The thing that depresses me about the future

[Russ Smith]

You have no idea whether McCown is the future here or not.

True but an educated guess says Green replaces QB's regularly and Green benched Josh for Shaun King, John Navarre, and Kurt Warner in the last year, so Green probably doesn't see Josh as his QB of the future?

Seriously, people have to consider that just maybe the reason Green spoke so glowingly of Josh McCown is that before Green was hired, the Cards intentions were to draft Ben Roethlisberger or Philip Rivers and if you're trying to convince a team to pass on a QB to take a WR, you have to give them a viable solution at QB.

 

[TheCardFan]

That's fine, but "playing at a high level" is an objective observation, and that's not the truth.

So all of a sudden...your "objective observation" is the truth?

So...Daunte Culpepper sucks?

I don't need stats to see with my own eyes. He is the best QB we have had in AZ since Lomax...that is what 16 or so years?

He has nearly ZERO running game and a line that can't keep defenders off of him...does this sound familiar?

No he's not perfect...but I'll keep him.

 

[kerouac9]

So all of a sudden...your "objective observation" is the truth?

So...Daunte Culpepper sucks?

I don't need stats to see with my own eyes. He is the best QB we have had in AZ since Lomax...that is what 16 or so years?

He has nearly ZERO running game and a line that can't keep defenders off of him...does this sound familiar?

No he's not perfect...but I'll keep him.

Well, Daunte Culpepper isn't as good as he was when Randy Moss was there, obviously. Show where I said that Kurt Warner sucks--or have anywhere on this board. Go ahead.

Again, "the best QB we have had in AZ since Lomax" doesn't mean "playing at a high level." "10th best QB in the NFL" means "playing at a high level," even if that just means in the upper third. "16th QB in the NFL" means--objectively and honestly--mediocre. There isn't a lot of way around it.

Again, Tim Rattay dominated the Rams defense the week before, also at home. Kurt Warner graded out a "B" in his passer rating. Even if we're talking old, immoble, broken-down QBs, I'd rather have Bledsoe than Warner at this point. Bledsoe hasn't benefited from much of a ground game (Julius Jones is only averaging 3.6 YPC), but has still managed to move his offense into scoring position and then score TDs.

It's not like I'm saying here "Look at the balls Warner throws! Toss out the numbers, the guy stinks!" I'm saying, "Look at the numbers in comparison to other QBs in the NFL--against other defenses that he's played against. The guy is mediocre. He's not 'playing at a high level.' And there's nothing to suggest that he has or can for another two or three years."

But if you want to insist that in your objective opinion as a fellow who apparently doesn't watch other NFL teams that Kurt Warner is a stud, more power to you, sir. Just admit that you have nothing but "your own eyes" to back you up, and that those are wearing Cardinal Red-colored glasses.

 

[TheCardFan]

But if you want to insist that in your objective opinion as a fellow who apparently doesn't watch other NFL teams that Kurt Warner is a stud, more power to you, sir. Just admit that you have nothing but "your own eyes" to back you up, and that those are wearing Cardinal Red-colored glasses.

K9...you don't know me or my viewing habits.

You said Kurt was "mediocre"...I disagree. No big deal.

With your same logic and stats, you are also saying the Culpepper sucks or is at least less than "mediocre" and that Dilfer is as good or better a QB...maybe even Blake.

We can agree to disagree. At this point, if I had to grade Kurt it would be a B...if he gets into the endzone, that elavates to a solid A.

JMO

 

[kerouac9]

K9...you don't know me or my viewing habits.

You said Kurt was "mediocre"...I disagree. No big deal.

With your same logic and stats, you are also saying the Culpepper sucks or is at least less than "mediocre" and that Dilfer is as good or better a QB...maybe even Blake.

We can agree to disagree. At this point, if I had to grade Kurt it would be a B...if he gets into the endzone, that elavates to a solid A.

JMO

No, that's not what you said or what I said. This is what you said:

I don't think there is any reason why Kurt can't keep playing at a high level this year, 2006, and maybe even 2007, provided he doesn't break his neck behind our line.

