This Sunday is Warner's Last Stand

[Cheesebeef]

Yeah Cheese I don't think its fair to say niether can do it as Warner has done it multiple times and well we don't know if Matt will be able to do it or not.

7 years ago. 7 years ago. That's an eternity in the NFL.

Warner can win because he can put up alot of points we just need a D that doesn't give up more, unfortunetely right now our D sucks, hoepfully they can wake up and play well in the games to come.

does anyone find it all strange that when we had no turnovers the first two games of the season everyone was singing the D's praises but now that the O has had 9 in two games the D stinks. Turnovers have an effect on everything and the NFL is all about BALANCE. Usually when one unit's out of whack, the other unit is going to be as well, unless one of those units is one of the best of all time (see the Bears in 2006 or Ravens in 2001).

 

[Cheesebeef]

The Colts?

Peyton makes everyone on that team better evidence by the fact that a) they didn't skip a beat when they replaced Edge with a rookie b) the offense was just as good last year without Harrison for most of the season and c) the Colts line was banged up last season, not to mention they had injury problems at RB as well. No matter who is on the field, if Peyton's healthy, that offense is unstoppable. We haven't seen the same from Warner.

 

[MadCardDisease]

does anyone find it all strange that when we had no turnovers the first two games of the season everyone was singing the D's praises but now that the O has had 9 in two games the D stinks. Turnovers have an effect on everything and the NFL is all about BALANCE. Usually when one unit's out of whack, the other unit is going to be as well, unless one of those units is one of the best of all time (see the Bears in 2006 or Ravens in 2001).

Actually I see it the other way around. Our defense wasn't exactly shutting down Frank Gore. We stopped Gore by keeping him off the field for almost an entire half. So now when the offense stuggles the Defense is getting exposed because they are actually on the field now.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Actually I see it the other way around. Our defense wasn't exactly shutting down Frank Gore. We stopped Gore by keeping him off the field for almost an entire half. So now when the offense stuggles the Defense is getting exposed because they are actually on the field now.

that's just it. what one unit does, reflects upon the other.

I also think that on both sides of the ball, we have "here we go again" mentality which kills us. What happened in the last two games have been so damn predictable it's not even funny.

And I think the 5 turnovers we got in the SF game combined with giving none up was what kept Gore in check.

Win the battle of turnovers and you're gonna win the game. That's job is incumbent on BOTH units to make sure it happens.

 

[mjb21aztd]

I hate Warner turnover's as much as anyone but he has the leadership of the team now just cause he has been the starter so long, so I think we should start Warner the rest of the season unless he really drops a egg in the bills and cowboys games coming up because these next two games will really tell were we are as a team. If we were to bench warner one half of the team would like and the other half of the team would not which would be bad. Hopefully Leinart will be ready next year and play good and make improvments were he needs to. Meh wasn't looking forward to having this issue only 4 weeks into the season.... ANYWAYS GO CARDS BEAT THE BILLS

 

[nashman]

I agree cheese we can't turn the ball over to a tune of 7 but you can live with one or two a game if he is putting up 25+ points. The D has to be able to stop someone/anyone at least once in awhile, the Jets offense isn't as good as our D made them look. The D didn;t show up plain and simple, AW not there hurts but come on you still have to stop them sometimes geesh.

 

[MadCardDisease]

that's just it. what one unit does, reflects upon the other.

I also think that on both sides of the ball, we have "here we go again" mentality which kills us. What happened in the last two games have been so damn predictable it's not even funny.

And I think the 5 turnovers we got in the SF game combined with giving none up was what kept Gore in check.

Win the battle of turnovers and you're gonna win the game. That's job is incumbent on BOTH units to make sure it happens.

For the most part I agree.

I just think that our pass rush really hasn't consistantly showed up this year and I've been saying that every week. When that happens the Cards get so desperate to get to the QB that teams can Screen them to death. That is going to be the straw that breaks the camels back IMO.

If the offense fails to control the clock or turns the ball over, the defense will struggle to stop anyone on a consistant basis. On top of that I question whether our defense can consistantly stop quality RBs. I guess I was expecting more from our defense this year and haven't seen it so far.

 

[Russ Smith]

Yeah Cheese I don't think its fair to say niether can do it as Warner has done it multiple times and well we don't know if Matt will be able to do it or not. Warner can win because he can put up alot of points we just need a D that doesn't give up more, unfortunetely right now our D sucks, hoepfully they can wake up and play well in the games to come. AW really needs to be on the field, also whats the status with Watson anyone know? CC should get a shot too as we really need to pressure the QB with our lousy secondary.

You're overlooking the fact that the D you say sucks allowed more points in the one game Sunday(56) than it had allowed in the prior 3 games combined
(47).

