Quarterback Decision Looms

[Joe L]

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.

Your right, it was intercepted but it was intercepted at the SEA 18 yrd line. Ended up on the SEA 41. Hardly deep in our territory. It ended up as a field goal.

The defense gave up 3 TD's soon after. I don't think momentum had anything to do with it...sorry.

Next 3 SEA possessions:

Seattle 21 yrd line after Cards punt....TD
Rackers misses a field goal from 50 yrd line. SEA takes over....TD
punt to 42 yrd line...SEA 42...TD

Are those field possessions a result of Warner? C'mon!

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.

You ain't gonna blame Rackers for missing a field goal? That is his only job. Yeah, Warner should have put on his special cleats and went out there and kicked it himself...right?

Why was Rackers hurried? hmmmm? There was 7 seconds left on the clock. Was that Warner too? C'mon man, cut the guy some slack.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Your right, it was intercepted but it was intercepted at the SEA 18 yrd line. Ended up on the SEA 41. Hardly deep in our territory. It ended up as a field goal.

The defense gave up 3 TD's soon after. I don't think momentum had anything to do with it...sorry.

Next 3 SEA possessions:

Seattle 21 yrd line after Cards punt....TD
Rackers misses a field goal from 50 yrd line. SEA takes over....TD
punt to 42 yrd line...SEA 42...TD

Are those field possessions a result of Warner? C'mon!

We started the game Pick, Punt, weak drive with a missed FG and Punt. I'm gonna say Warner and the defense were equally awful in that game.

You ain't gonna blame Rackers for missing a field goal? That is his only job. Yeah, Warner should have put on his special cleats and went out there and kicked it himself...right?

Why was Rackers hurried? hmmmm? There was 7 seconds left on the clock. Was that Warner too? C'mon man, cut the guy some slack.

I'm not gonna blame Rackers for missing a very tough FG from extremely long range. I'll be furious and was when he blew the Niners and Bears game, but a 55 yarder is a prayer for almost any kicker.

Cut the guy some slack? He had 3 turnovers (one of which went for a TD) and it took a last second drive and a miracle onside kick recovery to even get in position for Racker's prayer after Kurt stunk up the joint all day long. Looking at just the last play (an extremely long FG) just doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[cardsfanmd]

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.




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.

If any one player other than Rackers deserves the blame for that game it would be Darnell Dockett IMO.

 

[Russ Smith]

Lost to SF on a fluke and won vs. Seattle on a fluke so 1-1 was the "shoulda been" record either way. The Baltimore game was lost until Warner came in so "essentially" that was a Leinart loss. That's 1-2 with the safe QB. Pittsburgh I didn't credit to either but Warner certainly played well and better than Leinart. St. Louis was another hard one to call so I left it off. I'm certainly not convinced that Leinart, on his own, gets the Cards wins vs. Pitt and StL.
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. Leinart had 3 good games in '06 and not much else otherwise. And 2 of those were in his first 2 starts. I'm even willing to forgive the sophomore slump/1st year in a new system 2007 but it concerns me that he was a mess in the first half of the KC game. For me, he has to really look solid or good vs. Oakland or he simply deserves the bench for now.

Actually one of the reasons I wish we'd jettisoned Rackers . Matt's first 2 games were KC and the Bears and in both games Matt led crucial drives late in the game completely atypical of a rookie,and in both games Rackers choked makable kicks costing us the games.

I think Rackers missing those kicks destroyed that whole season and sent Matt's rookie year into disarray.

 

[Pariah]

Your right, it was intercepted but it was intercepted at the SEA 18 yrd line. Ended up on the SEA 41. Hardly deep in our territory.

I was at that game. The Cards were moving the ball pretty well. Seattle fans were really quiet during that drive up to that point. You could feel the wind come out of the cards on that INT, and not a single seahawks fan in Qwest Field shut their mouth after it.

It most certainly set the tone for the rest of the game.

