The Warner of Old

[Gambit]

LOL.

The season comes full circle after 13 weeks.

Mitch and Moklerman fighting for Warner tooth and nail. The more things change........

I like CB's idea of not paying Warner and using the money to balance the team.

We need a better OL, and better OLB's more than anything.

Hey but at least we know what we have in Warner. LOL.

It's a strange world.

 

[IAWarnerFan]

Isn't what usually happens on message boards? One person makes a comment and then another person quotes that comment and responds in a way they agree or disagree. And it's not just me responding to you. There's a lot of people who are either confused or disagree with what you're saying.



so you want to platoon QBs as we try to get as ship-shape as possible heading into the playoffs? That makes very little sense to me because a) just throwing out Matt into a series or two a game isn't gonna show what he has because most QB need to have some kind of rythym to play well and b) by doing the above, you're going to breaking Warner's rythym. The above plan is throwing a monkey wrench into the offense at this point of the season. It has the potential to be really hurtful, not only on the field, but off the field as well, getting into Kurt's head. That's the LAST thing this team needs as they try to gel as much as possible headed towards the playoff. All that nmove has the potential to do is "mess everything up".

It has the potential to screw us up in the present and isn't a long enough period of time to determine the future. That seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

Fair enough.

What do you suggest we do? Get rid of old man Warner in favor of young gun ML?

 

[Cheesebeef]

Fair enough.

What do you suggest we do? Get rid of old man Warner in favor of young gun ML?

i don't know to tell you the truth. I think if Warner gets back to the way he was playing in the first half of the season, you sign him for two years. But if he continues on this shaky trend the last three games for the rest of the season then you go with the future and hope that by saving money on Warner's salary in the coming off-season, you're able to use that money to build enough around Matt to let him grow into the job.

you want things to be black and white with me, but they're not.

 

[Russ Smith]

Lets clear some things up about Matt’s contract.

Matts base salaries will be –

2009 – 1.11 mill.
2010 – 2.485 mill.
2011 – 7.26 mill.

Matt has not reached and will not be able to reach the incentives in his contract in order to escalate those base salaries so those base salaries are and will be those base salaries for the remaining 3 years of his deal. The only incentive/bonus he can still earn is the 14 mill bonus in 2010. Thus his cap charges for the 3 remaining years will be set in stone if he gets that roster bonus.

2009 – 4.958 mill.
2010 – 13.33 mill.
2011 – 18.21 mill.

Note that his contract is exactly in line with any other top 10 pick or big time contract given out of the NFL that gets a contract of 6 to 7 years long. All of them will have sort of a what agents would call “lets renegotiate/extend this contract so my player can get more money before they are washed up” clause. So this isn’t a stupid cards how could they give such a stupid contract situation, it is a league wide standard with long contracts. It’s the same thing that happened to Fitz, is just that we waited to long to renegotiate Fitz deal before his bonus kicked in. It will also happened when Brady and Manning get to the last year or two of their deals as well. Again it is a standard clause for all long term big money deals. For something similar and recent look no further then Aaron Rodgers. He to was due a roster bonus and they to had to find out what Rodgers had before giving him that roster bonus and thus ended up actually giving him a new deal instead of paying him that roster bonus that was due to him.

So no matter if Warner re-signed or not it does not matter, Matts contract would have and will still have to be dealt with before the 2010 season and his roster bonus is due. If Warner wasn’t here ever, that would still be the case. Warner being here just makes it a lot harder to work out.

Thanks Joe, I assumed that not playing was going to impact Matt's ability to hit incentives and it does but the roster bonus is the one that's going to have to be negotiated.

 

[nashman]

Yeah that 18 mil in 2011 is quite a hit unless he is a pro bowl QB by that time.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Fair enough.

What do you suggest we do? Get rid of old man Warner in favor of young gun ML?

I don't pay more than 5 million a year for him, two years tops.

If he won't sign for that, then you go with Leinart and use that money elsewhere.

 

[Russ Smith]

Yeah that 18 mil in 2011 is quite a hit unless he is a pro bowl QB by that time.

Of course the idea is he'll never get to that point. We made that mistake with Fitz last year, waited too long and then had to redo it to avoid a huge escalation, I'm betting we won't make that mistake again with Matt.