A skeptic would submit that maybe the 7 turnovers by Warner and the offense had an impact on the D? I agree when we needed them to step up and make a stop they couldn't, but 56 points is incredibly misleading.

Remember, Warner and this brilliant offense got FIVE turnovers from our bad defense in the SF game and only managed to put up 23 points from that.

It took a complete and total team collapse to give up 56 points on Sunday and if like me you count a blocked FG as a turnover, 27 points in the first half alone were scored by the Jets after turnovers.


16 PPG in the first 3 games was reasonably good for the D, I'm not saying we have a great defense and now with injuries it looks like it could be a problem, but we're not going to give up 56 points regularly unless we turn the ball over game after game like we did Sunday.

 

[Russ Smith]

Actually I see it the other way around. Our defense wasn't exactly shutting down Frank Gore. We stopped Gore by keeping him off the field for almost an entire half. So now when the offense stuggles the Defense is getting exposed because they are actually on the field now.

Part of keeping him off the field was the 5turnovers our defense forced, or was it 6 I lost count.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I agree cheese we can't turn the ball over to a tune of 7 but you can live with one or two a game if he is putting up 25+ points. The D has to be able to stop someone/anyone at least once in awhile, the Jets offense isn't as good as our D made them look. The D didn;t show up plain and simple, AW not there hurts but come on you still have to stop them sometimes geesh.

show me where I've given the D ANY credit for Sunday. I've said repeatedly that they and the offense were abysmal.

as far as giving up 1 or 2 turnovers per... no team can give up 2 turnovers per game and hope to consider itself a contender. 1 a game is fine. anything more than that and you're begging for problems.

 

[Gambit]

Wow - I just really disagree. I think he is chomping at the bit to go back to the kid as he plays the postion the way he wants it played.

I think Wiz hates the fact that Warner is a turnover prone gun slinger and went with him to start for a bunch of reasons I outlined in another post.

Am I crazy here?

If he felt that way, he could have benched him in the second half of the Jest game, or started Leinart for the bills game. Plus mentioned that he did not consider benching him. He could have put Kurt and the world on notice, but didn't. I think he's committed to Warner unless it gets unbearably bad.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I'm guessing Whiz was hoping the Jets game was due to weather conditions not Warner just being prone to dropping the ball. Since he had the bulk of the snaps all week he figured better to ride him than go to Matt.

If he does it again this week in much better weather then I think Whiz is going to be thinking ok this is a trend now.

You don't fumble in cold weather. The INT's maybe, but not fumbles.

It would tell me that he managed it well. If he says that he has no reason to bench Kurt it helps Kurt relax and not worry about looking over his shoulder. Because he says that he has no reason to replace Kurt doesn't mean that he isn't thinking about it.I'm not talking about one or two turnovers. He could probably even do three as long as we win. Four or more and I seriously doubt we win.
Once again, saying that would have Warner looking over his shoulder. IMO that isn't a good thing.

Here's to hoping that Kurt hangs on to the ball and is accurate with his throws!

Do you know what the win percentage is when you are -2 on the turnover ratio? If you are -2 on the turnover ratio, you lose 85% of the games.

 

[Russ Smith]

You don't fumble in cold weather. The INT's maybe, but not fumbles.




Do you know what the win percentage is when you are -2 on the turnover ratio? If you are -2 on the turnover ratio, you lose 85% of the games.

The field was wet it was raining before the game.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

The field was wet it was raining before the game.

So why didn't Farve have problems holding the ball? I don't recall one errand throw from him. I remember them saying something in the pregame about Kurt and about him having problems. Even still, he shouldn't have the fumbling problem, he is wearing gloves on both hands. If the gloves get wet, replace them. It also doesn't explain the pick6 to Revis with only 2 rushers.

Trying to blame the weather when the other QB had no problems and our QB had 6 turnovers is beyond silly.

 

[Duckjake]

You don't fumble in cold weather. The INT's maybe, but not fumbles.




Do you know what the win percentage is when you are -2 on the turnover ratio? If you are -2 on the turnover ratio, you lose 85% of the games.

The other 15% are all games where the Cardinals were +2 in the turnover ratio.

 

[Totally_Red]

So why didn't Farve have problems holding the ball? I don't recall one errand throw from him. I remember them saying something in the pregame about Kurt and about him having problems. Even still, he shouldn't have the fumbling problem, he is wearing gloves on both hands. If the gloves get wet, replace them. It also doesn't explain the pick6 to Revis with only 2 rushers.

Trying to blame the weather when the other QB had no problems and our QB had 6 turnovers is beyond silly.

Duh! The Jets sideline ball handlers were giving the Cardinal offense wet balls and the Jets offense dry balls.