 

[D-Dogg]

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.

AMEN! When the bears scored on a questionable strip on edge and a player line drive for a Hester TD, Matt still led us downfield for a game winning FG...he did what he was supposed to do. The kicker missed.

Yeah, that game shows Matt doing a good job in a high-pressure game and leading the team to a potential game winner. He did the same in the KC game, when Rackers again missed. Is matt at fault for Rackers missing those two kicks? I think not.

 

[slanidrac16]

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.

First of all, this forum is ALL opinionated. Just tell me what is so inaccurate?


Originally Posted by RugbyMuffin
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.
Not many more than 8 games since he's been with us.

Joe Montana won some Superbowls, lets give him a call and bring him in.
Okay. This is a little sarcastic.

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.
I don't care what Warner did in 2001.

Warner is just as much a liability as Leinart, and both have an upside to them.
I see this a completely accurate. Both QB's have questionmarks

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.
This is actually stating Warner IS a good player....at times.

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.
See? Even the coaches have OPINIONS.

Most of us who is satisfied or comfortable with the Leinart decision probably believe 2 td passes, no fumbles and 1 int is better than 3 td passes, 2 int(one reurned for td), and a fumble.
Of course, that's just my opinion.

 

[Pariah]

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.

I missed this the first time around.

I can only hope that Lienart's play in that Bears' game is a microcosm of his play in the NFL.

 

[Russ Smith]

I missed this the first time around.

I can only hope that Lienart's play in that Bears' game is a microcosm of his play in the NFL.

Or the Chiefs game where Matt starts the game with a big pass play and finishes the game shaking off a bad INT that started the chiefs comeback, by driving us all the way down for a tying FG, only to watch Rackers choke.

IN the long run firing Dennis Green was great for the franchise but those 2 missed FG's by Rackers completely destroyed that season, next thing you know the OC is fired, the QB coach is the OC which means less one on one time with him and Matt, the coach is a lameduck.

Not surprised at all Matt struggled at times that year the team came apart around him.

 

[Pariah]

Or the Chiefs game where Matt starts the game with a big pass play and finishes the game shaking off a bad INT that started the chiefs comeback, by driving us all the way down for a tying FG, only to watch Rackers choke.

Or to see him hit BJ in the hands (deep down field, BTW) only to have him drop the sure TD that would have ended the game almost before it began.

arrgh. The pain of being a cardinals fan.

 

[WildBB]

First of all, this forum is ALL opinionated. Just tell me what is so inaccurate?


Warner is just as much a liability as Leinart, and both have an upside to them.
I see this a completely accurate. Both QB's have questionmarks

I agree, this thread solves nothing. They have to play it out. You perform you play more. As Whiz so aptly put, "this is a performance based league". They will both get their shots.

It's Leinarts to lose though, obviously.

 

[moklerman]

Not many more than 8 games since he's been with us.

Not a good way to establish your credibility or objectivity. Changing the quote to defend it isn't a good approach. 8 good games since 2001 was inaccurate. Period.

Okay. This is a little sarcastic.

So, you agree...

I don't care what Warner did in 2001.

I don't recall it being mentioned as a reason either. Not sure why it was brought up.

He is a band aid, not a long term solution.
This is actually stating Warner IS a good player....at times

And the fork in the road for most of us. A long term answer at QB is just gravy if you ask me. Win now and hope the players that got you there are back the next year. NFL rosters are much too fluid to worry about long term solutions.

Most of us who is satisfied or comfortable with the Leinart decision probably believe 2 td passes, no fumbles and 1 int is better than 3 td passes, 2 int(one reurned for td), and a fumble.
Of course, that's just my opinion.

I would agree with that statement but I hope you're not insinuating that it represents Warner and Leinart. I won't bother with the inaccuracies/exaggerations of Warner but since when is Leinart 2 to 1 in TD to turnover ratio? He isn't even 1 to 1.