What I said in return was this:

Ummm... "keep playing"? What Kurt Warner are you watching? The one that I've been watching has put up a 77.4 passer rating (16th in the NFL), and is completing 63% of his passes. That sounds like the definition of "Mediocre" to me.

The luminaries that have been performing better than Warner so far this season include Drew Bledsoe, Trent Dilfer, Mark Brunell, and Brian Griese. And by "luminaries" I do mean "has beens."

Did I say that Dilfer was "better" than Kurt? Oh, no. I said that he was playing better than Kurt. Do the numbers bear that out? Oh, yes they do. Equally, do I think that Daunte is better than Kurt? Of course I do. Do I think that he's playing better than Warner? No. Being better and playing better are totally different things.

So, we can talk about what I'm saying and you can try and justify your assertion that Warner is "playing at a high level", which is impossible to prove because it's the opposite of the truth, or you can admit that you're homing and that Kurt is what he's been the past four seasons: a mediocre QB. A mediocre QB in Arizona is no different than a mediocre QB in New York or St. Louis. Kurt Warner's "high level" of play has earned the Cardinals an 0-2 record so far this season. That's the horse you want to hitch this wagon to?

If Warner is "playing at a high level", then what is Brian Griese doing? Do I think that Kurt Warner is the fifth-best has been starting QB in the NFL? No. I think he's the third-best has-been starter in the NFL, behind Bledsoe and Griese. You can't argue about the quality of a player in a vacuum.

EDIT: TCF, do you have any inclination to respond to this point?

Kurt did put up an 82.1 passer rating against the 49ers, but that's not saying much considering that they may have the worst secondary in the NFL and that the illustrious Tim Rattay--he of the 61.0 career passer rating--had a 141.9 rating against the Rams beind a nearly-as-bad offensive line and an even less productive ground game (Kevan Barlow had 22 rushing yards and a 1.6 YPC average against the Rams). If you want to get on the "Kurt Warner is just as good as Tim Rattay" bandwagon, you're more than welcome. By the way, Rattay's targers were a bunch of guys that couldn't start on any other team in the NFL.

 

[Duckjake]

and is completing 63% of his passes.

If he keeps that up it will be the highest completion % in Cardinal history.

How is a 63% completion rate mediocre? Are you saying that the low passer rating is even worse because of his high completion rate?

Warners' passer rating would be much higher if the Cardinals didn't have the leagues most overrated Wide Receivers. Completing 63% of your passes to a bunch of guys who never get open and are prone to drop the ball when they do is better than mediocre in my book.

 

[kerouac9]

Well, I guess it depends on whether or not you're happier with a QB who completes a lot of passes, or a QB who wins a lot of games. A bunch of completions are pretty meaningless if they don't get you into the end zone, don't they?

Having the best completion % in Cardinal history is a dubious distinction at best, anyway. If Warner keeps that up, it will still be his third-worst performance as a starting quarterback in his career. You can't consider stats in a vacuum.

 

[kerouac9]

Completing 63% of your passes to a bunch of guys who never get open and are prone to drop the ball when they do is better than mediocre in my book.

You can keep repeating this like it's true if it makes you feel better, but the fact of the matter is that the Cards' top 3 WRs have dropped all of two passes in 56 targets, and the top 4 have dropped four passes in 65 targets.

But don't let the facts get in the way, or anything.

 

[Duckjake]

You can keep repeating this like it's true if it makes you feel better, but the fact of the matter is that the Cards' top 3 WRs have dropped all of two passes in 56 targets, and the top 4 have dropped four passes in 65 targets.

But don't let the facts get in the way, or anything.

So who was that dropping the ball in the redzone last week? The Rams receivers?

 

[vince56]

Seriously, people have to consider that just maybe the reason Green spoke so glowingly of Josh McCown is that before Green was hired, the Cards intentions were to draft Ben Roethlisberger or Philip Rivers and if you're trying to convince a team to pass on a QB to take a WR, you have to give them a viable solution at QB.

You speak more truth than anyone else on this board

 

[Redheart]

So who was that dropping the ball in the redzone last week? The Rams receivers?