Huge rookie deals are designed to be renegotiated before the end of the deal. The main idea is the bigger it sounds, the better job the agent is perceived to have done and that helps him get more clients in the future.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Yeah that 18 mil in 2011 is quite a hit unless he is a pro bowl QB by that time.

even if he is a Pro-Bowler that 18 million is more than any team could probably handle.

 

[IAWarnerFan]

I don't pay more than 5 million a year for him, two years tops.

If he won't sign for that, then you go with Leinart and use that money elsewhere.

OK, so he leads your team to the playoffs with a very limited running game (almost non existent), a very limited defense, and you want to reward him with a two year tops contract with a salary of a million less per year? Ok, got it.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

OK, so he leads your team to the playoffs with a very limited running game (almost non existent), a very limited defense, and you want to reward him with a two year tops contract with a salary of a million less per year? Ok, got it.

I am anticipating his production compared to the risk that his age poses. Sorry but that is the reality.

 

[82CardsGrad]

I don't pay more than 5 million a year for him, two years tops.

If he won't sign for that, then you go with Leinart and use that money elsewhere.

I'm as big of a Warner fan as anyone on this board, and I totally agree with the above statement!

 

[Russ Smith]

OK, so he leads your team to the playoffs with a very limited running game (almost non existent), a very limited defense, and you want to reward him with a two year tops contract with a salary of a million less per year? Ok, got it.

Warner has played really well this year but let's be honest, we're only talking about playoffs here because the rest of our division is so bad.

 

[Zeno]

As much as I like (for the most part) what Warner has done this year I am hoping for Matt Leinart to develop in to our starting QB by next season. Leinart is only going to get better, Warner is past his prime and he is able to put up great numbers as his best asset right now over Leinart is gameday experience. They obviously can't compete on a level playing field based on that. We haven't heard a peep out of Leinart this season, no pouting, no stories of him not giving a full effort in practice...nothing. Yet he still gets the derogatory "Hollywood Matt" label.

 

[Cheesebeef]

OK, so he leads your team to the playoffs with a very limited running game (almost non existent), a very limited defense, and you want to reward him with a two year tops contract with a salary of a million less per year? Ok, got it.

isn't he making 4 million per right now? I could be wrong on that but I thought that was the extension we got him at. I'd go with Chris' option with a 5 million dollar deal but tweak it a little to make it a 5 million per deal with incentives to go to 7-8.

also, you just can't ignore his age, the fact that the one of the main reasons it looks like we're going to the playoffs is because of our division, his penchant for turnovers, his on again, off again thoughts about retiring, his health (which has been miraculous so far this year compared to the rest of his career) and the fact that if he does get a franchise QB contract, the team won't really be able to get much better due to our position salary cap wise . it's just too easy to say "look at his numbers!" as if none of these other things exist.

 

[moklerman]

isn't he making 4 million per right now? I could be wrong on that but I thought that was the extension we got him at. I'd go with Chris' option with a 5 million dollar deal but tweak it a little to make it a 5 million per deal with incentives to go to 7-8.

Joeschmo, thank you very much for those numbers on Leinart.

This proposal sounds very realistic and I would bet that's where the numbers end up. A lot of Minnesota this and Chicago that has been mentioned but I would be very surprised if Warner didn't take any reasonable offer from Arizona even if other places offer more.

Now, let's see him get back on track so everyone can enjoy the idea of it happening. I don't argue that he's struggled, like the whole team, on the road the last couple of weeks but let's all remember that compared to last year the Cardinals can now beat SF and Seattle on the road and continues to play good teams tough in many cases. They are still growing and I think Warner can help with the continued process.

NYJ, NYG and Philly show that they're not there yet but since the rest of the team struggled along with Warner I'm not ready to replace him as "the" problem.

I'm leaving the proverbial ball for everyone else to now play with because I do indeed have a job.

 

[CardLogic]

....and yet ...oh well......These guys would look at Jessica Simpson and complain about her elbows.

Ok, this has gone on long enough...

I didn't want to do it but this thread forced me into it!

 

[IAWarnerFan]

I say I've go it and people still want to use my quote. Unbelievable!

