Warner most underated?

[Cards232]

Warner Is the NFL's Most Underrated Quarteback

By ALLEN BARRA | September 9, 2008


Some time before the end of the season — my guess is that it will be around Week 4, when the Arizona Cardinals come to the Meadowlands — the Jets and their fans are going to ask the question, "Wouldn't we have been better off trying to get Kurt Warner?" Indeed, they would have. So would more than half of the teams in the NFL.
Click Image to Enlarge

You must be registered for see images attach

Jed Jacobsohn / 2008 Getty Images​

SAN FRANCISCO - SEPTEMBER 07: Kurt Warner #13 of the Arizona Cardinals passes against the San Francisco 49ers during an NFL game on September 7, 2008 at Monster Park in San Francisco, California. (Photo by Jed Jacobsohn



Warner is one of the best passers in pro football history and, even though it's later in his career, one of the best in the game today. He's better than Matt Hasselbeck or Jeff Garcia, and probably better than Donovan McNabb, or even Tom Brady — which is to say that given the same blockers and receivers, his career numbers would be better than theirs. That's a pretty safe bet, since Warner has been playing with bad-to-mediocre talent for much of his career, and his numbers are still better than theirs.

In his first full NFL season (1999), he threw 41 touchdown passes and averaged 8.7 yards per pass attempt — one of the greatest seasons recorded by any NFL passer. (You'll remember that everyone gasped at Brady's 8.3 YPA average last year.) It's mind-boggling to think what numbers Warner might have compiled if some NFL team had the brains to draft him out of the University of Northern Iowa in 1994.
As he starts the 2008 season, Warner is the third-highest-rated quarterback ever at 93.2, behind Steve Young and Peyton Manning, but you could watch him play all season without hearing anyone mention it. Brady, who has played behind the league's best offensive line, is fourth at 92.9. It's no stretch to imagine that if Warner and Brady switched teams, Warner would have at least three Super Bowl rings.

A Brett Favre comparison? Forget it. Favre is ninth on the all-time passer rating list at 85.7. Warner has led NFL passers in the most important passing stat, yards per attempt, three times. Favre has never led the league in YPA, even once. Warner, who is two years younger, makes about half of Favre's yearly salary.

Warner's mark of 9.9 YPA in 2000 is the highest since Norm Van Brocklin's 10.1 in 1954. Neither Manning, Joe Montana, nor Dan Marino ever came within 0.7 of a yard of Warner's 9.9.
It's incredible to think that at age 37, after leading the St. Louis Rams to Super Bowls in the 1999 and 2001 seasons, Warner would be in a position to be called the most underrated quarterback in football. But there you are. Everyone remembers Warner's story: cut by the Green Bay Packers in 1994, worked in a supermarket and collected food stamps to feed his family, finally made his NFL debut at age 27 after playing in the Arena Football League. What no one ever seems to understand is how good Warner is now. No one ever does.

In 2004, after leading the Giants to a 5-4 record, Warner was relieved of the starting QB job and the ball was handed to rookie Eli Manning. When he lost his job, Warner had a YPA of 7.4, with an interception of rate of 1.4%. Manning averaged 5.3 yards a throw the rest of the way with an interception rate of 4.6%, winning only one of their last seven games. Giants coach Tom Coughlin, not always the best judge of talent, later said he regretted not starting Eli Manning all season long, "so he'd have the experience." Eli has had the experience of starting for the Giants ever since. Last season he averaged 6.3 yards a throw with 23 TDs against 20 interceptions; Warner, with the Arizona Cardinals, averaged 7.6 yards with 27 TDs and 17 Ints.
If NFL coaches were simply interested in winning, most of them would be hot to get Warner. Instead, they get caught up in "quarterback controversies." The latest one involved Warner and the former USC Heisman Trophy winner, Matt Leinart. Earlier this year, Arizona coach Ken Whisenhunt announced that Leinart, despite two wretched, injury-plagued seasons, would be the Cardinal's starting quarterback — presumably because, having paid so much money to get him, he felt pressured (as Tom Coughlin had with Eli Manning) to show some return on their investment.