Speaking of dropping balls; what has happened to BJ?

It is like he forgets about catching the ball. I saw two plays last game when he was running to spot without looking for the ball. I swear he had a play on one if just layed out for it and the other he didn't seem to even be looking, almost shying away from the ball.

I thing this guy has catch-anxiety.

 

[kerouac9]

So who was that dropping the ball in the redzone last week? The Rams receivers?

But that's not what you said, you said that the Cardinal WRs were "a bunch of guys who are prone to drop the ball [when they do get open]." The facts don't bear that out. You can say that they might not be dependable in crunch time (though Warner's decision not to go to his two best targets in the red zone certainly doesn't decry his above-average-ness), but the fact remains that Larry Fitzgerald is 5th in the league in receiving yardage, 1st in receptions, and Anquan Boldin is not far behind (T12th for Receptions, 11th in yardage). Go ahead and spin that as being the most overrated WR crew in the NFL. Only Stallworth and Horn combine for better numbers.

One instance isn't a trend, and it's really not a fact. The facts point to the WRs being very good, and the QB being very average.

 

[Duckjake]

Well, I guess it depends on whether or not you're happier with a QB who completes a lot of passes, or a QB who wins a lot of games. A bunch of completions are pretty meaningless if they don't get you into the end zone, don't they?

Having the best completion % in Cardinal history is a dubious distinction at best, anyway. If Warner keeps that up, it will still be his third-worst performance as a starting quarterback in his career. You can't consider stats in a vacuum.

You said Warner's completion % sucked. I wanted to know why you thought what could be the highest completion % in Cardinal history and currently top 10 in the NFL was symbolic of mediocre QB performance. Nobody ever said that it was great. Nobody said they would rather have a high completion % than wins. You just made that up. When you get through with your usual obfuscation you can answer the question.

 

[Evil Ash]

True but an educated guess says Green replaces QB's regularly and Green benched Josh for Shaun King, John Navarre, and Kurt Warner in the last year, so Green probably doesn't see Josh as his QB of the future?

Seriously, people have to consider that just maybe the reason Green spoke so glowingly of Josh McCown is that before Green was hired, the Cards intentions were to draft Ben Roethlisberger or Philip Rivers and if you're trying to convince a team to pass on a QB to take a WR, you have to give them a viable solution at QB.

Or maybe he thought he could get McCown to live up to his potential. Its really hard to say at this point but the top 5 Denny had on his draft board only featured 1 QB ... Eli Manning.

We don't know what's going on in Denny's head and anyone that says they do are lying

 

[Russ Smith]

Or maybe he thought he could get McCown to live up to his potential. Its really hard to say at this point but the top 5 Denny had on his draft board only featured 1 QB ... Eli Manning.

We don't know what's going on in Denny's head and anyone that says they do are lying

But before Green was hired it was widely reported everywhere that the Cards were going to take Ben. Rivers shot up the board later. So my comment was that when Green was hired, and wanted Fitz, he HAD to have a QB so he annointed Josh the next Culpepper, compared him to Favre, and convinced the rest of the braintrust we didn't need to draft a QB.

I don't doubt Ben wasn't in Green's top 5, he couldn't be or there'd have been more debate over passing on him.

 

[kerouac9]

You said Warner's completion % sucked. I wanted to know why you thought what could be the highest completion % in Cardinal history and currently top 10 in the NFL was symbolic of mediocre QB performance. Nobody ever said that it was great. Nobody said they would rather have a high completion % than wins. You just made that up. When you get through with your usual obfuscation you can answer the question.

No, I said his performance was mediocre. Point to one time since Warner has been a Cardinal that I have said he "sucks." Go ahead. Find one instance. Find where I said that Warner's completion perceate sucked. Anywhere. When you get through with your usual invention of things that happened, maybe you can talk honestly about Warner's performance.

TheCardFan said that Warner was playing at a high level, and I said that he was playing at literally a mediocre level, and then justified that with stats. No one's refuted the stats or the performance.

Having the highest completion % in Cardinal history is like being the winninest coach in Clipper history. Enough said.