$5 Million (with incentives that could make it as much as $8M) to make Warner your full time starter for the next 3 years or If I was Warner I'd look deeply at other teams that will offer that (and don't think there wouldn't be such an offer.)

 

[slanidrac16]

Sooner or later it will be life without Warner.

If Leinart is to be our QB one would think we need to bolster our running game and defense a bit. Leinart I believe can still turn out to be the guy we all hoped he would be when we drafted him, but there is no way we can expect him to do what Warner is doing the way Warner does it,

Warner relies on experience. He can read and react and has is very accurate. Leinart, I believe, would run a more methodical, ball control type offense. However, to do that we would have to change a few pieces of the puzzle.

I believe Warner will be here next year because I don't believe he wants to uproot his family for what will turn out to be a couple of more years. I don't believe money is going to be his driving force. He will accept a decent contract unless some team swoops him off his feet with an extravagant offer.

 

[Stout]

Sooner or later it will be life without Warner.

If Leinart is to be our QB one would think we need to bolster our running game and defense a bit. Leinart I believe can still turn out to be the guy we all hoped he would be when we drafted him, but there is no way we can expect him to do what Warner is doing the way Warner does it,

Warner relies on experience. He can read and react and has is very accurate. Leinart, I believe, would run a more methodical, ball control type offense. However, to do that we would have to change a few pieces of the puzzle.

I believe Warner will be here next year because I don't believe he wants to uproot his family for what will turn out to be a couple of more years. I don't believe money is going to be his driving force. He will accept a decent contract unless some team swoops him off his feet with an extravagant offer.

Let's be fair to Leinart--him starting in and of itself would give a bit of a boost to the running game. We wouldn't have to rely on draws out of the shotgun, because Leinart has the youth and ability to play very well from under center. He also gets the ball to the back quicker. Would this completely change the complexion of our run game? Is Warner the only problem with our run game? A resounding NO to both questions. Still, Leinart would certainly help just by stepping under center.

 

[IAWarnerFan]

Let's be fair to Leinart--him starting in and of itself would give a bit of a boost to the running game. We wouldn't have to rely on draws out of the shotgun, because Leinart has the youth and ability to play very well from under center. He also gets the ball to the back quicker. Would this completely change the complexion of our run game? Is Warner the only problem with our run game? A resounding NO to both questions. Still, Leinart would certainly help just by stepping under center.

Agreed, but we know what we have in Warner. A great QB that even though makes great passes that very limited QBs can make, also makes a few that are headscratching decions here and there, is still one of the best decision makers and leaders in the game. With ML, all we have to go on is the limited time he's been allowed to play and overall has more Ints than TDs. He may be better than that, but who's to say for sure?

 

[Stout]

Agreed, but we know what we have in Warner. A great QB that even though makes great passes that very limited QBs can make, also makes a few that are headscratching decions here and there, is still one of the best decision makers and leaders in the game. With ML, all we have to go on is the limited time he's been allowed to play and overall has more Ints than TDs. He may be better than that, but who's to say for sure?

Who is to say for sure? The problem with Warner, aside from age and lack of consistency to an extent, is that he makes it very difficult to help the running game. Warner simply doesn't thrive out of the proper formations.

 

[moklerman]

Who is to say for sure? The problem with Warner, aside from age and lack of consistency to an extent, is that he makes it very difficult to help the running game. Warner simply doesn't thrive out of the proper formations.

I still don't agree with this line of thinking. It's very unfounded in my opinion and Leinart's time under center last year didn't result in better rushing, just more attempts.

Anyway, after my review/re-watching of the Thanksgiving game I'm not concerned about the offense. Warner will have a solid game this week and all the worries can wait for a week or two. Warner had a really bad decision in the first half to Fitz and then played the same way that he's played while being an MVP favorite.

I think the last few series of the game where the Card's had a chance were the Q fumble, a drop on 3rd down and a drop on 2nd and 3rd down. Even the last gasp interception, Urban couldn't seem to find the ball while it was in the air. Too many breakdowns in too many areas to focus on Warner.

The mini-bye will get everyone back in rhythm and on to better things.

 

[Stout]

I still don't agree with this line of thinking. It's very unfounded in my opinion and Leinart's time under center last year didn't result in better rushing, just more attempts.