 

[Russ Smith]

So why didn't Farve have problems holding the ball? I don't recall one errand throw from him. I remember them saying something in the pregame about Kurt and about him having problems. Even still, he shouldn't have the fumbling problem, he is wearing gloves on both hands. If the gloves get wet, replace them. It also doesn't explain the pick6 to Revis with only 2 rushers.

Trying to blame the weather when the other QB had no problems and our QB had 6 turnovers is beyond silly.

Favre wasn't wearing magic gloves? I'm just saying that even on the pregame on ESPN they showed the rain and the guy said remember Kurt Warner wears gloves they're hoping he won't have any problems with the wet ball.

I'm not making excuses for Kurt I'm trying to read Whiz's mind on why he's thinking this was just a one game anomaly, because it's the first game this season where weather was an issue for Kurt.

Personally I think he fumbles because he holds the ball with one hand and I think teams go after him because they know he fumbles. That's precisely what Asomugha said in the preseason when he was interviewed during the game, they were coached that week that when Warner is in, go for the ball because he is a fumbler.

 

[earthsci]

Do you know what the win percentage is when you are -2 on the turnover ratio? If you are -2 on the turnover ratio, you lose 85% of the games.

Right. So if we have two turnovers and are part of the 15% I think that Warner is safe. If there are more turnovers or a Warner turnover costs us the game I think that his starting is in jeopardy, and I don't think that it shows mismanagement by Whiz to do that. It shows that he supported his QB while he was there.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Right. So if we have two turnovers and are part of the 15% I think that Warner is safe. If there are more turnovers or a Warner turnover costs us the game I think that his starting is in jeopardy, and I don't think that it shows mismanagement by Whiz to do that. It shows that he supported his QB while he was there.

I don't think I'd want to be in the 15%.

If Whiz chose Kurt Warner to be his starting QB because he thought that KW gave his team the best chance to win, and then KW is DIRECTLY responsible for one loss (two if we include the 2nd one in our hypothetical) wouldn't that show mismanagement?

How many games has Matt Leinart been directly responsible for losing in his career?

 

[earthsci]

I don't think I'd want to be in the 15%.

If Whiz chose Kurt Warner to be his starting QB because he thought that KW gave his team the best chance to win, and then KW is DIRECTLY responsible for one loss (two if we include the 2nd one in our hypothetical) wouldn't that show mismanagement?

How many games has Matt Leinart been directly responsible for losing in his career?

Not if he was one of the main reasons that we won the games that we did. If we win more games with Warner than Leinart, even if he is directly responsible for the losses, that doesn't show mismanagement.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Not if he was one of the main reasons that we won the games that we did. If we win more games with Warner than Leinart, even if he is directly responsible for the losses, that doesn't show mismanagement.

You can win in spite of poor play from the QB. If Warner turns the ball over 4 times next week, and yet we find a way to win because of special teams play, or defensive touchdowns, you think Warner should still start?

Damn that was a long sentence, and I'm not breaking it up either.

 

[earthsci]

You can win in spite of poor play from the QB. If Warner turns the ball over 4 times next week, and yet we find a way to win because of special teams play, or defensive touchdowns, you think Warner should still start?

Damn that was a long sentence, and I'm not breaking it up either.

No. If Warner is a reason that we win then keep him in. If we are winning in spite of him, yank him, if Whiz thinks that Leinart can do better.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

No. If Warner is a reason that we win then keep him in. If we are winning in spite of him, yank him, if Whiz thinks that Leinart can do better.

Fair enough.

I just know what we are going to get with Kurt. He will be responsible for just as many wins, as losses. I'd prefer Matt Leinart with a much more stable QB where you have more of an idea of what you are going to get. Jeckyl and Hyde describes Warner to a T.

Besides, it wouldn't be a bad thing to take the game out of the QB's hands and put it in Fitz, or Q, or even James.

 

[Cheesebeef]

You can win in spite of poor play from the QB. If Warner turns the ball over 4 times next week, and yet we find a way to win because of special teams play, or defensive touchdowns, you think Warner should still start?

Damn that was a long sentence, and I'm not breaking it up either.

that might be a long sentence, but it's such an unrealistic hypothetical that is it really fair to ask. Come on now, winning a game like the above would be a miracle from God. Tough to ask a coach to make any kind of decisions after witnessing that.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

that might be a long sentence, but it's such an unrealistic hypothetical that is it really fair to ask. Come on now, winning a game like the above would be a miracle from God. Tough to ask a coach to make any kind of decisions after witnessing that.

How so? If you want to make it more plausible, make it 3 turnovers. He turned the ball over 5 times in the first half, were down 34 points, and brought the game back to a 2 score game. One less turnover, or one more TD and who knows.