 

[Joe L]

I was at that game. The Cards were moving the ball pretty well. Seattle fans were really quiet during that drive up to that point. You could feel the wind come out of the cards on that INT, and not a single seahawks fan in Qwest Field shut their mouth after it.

It most certainly set the tone for the rest of the game.

Sorry, you are taking the "12th man" too serious. If you think the fan's cheers win games then every home team would win. I saw that game too...on TV. I didn't see the "wind" come out of the Cards in that INT. Maybe you had to be there. I saw a field goal as a result. Then I saw the defense give up 3 straight TD's before the half. I guess the Defense's wind came out before they even hit the field?

 

[moklerman]

Cut the guy some slack? He had 3 turnovers (one of which went for a TD) and it took a last second drive and a miracle onside kick recovery to even get in position for Racker's prayer after Kurt stunk up the joint all day long. Looking at just the last play (an extremely long FG) just doesn't pass the smell test.

I don't blame Rackers for that game either but it is a FG that Rackers could have made. A 55 isn't a "miracle" for a guy with Rackers' leg. For a guy with Rackers' head, yes. Leg, no. This game brings up an apparent lack of consideration of Warner though. Anything positive from him that day should be lauded but it seems to just be considered as any old game. Like him or not, leading the Cards to 14 fourth quarter points and the team having a chance to win the game less than two weeks after dislocating his elbow is commendable.

Matt's first 2 games were KC and the Bears and in both games Matt led crucial drives late in the game completely atypical of a rookie,and in both games Rackers choked makable kicks costing us the games.

It certainly makes one question the mindset of Whis and the front office when they don't even have another kicker in camp.

It most certainly set the tone for the rest of the game.

No Q, Fitz at 60% and no running game along with all the missing starters on D set an earlier tone. That game would have truly been a miracle win considering how decimated the Cardinals were.

Matt still led us downfield for a game winning FG...he did what he was supposed to do. The kicker missed.

I thought the same thing about some of Warner's games but have been told I'm mistaken.

Or the Chiefs game where Matt starts the game with a big pass play and finishes the game shaking off a bad INT that started the chiefs comeback, by driving us all the way down for a tying FG, only to watch Rackers choke.

I know I'd have to really brace myself if I tried the same reasoning out using Warner instead of Leinart.

 

[Cheesebeef]

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

does anyone else find it weird that mokler would bring this stat up. In over half the games played since 2001 Kurt has had a relatively average or below average passer rating, which doesn't even speak to his fumbling problem.

I mean, let's look at Kurt's starts where he played full games. How many times did he even have a better TD:Turnover ratio that was better than 1:1 since 2001?

in 2002, out of 5 starts, he had a better TD:Turnover ratio once. 1/5

in 2003, in his only start, he had 4 turnovers to one TD. 0/1

in 2004, in his 9 games started, he had a better TD:Turnover ratio 3 times. That's 3/9

in 2005, in his out of 10 starts, he was 3/10.

in 2006, he was 2/5.

in 2007, out of he was 6 for 10.

14/40... in only 35% of all Kurt's starts did he even post a more TDs than turnovers for the last 6 years... THAT'S HORRIFIC. HORRIFIC.

Kurt gives them the best chance to be mediocre - no more, possibly (probably) less. I think we're in the same kind of place the Bengals were in with Carson Palmer and Kitna. Kitna had just led the previously woeful Bengals to an 8-8 record with 26 TDs, and 19 turnovers. Did they stick with him? No. They went with Carson who the next year struggled mightily even though he had a very good running game and a good O-line, with a 77.4 passer rating and 2 more turnovers than TDs in his first season. They went 8-8 again in spite of him. Now, did they bench him after that and go back to Kitna who one season prior put up 2007 Warner-like stats? Hell no because they knew what that was going to get them. It was going to get them a season of mediocrity at best and utter craptitude at worst. That's his ceiling - mediocrity. Much the same is true of Warner and Matt. We don't know what we have yet in Matt because of his injury last year and I think the coaches believe that the QB position is the key to being more than mediocre.Is.