Anyway, after my review/re-watching of the Thanksgiving game I'm not concerned about the offense. Warner will have a solid game this week and all the worries can wait for a week or two. Warner had a really bad decision in the first half to Fitz and then played the same way that he's played while being an MVP favorite.

I think the last few series of the game where the Card's had a chance were the Q fumble, a drop on 3rd down and a drop on 2nd and 3rd down. Even the last gasp interception, Urban couldn't seem to find the ball while it was in the air. Too many breakdowns in too many areas to focus on Warner.

The mini-bye will get everyone back in rhythm and on to better things.

If I hadn't already known, this post would surely let me know you're a Warner homer. It's unfounded that Warner is best suited to the shotgun and that running out of the shotgun is more difficult? Um, not. That's quite true. Warner had more than one bad decision in the first half; you make it sound like, outside of one play, he played like an MVP against the Iggles. In fact, that's exactly what you said, and that is patently and blatantly false. He had more than one bad play, and they cost us dearly. Not saying he won't bounce back against the Lambs, and hopefully in the weeks to come, but let's not paint over all of his warts either.

 

[moklerman]

It's unfounded that Warner is best suited to the shotgun and that running out of the shotgun is more difficult? Um, not. That's quite true.

That's not how I read your original quote. But I still think that it's inaccurate to state that "Warner" has to operate out of the shotgun because he isn't capable of running a pro-set. If that's not what you meant then I withdraw my rebuttal. If my memory serves me, the reason the team went to the shotgun/spread offense was because the line didn't hold up in playaction very well and the running game was pretty inefficient anyway.

Warner had more than one bad decision in the first half; you make it sound like, outside of one play, he played like an MVP against the Iggles.

It must have been poorly worded. But I still think that the Fitzgerald play was the only glaring mistake he made. There were other plays where he could have taken a safer option but he has consistantly passed up outlet receivers all year long. Not always but he does have a habit of doing things that way.

The tipped balls, drops and fumbles were all much more out of the norm than the way Warner was playing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to excuse Warner or lay blame on the others, I just came away from the second viewing feeling much more secure about how the offense was just having one of those days and that they'll be back on track once they've had some rest and playing at home for most of the last four games.

In fact, that's exactly what you said, and that is patently and blatantly false.

If you re-read what I wrote you might find that my exact words contradict your inferrence. I wrote that he had "one really bad decision". The Fitz play was a total *****. Bad choice, bad throw, bad result. The rest of the half I think he played like he's played for much of the year. That doesn't mean mistake-free, just that he was taking his normal amount of chances, etc.

He had more than one bad play, and they cost us dearly.

See, this statement makes me think that some opinions are being based on impression more than reality. He had the first pick to Fitz which led to a TD for the Eagles. They still had to go over 40 yards to get that TD but it was on Warner that they had the posession at all. The next interception led to a punt. The last interception led to the end of the game but it was all over regardless of what happened on that drive.

7 points is costing the team dearly? That seems a little dramatic. The offense got clicking but every time they scored, the defense gave up points. That was a lot more of a problem than Warner's early picks. Warner's errors led to 7 points but the defense gave up 14 more all on it's own. No excuse for either party but it's not like he threw 3 pick-6's.

 

[Stout]

Nice try, Moklerman. First, yes, he CAN play from under center, but he's not that good at it. It clearly is not his preference, and he clearly thrives from the shotgun. Why? He's too slow dropping back. You're too quick to blame th OL for that; when they aren't in a clearly pass formation, the defense can't simply blitz their mind out.

Also, dismissing Warner's other mistakes. I'm not going to go back and look up the points off of turnovers, but how do you expect the defense to hold when we turn the ball over? Simply dismissing his mistakes like that is, in itself, a mistake. It takes the ball out of the hands of the offense, kills any shot at offensive consistency, and puts the defense on the field longer.

I mean, face it, man. Warner had a bad day. It's okay, you can admit it and still be a Warner fan. I've heard you hem and haw and mitigate and all, but I have yet to hear you admit he had a bad game. I'm not looking for blood here; just a little objectivity. He had a bad game, and we move on from it. He should have a good game this week.