Wisely, Whisenhunt changed his mind before opening day against the San Francisco. "I don't know exactly how many interceptions [Warner] threw last year," he told reporters, "but I knew he didn't throw 27, and I knew he threw 27 touchdowns. So that's something that's kind of hard to ignore." Unless, well, you coach football in the NFL.

Warner neatly carved up the 49ers in a 23-13 victory on Sunday, and next week, the Cards play a home game against the Miami Dolphins, followed by the Washington Redskins in D.C. There's a very good chance that the Cardinals will be unbeaten when they play the Jets on September 28, and after that, for the second time in his career, Kurt Warner might stop being underrated.

Mr. Barra is the author of "The Last Coach: A Life of Paul 'Bear' Bryant."

 

[Shane]

Stopped reading right here: "He's better than Matt Hasselbeck or Jeff Garcia, and probably better than Donovan McNabb, or even Tom Brady"



Holy hell thats funny!

 

[black]

Kurt Warner is a good QB. I'm a Leinart man but heck, if Kurt can beat him out it's fair game. If Kurt goes down we have Leinart. I'm speaking obvious again, but the reporters should see what we do. I guess underrated isn't such a bad thang.

 

[Cards232]

Stopped reading right here: "He's better than Matt Hasselbeck or Jeff Garcia, and probably better than Donovan McNabb, or even Tom Brady"



Holy hell thats funny!

Actually, if you would have read the rest of the paragraph, it makes some sense. I agree w/ the paragraph full heartedly. Put Brady in Warner's shoes after he left St. Louis, do you think he does as well? Look at what Brady did in the SB last year w/ a little pressure. Like all great qb's, Brady & Warner are as good as the team around them.

 

[moklerman]

Nice to see a pro-Warner article by someone that's not a beat writer for his current team. Of course, the picture he's painted leaves out quite a few details. Forget mentioning Warner in the same breath as other good QB's though. My impression is that Warner isn't regarded much more highly than Dilfer or Brad Johnson by many Card's fans.

 

[az1965]

Interesting article. They should add fumbling stats as well...

 

[RugbyMuffin]

My impression is that Warner isn't regarded much more highly than Dilfer or Brad Johnson by many Card's fans.

That's one wrong impression.

Good article. A little heavy on the gum drops and candy canes but I see the guy's point. And wretched? Uh, let's tone it down a little on the melodramatics.

There is no doubt Warner is a good QB, and has All-Pro/MVP creditials.

But his problems have come through turnovers, mostly fumbles which this author never brings up, his age, and his durability.

That all being said I am playing the part of negative nelly above. I should say I have very happy to have Warner behind center, and further more I think we are in an optimal position with Leinart back there in case Warner gets hurt.

Thus he have all the positives that Warner gives you, and the numbers above speak for themselves on that, plus some insurance in waiting in case the old man breaks down every once and a while.

In the NFC ? I think Warner has a great shot and returning to the Pro Bowl this year.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Stopped reading right here: "He's better than Matt Hasselbeck or Jeff Garcia, and probably better than Donovan McNabb, or even Tom Brady"



Holy hell thats funny!

I stopped reading after they thought that KW would have been better than Favre on the Jets.

Favre brought a revival to the Jets, something that KW wouldn't have been able to do. Not in the least.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

Interesting view point and not everything he says is false. He doesn't exactly convey all the information either though. Warner has his chance and the talent around him this year to prove that argument to be correct.

 

[Russ Smith]

Nice to see a pro-Warner article by someone that's not a beat writer for his current team. Of course, the picture he's painted leaves out quite a few details. Forget mentioning Warner in the same breath as other good QB's though. My impression is that Warner isn't regarded much more highly than Dilfer or Brad Johnson by many Card's fans.