 

[Pariah]

Sorry, you are taking the "12th man" too serious. If you think the fan's cheers win games then every home team would win. I saw that game too...on TV. I didn't see the "wind" come out of the Cards in that INT. Maybe you had to be there. I saw a field goal as a result. Then I saw the defense give up 3 straight TD's before the half. I guess the Defense's wind came out before they even hit the field?

I guess you don't believe there are any intangibles in a football game. That's cool, I guess. But being a part of sports for a long time tells me that there is an ebb and flow to just about any contest, and it ebbed from there on out. Maybe you couldn't see it on TV, but you could feel it in that building.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I thought the same thing about some of Warner's games but have been told I'm mistaken.

that's probably because besides leading us to a chance at game winning FG, Leinart did what he was supposed to do throughout the rest of the game, which was to stake us to a big lead, and protect the ball for the most part before a third freak TD, after which Matt STILL led the team down the field for a gimme FG (as opposed to Warner who put us in a deep hole against Washington before what would have been a too little, too late 4th quarter surge that was kept alive only because Rackers set himself up for an extremely long game-winner with an on-side kick, not to mention allowing a HORRIFIC San Fran team to hang around and get back into the game, and even take the lead on us due to his momentum killing and game changing turnovers). Leinart actually played a solid overall game against the Bears, with a passer rating of 88.1 and TD:Turnover ratio of 2:1 as opposed to games you've thought the same thing about Warner where he had 3 or more turnovers and was never close to even a 2:1 TD:Turnover ratio

I do think it's funny though that you can think the same thing about Warner's games (that I assume he finished well), but Matt "ended badly" in a game where he did the same thing as Warner at the end, but also played smarter throughout the rest of it.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I don't blame Rackers for that game either but it is a FG that Rackers could have made. A 55 isn't a "miracle" for a guy with Rackers' leg. For a guy with Rackers' head, yes. Leg, no. This game brings up an apparent lack of consideration of Warner though. Anything positive from him that day should be lauded but it seems to just be considered as any old game. Like him or not, leading the Cards to 14 fourth quarter points and the team having a chance to win the game less than two weeks after dislocating his elbow is commendable.

if you're too injured to play or control the ball or not throw pick 6s or fumble in scoring position late in the game you shouldn't be on the field. Injuries are just an excuse and it's not like those kind of killer turnovers were anything new for Kurt.

It certainly makes one question the mindset of Whis and the front office when they don't even have another kicker in camp.

agreed. why Rackers is still the K I have no idea.

 

[moklerman]

does anyone else find it weird that mokler would bring this stat up.

I didn't bring it up. I was correcting someone else's exaggeration.

THAT'S HORRIFIC. HORRIFIC.

So were most of the teams that you mentioned. But, I'm not arguing that Warner played really well or mistake free during that time. I just don't agree that he's only had 8 good games in the past 7 years.

Kitna had just led the previously woeful Bengals to an 8-8 record with 26 TDs, and 19 turnovers. Did they stick with him? No.

Kitna's 2003 season is a pretty good single season comparison to Warner's 2007 in total. Maybe Warner is just another Kitna but I think Warner's done quite a bit more by winning games in the playoffs to consider them equals. Kitna's never been an elite QB while Warner has been the best in the game. I don't think he still is but I think 80-90% of what Warner once was is far better than Kitna at his best. Warner is a guy who can make a good team a contender. With protection and a good defense he can help a team get to the next level. With poor protection and playing from behind, he'll take risks that lead to turnovers.

As far as Cincy replacing Kitna, I think they chose the better QB but I don't know that it was the right move. Kitna gave a lot to those bad teams and played far too well to be replaced his last year as a starter. I'm not sure of the effect his replacement had on the players but I think it might have been viewed negatively by at least some of them. One playoff appearance in 4 years doesn't seem to warrant throwing Kitna under the bus.

that's probably because besides leading us to a chance at game winning FG...