As for the completion percentage being relatively meaningless, look at the players in the Top 10. Neither Brett Favre (#3) nor Warner (#7) have won a game yet. Aaron Brooks, Drew Bledsoe, Donnie McNabb, Trent Dilfer, and Chad Pennington are all 1-1. The only QBs in the Top 10 for completion percentage that are above .500 are Griese, Palmer, and Roethlisberger. Only Aaron Brooks has thrown for as many or fewer TDs than Warner has among the top 11 QBs in completion percentage.

Look back at the Tim Rattay post and explain to me how, if Warner is so good, why Rattay lit up the Rams' D like a pinball machine and Warner looked like--well, Kurt Warner...

 

[Duckjake]

But that's not what you said, you said that the Cardinal WRs were "a bunch of guys who are prone to drop the ball [when they do get open]." The facts don't bear that out. You can say that they might not be dependable in crunch time (though Warner's decision not to go to his two best targets in the red zone certainly doesn't decry his above-average-ness), but the fact remains that Larry Fitzgerald is 5th in the league in receiving yardage, 1st in receptions, and Anquan Boldin is not far behind (T12th for Receptions, 11th in yardage). Go ahead and spin that as being the most overrated WR crew in the NFL. Only Stallworth and Horn combine for better numbers.

One instance isn't a trend, and it's really not a fact. The facts point to the WRs being very good, and the QB being very average.

What would you rather have WR's with big numbers or game winning catches? They can run up all the yards and catches in the world but it doesn't mean anything if they don't get in the endzone to win the game. The Cards had what 1 or 2 TD catches in the second half of wins last year?

 

[JeffGollin]

Warner has not played mistake free football so far. But tell me what QB could play to that standard when he has to get rid of the ball as quickly as Kurt has typically had to do behind our O-line.

From what I've seen in the past 2 games, in pure terms, Warner is good enough for us to win with. McCown and even Mike Vick would have trouble escaping guys who blast up the middle and get to the QB seemingly before the snap from center does.

How long Warner can play at a satisfactorily high level is debatable. But right now, I think he's doing OK considering the circumstances.

I think the frustrating thing for all of us is that we've seen flashes of what Kurt can do when he's playing at a high level only to see him fall short in a few key situations - i.e. he hasn't stepped up to make a crunch-time play yet, and this is what top QB's are paid to do.

Then again, I think it's easier for your QB to come up big when his blocking is a little better.

 

[TheCardFan]

EDIT: TCF, do you have any inclination to respond to this point?

I am not going to go back and he said he said with you...since you don't want to be reasonable or objective you want to be right.

I have my opinion...if I am not able to prove it, then you are not able to disprove it. You can read his stats and see one thing and I can see another, and someone else can take a different view.

I think Kurt is playing at a high level. Are we winning? No. Is he playing like a Super Bowl MVP, no. My opninion is based on things that he can completely control like throwing the ball accurately. Things like center/QB exhcange, wr's dropping the ball, running the wrong routes, players not picking up blitzes or not blocking from the line that result in a sack are part of things he has very little (snap) to no control over. Taking a sack can be both controlled (not throwing the ball away blindly) or not controlled...AKA snap, one step, hello turf.

I would rather he not take a sack in the red zone at all. But I would also rather he take a sack and we get a FG than throwing the ball or fumbling the ball away to the other team and we get zero points.

Yes, I am a Kool-Aid drinker. With the futility this team has had over the 30+ years I have rooted for them...I don't believe there to be any other way to be. I can understand being a darksider if you became a fan 1989 (Arizona) forward...but why continue to be miserable?

Call me stupid but at least I am loyal.

 

[kerouac9]

What would you rather have WR's with big numbers or game winning catches? They can run up all the yards and catches in the world but it doesn't mean anything if they don't get in the endzone to win the game. The Cards had what 1 or 2 TD catches in the second half of wins last year?

Do you want to stay on one subject for more than a post after it gets refuted, or what? Admit you're done, and stop changing the subject. It's not easy hitting a moving target.