I doubt that I think we all realize Kurt at his best was a phenomenal player and he's still a very good player. It's just that comparing him to Favre or Brady is silly. Favre has missed one game due to injury in his entire NFL career, he's starting his 18th season now. Since becoming the starter in Green bay there's just one year where Favre didn't start every game. Since becoming the starter with the Rams in 99 there's been 2 years where Kurt played all 16 games.

Favre played on some very good Packer teams, and some awful ones. He made a lot of Wr's nobody had ever heard of before into household names.
Kurt played with 2 HOF Wr's with the rams and Az Hakim was pretty good in '99 as well. He's playing with 2 potential HOF WR's here in Arizona. When he was with the Giants playing with WR's a little less talented he had 6 TD's in 10 games.

Kurt has had a terrific career, he won the job this year fair and square and I think we all hope he continues to play as well as he did in the 2nd half of the 49er game. But comparing him to Brady or Favre is just not a good idea he just hasn't been anywhere near as durable and reliable as they have.

People forget, the year Brady got the starting job due to injury nobody thought New England was good. In fact on this very board in the preseason that year people were saying NE was the worst team in the NFL(in part because a certain NE fan posted here that people didn't like). When Bledsoe got hurt lots of people said well at least they'll get the first pick next year so they can draft a QB. While he didn't have the stats Warner did in '99 the end result that year was very similar taking a team that everyone thought was in trouble and taking them to a Super Bowl win. The difference is Brady has been able to duplicate that several times and maintain his level of play a lot longer than Kurt.

Kurt's been a very good NFL QB, at his peak among the best, his peak just wasn't very long.

 

[Cards232]

I doubt that I think we all realize Kurt at his best was a phenomenal player and he's still a very good player. It's just that comparing him to Favre or Brady is silly. Favre has missed one game due to injury in his entire NFL career, he's starting his 18th season now. Since becoming the starter in Green bay there's just one year where Favre didn't start every game. Since becoming the starter with the Rams in 99 there's been 2 years where Kurt played all 16 games.

Favre played on some very good Packer teams, and some awful ones. He made a lot of Wr's nobody had ever heard of before into household names.
Kurt played with 2 HOF Wr's with the rams and Az Hakim was pretty good in '99 as well. He's playing with 2 potential HOF WR's here in Arizona. When he was with the Giants playing with WR's a little less talented he had 6 TD's in 10 games.

Kurt has had a terrific career, he won the job this year fair and square and I think we all hope he continues to play as well as he did in the 2nd half of the 49er game. But comparing him to Brady or Favre is just not a good idea he just hasn't been anywhere near as durable and reliable as they have.

People forget, the year Brady got the starting job due to injury nobody thought New England was good. In fact on this very board in the preseason that year people were saying NE was the worst team in the NFL(in part because a certain NE fan posted here that people didn't like). When Bledsoe got hurt lots of people said well at least they'll get the first pick next year so they can draft a QB. While he didn't have the stats Warner did in '99 the end result that year was very similar taking a team that everyone thought was in trouble and taking them to a Super Bowl win. The difference is Brady has been able to duplicate that several times and maintain his level of play a lot longer than Kurt.

Kurt's been a very good NFL QB, at his peak among the best, his peak just wasn't very long.

Although I respect your opinion, I would take issue w/ a few of your points. Albeit, Favre has been remarkably resilient, he's had some very pedestrian years when not surrounded by talent & a running game. Warner's lack of playing time in his NFL stint since the Rams has been more due to politics than injuries.

Perhaps you forget that no one thought the Rams were any good in '99 when Warner took over. Most were looking at the Rams draft placement for the following year when Trent Green went down that year. What Warner did the following 3 years far exceeded Brady's first 3 years in the league as a starter.

Since then, the 2 have taken 2 completely different tracks. But what if the tracks had been reversed? What if Brady had been kicked to the curb by the likes of an egomaniac named Martz? What if Brady had played for the woeful Giants & subsequently the woeful Cards until last year? Do you really believe that Brady would be held in such great favor as he enjoys now? Brady is no better than any other qb w/o passpro as evidenced by last years SB. When the 2 have gone head to head, Warner has done far better than Brady.