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.

not to mention allowing a HORRIFIC San Fran team to hang around and get back into the game, and even take the lead on us due to his momentum killing and game changing turnovers).

So Leinart was flawless and his play led to a win vs. the horrific 49ers in 2007, right? Were Leinart's turnovers momentum killing, game changers as well or something else?

I do think it's funny though that you can think the same thing about Warner's games (that I assume he finished well), but Matt "ended badly" in a game where he did the same thing as Warner at the end, but also played smarter throughout the rest of it.

I think that the Chicago game, along with the KC game are both examples of good games for Leinart. However, putting up 14 quick points(putting up 2 good starts in his first 2 starts) then 6 points the final three quarters and the team losing is what I'm talking about(Leinart showing great potential in the beginning and slowly losing playing time and then getting injured again as the bad ending). I'm not discounting what he did in the Chicago game or saying he had a bad game or cost the Cardinals the win.

if you're too injured to play or control the ball or not throw pick 6s or fumble in scoring position late in the game you shouldn't be on the field. Injuries are just an excuse and it's not like those kind of killer turnovers were anything new for Kurt.

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. 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. 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.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

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.

Thanks for the insightful assumptions, presumptions... and psychobabble.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

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

Yes it is. It is ultimately the QB's fault when you get sacked in the endzone. It isn't like he had no time to react, he could have thrown the ball away. He just doesn't. If it isn't there, he takes the sack.

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.

What would I do? Well, I wouldn't force the ball into triple coverage for one. There is absolutely NO excuse for throwing 5 picks in a game. When the team that wins the turnover battle wins 85% of the time in the NFL, all I have to do is show you 5INT's to prove a point. Give me back my 1/2 credit and give me an extra one for being so silly.

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

If Rackers gets criticized for every mistake, so should Warner.... Wait, he made more mistakes than Rackers did.

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

Both.

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

So are you really trying to convince us that Warner isn't really at fault at any of these games, because there was no way of getting out of the end zone, only threw 4 picks instead of 5 because of a hailmary, and going 33% and 2 INT's is ok, because he went up against the #1 defense?

Seriously?

 

[Russ Smith]

Or to see him hit BJ in the hands (deep down field, BTW) only to have him drop the sure TD that would have ended the game almost before it began.

arrgh. The pain of being a cardinals fan.

True but without that we would have never got the classic Vince photoshop of that drop!

 

[dreamcastrocks]

True but without that we would have never got the classic Vince photoshop of that drop!

That might be the best photoshop ever.

 

[Russ Smith]

I don't blame Rackers for that game either but it is a FG that Rackers could have made. A 55 isn't a "miracle" for a guy with Rackers' leg. For a guy with Rackers' head, yes. Leg, no. This game brings up an apparent lack of consideration of Warner though. Anything positive from him that day should be lauded but it seems to just be considered as any old game. Like him or not, leading the Cards to 14 fourth quarter points and the team having a chance to win the game less than two weeks after dislocating his elbow is commendable.
It certainly makes one question the mindset of Whis and the front office when they don't even have another kicker in camp.
No Q, Fitz at 60% and no running game along with all the missing starters on D set an earlier tone. That game would have truly been a miracle win considering how decimated the Cardinals were.
I thought the same thing about some of Warner's games but have been told I'm mistaken.
I know I'd have to really brace myself if I tried the same reasoning out using Warner instead of Leinart.

I just typed out a long brilliant reply and then my IE crashed, so here goes again.

Take a step back for a second and forget we're talking about Kurt Warner.
We have 2 QB's, one is currently 25, the other is currently 37. The game in question or games were 2 years ago so one was 23, the other was 35.

Can you not see why it's not out of the realm of normalcy to suggest that the impact of those games on the 23 year old rookie, his first 2 NFL starts, were significantly different than it would be on a 35 year old with the years of experience Warner had?

