canard. There's not a qb in the league that would have produced a different result short of a miracle.

Great post!

 

[slanidrac16]

DO you feel lucky, Punk? I know what you're thinkin.....does he like Warner or does he like Leinart? Well, with all the comotion I kinda forgot myself.

Bottom line is I am in the Leinart corner. I will not be upset if Whiz changed his mind and named Warner the starting QB tomorrow. Why? Because the coaching staff is being paid to make the tough decisions. They are there every waking moment thru ota's, film sessions, training camps, meetings, coaching sessions, 7 on 7's , 11 on 11's and preseason games. They have the inside track on everything up to and including the toothpaste these guys use.
So if you are in the Warner camp, you are entitled to your opinion. But if you think for one minute you know what is better for this team than the coaching staff, i beg you to find a comfortable recliener, crack open a cold one, chill out and just think about that for a while.
Whiz had the guts last year to pull Leinart early on because he thought and believed it gave his team the best shot at winning a football game.
One year later, this same coach has the guts to name Leinart as the starter. Why?
Because he's getting paid more? Uh, No.
Because Matt is cuter? No
Because Warner stinks? No

Why? Because he believes Leinart , when ALL things are taken into account, gives us JUST as good a chance at winning a football game as Warner. Period.

Of course, many of us here are MUCH smarter than Coach Whiz.

 

[clif]

No offense man, but your argument is either disingenuous or ignorant. The fumble at the end of the Niners game was caused by Warner's primary and secondary options running into each other. The way the play unfolded, Warner ended up in the back of the endzone w/ the pocket collapsing in front of him. He had nowhere to scramble! If he throws the ball away, safety & game over. If he takes the sack, which was ultimately the case, game over. Because of the unabated rush, Warner had about 3 seconds to make the decision, it took 2 seconds for the receivers to run into each other. That leaves Warner w/ about 1 second to make a snap decision on a play where his primary & secondary options blew up.

As a coach, I can tell you, a qb doesn't have time to go to a third option under those circumstances. Period. For you & others here to make a big deal about that fumble, when any other option would have come w/ the same result, is ridiculous to say the least. So, practically speaking, Warner had a 2td & 2int. game in which he passed for close to 500 yards. I think he did more than his fair share to win the game. If you conclude that Warner lost the game on the last play, then you show your ignorance for the game & undoubtedly b/c you've never played it.

You must be registered for see images

If you want to talk about Warner having a bad game in Seattle where pushed a little to hard, then we can talk & perhaps find agreement. But please don't bring up the Niner game canard. There's not a qb in the league that would have produced a different result short of a miracle.

I understand your point but I think you should watch that play again. Warner had more than enough time to get rid of the ball especially considering their position on the field. That play took too much time to develop. Maybe it was due to players running into each other as that is not evident from the clip, but I can tell you that Kurt had a chance to dump it out in the flat which he completely ignored and held the ball way too long.

I will also say that he being the veteran he could have audibled out of that play and probably should have. In fact a quick WR hitch would have been perfect being the that no one was within 10 yards of Boldin on the line of scrimmage.

 

[Cards232]

Thank you!!!!!! finally, someone understands!

I'm as big a USC homer as there is, & thus a Leinart homer as well. That being said, for the NFL, it appears to me Leinart isn't ready yet & Warner definitely is. The NFL isn't about building for the future anymore due to free agency, etc... It's about going for broke every year w/ your best cards (pardon the pun). Leinart has the capacity to be a star in this league, & if he played for the Patriots w/o Brady, he would be well on his way this year. But he doesn't play for the Patriots, he plays for the Cards. Completely different circumstances & a way more severe learning curve here.

Warner has already been through that learning curve & is ready to lead NOW. We can either make a push w/ the best we have NOW, or we can rely on the old Cards mantra of building for the future which has lead to disappointment year after year..... Will we have Boldin next year? How about Dockett? Edge? Dansby? Who will their replacements be? Will we be as good next year?

If we go to the playoffs & do well, we have an increased possibility of attracting top tier free agents. If we continue to "build for the future" those possibilities decrease demonstrably. Isn't it finally time for a new attitude around here? One that will breed success rather than failure once again? This year is the year to make that change, not next year. Just food for thought.

 

[Russ Smith]

I'm as big a USC homer as there is, & thus a Leinart homer as well. That being said, for the NFL, it appears to me Leinart isn't ready yet & Warner definitely is. The NFL isn't about building for the future anymore due to free agency, etc... It's about going for broke every year w/ your best cards (pardon the pun). Leinart has the capacity to be a star in this league, & if he played for the Patriots w/o Brady, he would be well on his way this year. But he doesn't play for the Patriots, he plays for the Cards. Completely different circumstances & a way more severe learning curve here.

Warner has already been through that learning curve & is ready to lead NOW. We can either make a push w/ the best we have NOW, or we can rely on the old Cards mantra of building for the future which has lead to disappointment year after year..... Will we have Boldin next year? How about Dockett? Edge? Dansby? Who will their replacements be? Will we be as good next year?

If we go to the playoffs & do well, we have an increased possibility of attracting top tier free agents. If we continue to "build for the future" those possibilities decrease demonstrably. Isn't it finally time for a new attitude around here? One that will breed success rather than failure once again? This year is the year to make that change, not next year. Just food for thought.

All good points. The counter is that it's easier to attract replacements for Edge and Boldin if you have an established YOUNG QB in place. Tougher to convince a WR or RB that Arizona is right for him if the QB is 37 going on 38.

That of course depends on Matt showing this year he really is going to be a good QB, if he doesn't, he won't help at all luring FA's.