If Warner had played for the Pats all this time, w/ all that protection, there's no doubt in my mind he might have set records that may have never been broken. As a long time coach, I can tell you, he is that good!

Montana was a great qb b/c he was great, but equally b/c he played on a great team. As I've stated before, if Montana had played for the Saints instead of the Niners, he would have never even sniffed the Hall.

Perspective man.

 

[Pariah]

Has the world gone mad? Yes, Warner had some of the greatest seasons anyone in the NFL has ever had. But that was some time ago, and save for a handful of games over the past 6 or so years, he's not been all that spectacular.

I'm friggin' ecstatic that he's playing well for the Cardinals right now, but at this point in his career he is not a better QB than most of those QBs the author compares him to.

JMHO

Oh, yeah. And what Russ said, too. Agree wholeheartedly.

 

[conraddobler]

Warner is the best at certain things I've seen in ages and I think the author is trying to point that out.

Mostly it's his accuracy on certain passes that allow the YPA to be so high. No one currently playing comes close to Kurt in those types of passes.

I agree somewhat with the authors in that respect.

 

[Russ Smith]

Although I respect your opinion, I would take issue w/ a few of your points. Albeit, Favre has been remarkably resilient, he's had some very pedestrian years when not surrounded by talent & a running game. Warner's lack of playing time in his NFL stint since the Rams has been more due to politics than injuries.

Perhaps you forget that no one thought the Rams were any good in '99 when Warner took over. Most were looking at the Rams draft placement for the following year when Trent Green went down that year. What Warner did the following 3 years far exceeded Brady's first 3 years in the league as a starter.

Since then, the 2 have taken 2 completely different tracks. But what if the tracks had been reversed? What if Brady had been kicked to the curb by the likes of an egomaniac named Martz? What if Brady had played for the woeful Giants & subsequently the woeful Cards until last year? Do you really believe that Brady would be held in such great favor as he enjoys now? Brady is no better than any other qb w/o passpro as evidenced by last years SB. When the 2 have gone head to head, Warner has done far better than Brady.

If Warner had played for the Pats all this time, w/ all that protection, there's no doubt in my mind he might have set records that may have never been broken. As a long time coach, I can tell you, he is that good!

Montana was a great qb b/c he was great, but equally b/c he played on a great team. As I've stated before, if Montana had played for the Saints instead of the Niners, he would have never even sniffed the Hall.

Perspective man.

Fair enough.

Yes Favre had some off years, 99 and 2000 were not good sandwiched by several greeat years. 05 and 06 weren't good, he was pretty old. 99 they had a huge issue at WR they were starting Antonio Freeman and Bill Schoeder at WR that year, both remarkably caught over 70 balls and over 1000 yards. The next year both caught just over 60 balls and were over 900 yards. Again that's Freeman and Schroeder, not Holt and Bruce in their prime or Boldin and Fitzgerald in their prime. I am as fed up with Favre now as anybody but the guy was an incredible QB.

Favre had one year in his career as a starter where Green Bay wasn't at least a .500 team. 2005, he was 36, led the NFL in INT's, but still had 20 TD's and nearly 4000 yards passing with Driver being the only decent WR on the roster.

I don't forget that the Rams in '98 weren't good, I also don't forget that before '99 they added Faulk, Holt and Bruce. Bruce had been injured in 98 and played in only 5 games. Warner was great but you add 3 future HOF players to any offense in the same year and it's going to get a lot better. Remember even in the preseason that year Trent Green was lighting up the scoreboard nobody knew the Rams would be that good in the regular season but that was just an amazing situation adding those 3 skill players all in the same season. Warner was brilliant that year without question.

AS for exceeding Brady's first 3 years as a starter I completely disagree. Brady won 2 Superbowls in his first 3 years as starter and was the MVP of both games. Even in 2002 he led the NFL in passing TD's. He didn't have the mind boggling stats Kurt did but he out Super Bowled him 2 to 1(wins both made 2) and those New England teams weren't exactly loaded with WR's they had talent but not like he had last year. He proved last year if you gave him really good Wr's he was pretty good.

and I think you're glossing over why Kurt ceased to be a Ram, it was because he could no longer play in Martz' system he'd been hit too much and was showing signs of being punchdrunk, they benched him to protect him.