Matt's rookie year was off to a fairly remarkable start he played extremely well in his first 2 starts, if not for Rackers choking we likely win both starts in large part due to Leinart. But instead Rackers chokes, the team implodes and everything goes to hell which predictably takes Matt's level of play down with it(see stinkers against Raiders and Packers as exhibit 1 and 2).

Last year new coach comes in, completely remakes Leinart as a QB, new offense, new mechanics, Matt predictably is struggling, then he gets hurt.
Comes back this year, new outlook on preparation, better mechanics, healthier, in the words of his coaches much more comfortable in the system. Can you not see how a franchise would think it makes sense to play that guy now and see if they can get back to where they were in those first 2 starts before the Dennis Green implosion? Can you not see why a team would want to see if what they saw in those first 2 starts was real, rather than starting a 37 year old guy with a tendency to take too many risks and too many sacks trying to go downfield on a team with a coach who apparently doesnt' want to play that way?

Kurt did a terrific job last year under the circumstances, but NFL teams don't sit a 25 year old with talent like Leinart showed early, for a 37 year old guy with a history like Warner has since about 2001.

You keep saying this is the first good coaching Warner has had in years, guess what it's the first good coaching matt has EVER had in the NFL, if it's reasonable for you to assume Warner is improved because of gloves and coaching isn't it just as reasonable to assume Matt can improve because of that same coaching? Dont' talented young QB's usually improve year over year? and here's the kicker, those same good coaches that you think have turned Warner's career around have watched both guys and apparently decided Matt should start, and you're convinced it's a mistake. Why would it be so easy for you to believe these good coaches are that stupid?

 

[Joe L]

Yes it is. It is ultimately the QB's fault when you get sacked in the endzone.

Less than 2 seconds and the D-man untouched is th QB's fault? A broken play
without time to react and it it is the QB's fault...Allllriggghhhht?

It isn't like he had no time to react, he could have thrown the ball away. He just doesn't. If it isn't there, he takes the sack.

he takes the sack and we lose by 2 points instead of 6...whaaa?????

If you care to refresh your memory, here are the highlights of that game:
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=29367&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2007&week=REG12

What would I do? Well, I wouldn't force the ball into triple coverage for one. There is absolutely NO excuse for throwing 5 picks in a game. *When the team that wins the turnover battle wins 85% of the time in the NFL, all I have to do is show you 5INT's to prove a point. Give me back my 1/2 credit and give me an extra one for being so silly.

When your down by 24 points before the half, what are you supposed to do? Run a conservative offense? You take risks.

* care to cite that stat? Are you making it up or is it an actual fact? Cause if that is the case, Leinart isn't much better when it comes to TO's:

13 TDs 16 INTs 8 fumbles...2 lost.
* when your turning the ball over more than you can put up points, guess what? The chances of losing a game are greater than 85% of the time.

And if he continues on that marvelous streak of his ( less than a TD a game vs over 1 TO per game) while our defense allowed 25 points a game last season, what are his chances of pulling a game out this season? Warner might
be prone to TO's but his production last season kept us in games where our defense failed us. His offense averaged 25 points a game while the defense allowed 25 points a game...about evenly split...eh? That gave us a 50/50 chance to win the game...right? What was our record at the end of the season? 8-8? About .500...right? What if Leinart didn't get injured? Would he have been able to win any games with his averages? You can put a % on that one if you like.

If Rackers gets criticized for every mistake, so should Warner.... Wait, he made more mistakes than Rackers did.

Fair enough, but Rackers is paid good money to do one JOB.

So are you really trying to convince us that Warner isn't really at fault at any of these games, because there was no way of getting out of the end zone, only threw 4 picks instead of 5 because of a hailmary, and going 33% and 2 INT's is ok, because he went up against the #1 defense?

Seriously?

I'm really not trying to convince you of anything. You want to place ALL the blame on him and I am just opening your eyes.