Last year was last year. I've talked about it ad nauseum. I don't really understand what bearing it has on this discussion, considering that we have a new OC, new QB, and a healthy Anquan Boldin.

Even then, it's hard for them to make those winning catches in the end zone to win games when the "playing at a high level" QB keeps taking sacks and failing to stop the clock when the game is on the line. But I'm guessing that's somehow the WRs' fault.

 

[Duckjake]

No, I said his performance was mediocre. Point to one time since Warner has been a Cardinal that I have said he "sucks." Go ahead. Find one instance. Find where I said that Warner's completion perceate sucked. Anywhere. When you get through with your usual invention of things that happened, maybe you can talk honestly about Warner's performance.

TheCardFan said that Warner was playing at a high level, and I said that he was playing at literally a mediocre level, and then justified that with stats. No one's refuted the stats or the performance.

Having the highest completion % in Cardinal history is like being the winninest coach in Clipper history. Enough said.

As for the completion percentage being relatively meaningless, look at the players in the Top 10. Neither Brett Favre (#3) nor Warner (#7) have won a game yet. Aaron Brooks, Drew Bledsoe, Donnie McNabb, Trent Dilfer, and Chad Pennington are all 1-1. The only QBs in the Top 10 for completion percentage that are above .500 are Griese, Palmer, and Roethlisberger. Only Aaron Brooks has thrown for as many or fewer TDs than Warner has among the top 11 QBs in completion percentage.

Look back at the Tim Rattay post and explain to me how, if Warner is so good, why Rattay lit up the Rams' D like a pinball machine and Warner looked like--well, Kurt Warner...

You implied the completion % was mediocre. If it is meaningless then why bring it up at all?

Having the highest completion % in Cardinal history is like being the winninest coach in Clipper history. Enough said.

So you are saying that Charley Johnson, Jim Hart and Neil Lomax were bad quarterbacks?

 

[kerouac9]

Warner has not played mistake free football so far. But tell me what QB could play to that standard when he has to get rid of the ball as quickly as Kurt has typically had to do behind our O-line.

Tim Rattay.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

What I envision is a scenario where Warner buys us a year or two and (if the #$%^& offensive line can get its act together) we can still be a playoff-caliber team during this period.

Then the question becomes - "Can McCown improve to a point where he moves from backup and QBOF to a starting QB we can win with?" Since backup QB's are seldom seen or heard, only the coaches know (at least for now).

What I wouldn't be upset about would be if we were able to draft Vince Young this Spring with the goal of building our offensive system, once again, to one that centers around a mobile QB (McCown and Young both fit that profile).

The scenarios could be (a) Warner remains our starter for 2005 and 2006, with McCown phased in if and when he can prove he's better for us than Warner. Young becomes his backup. (b) McCown takes over as starter to start 2006 with Young as his backup. (c) Young proves he's so good, despite being a rookie that he becomes the starter and McCown remains a backup. (There's a 4th scenario (d) where McCown replaces Warner sometime during this season, but I don't even want to contemplate that).

Jeff did you happen to be around for last season? Im thinking McCown is a capable back up but thats about it.

 

[Duckjake]

Last year was last year.

But last year counts when you are talking about Marcel Shipp? Of course last year and 2003 count but not 2002 depending on what point you are trying to make.)

So is past history an indicator of future performance or not? You can't have it both ways.

Do you want to stay on one subject for more than a post after it gets refuted, or what? Admit you're done, and stop changing the subject. It's not easy hitting a moving target.

 

[Wild Card]

Look back at the Tim Rattay post and explain to me how, if Warner is so good, why Rattay lit up the Rams' D like a pinball machine and Warner looked like--well, Kurt Warner...

K9:

"Like a pinball machine," eh? Tim Rattay threw for 165 total passing yards against the Rams in week 1. His team converted 14 percent (1 of 7) of their third downs. And his dazzling completion rate of 69 percent was on all of 16 passes. I know you were exaggerating to make a point, but c'mon.

Rattay is a marginal NFL starter on his best day. Even at this point in his career, Kurt Warner is more than that.

WC