Kurt's first 3 years were staggeringly good but his falloff was just as staggering his 4th year he had 3 TD's and 11 picks and 8 fumbles in just 7 games. He had the thumb/hand injury and had to be benched. The next year in 2 games he had 6 fumbles and 1 pick before they benched him.

With the Giants he knew his job coming in, manage the game, wait for Eli manning to be ready to play, he was doing well enough to keep them in games they were 5-4 when he got benched. Again not to belabor the point but he was benched largely because he had 12 fumbles and had been sacked 39 times in those games and the sacks were getting worse week to week. as soon as Manning took over the sacks dropped off, in 80 less attempts on the same team, as a rookie, Manning was sacked 26 times less than Warner. They benched Kurt not just to play Manning, but to protect Warner.

Kurt seems to have got past all that, didn't look like it in 06 when he was doing the exact same thing with taking sacks and fumbling over and over, he seems to have got past that and I hope that continues.

That said, comparing his career to that of Brady or Favre is just not a good cmparison for Kurt, those 2 guys are first ballot HOF Qb's with staggeringly good careers, Kurt's a guy who had 3 years of brilliance and has been hit or miss since then largely due to his inability to stay healthy.

I'd add on the Montana type stuff. You're completely overlooking the team Warner walked into in 99 with the Rams. There are a lot of NFL Qb's who could win an MVP award with Faulk, Bruce and Holt. I doubt many would have put up the numbers Kurt did but hell just the year before Randall Cunningham won an MVP in a similar situation with the Vikings. Perspective works both ways.

 

[Redheart]

Warner needs two HOF WR's to win a superbowl.

Hey! Don't we have a couple of those???

 

[CardLogic]

...it was because he could no longer play in Martz' system he'd been hit too much and was showing signs of being punchdrunk, they benched him to protect him. ...those 2 guys are first ballot HOF Qb's with staggeringly good careers, Kurt's a guy who had 3 years of brilliance and has been hit or miss since then largely due to his inability to stay healthy.

I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with anyone's assessment of Warner's career relative to those of Brady and Farve.

However, had Farve or Brady been subjected to the same bodily assult, would the result have been any different than Warner? Would their careers have held up any better under the same circumstances? (Keep in mind the year Farve suffered a hand injury and his numbers suffered as a result.)

One can't make an absolute argument comparing one player to another because of the influence of circumstances outside the players themselves upon their careers. It's the same as attempting to state the best RB ever; it cannot be done in absolute terms. All we are really left with is opinions, and everyone has one.

 

[Russ Smith]

I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with anyone's assessment of Warner's career relative to those of Brady and Farve.

However, had Farve or Brady been subjected to the same bodily assult, would the result have been any different than Warner? Would their careers have held up any better under the same circumstances? (Keep in mind the year Farve suffered a hand injury and his numbers suffered as a result.)

One can't make an absolute argument comparing one player to another because of the influence of circumstances outside the players themselves upon their careers. It's the same as attempting to state the best RB ever; it cannot be done in absolute terms. All we are really left with is opinions, and everyone has one.

I agree, that's why when comparing careers it's pointless to say what if they were on different teams, it's a question that can't be answered accurately.
We can only judge them based on what actually happened.

My objection to the prior line of reasoning is they're trying to say what if Favre and Brady weren't on such good teams but completely ignoring the talent on the Rams when Warner took over. What if Kurt hadn't taken over in 99 what if he'd taken over in '98 when Faulk was a Colt, Holt was at NC State and Bruce played 5 games? Does anybody think Kurt was going to put up 41 TD passes that year?

When comparing careers you can't use what if to make someone better or worse it always involves too much bias from the person(the author of this story) making that argument.

I've been bashing Favre for awhile now over how he handled his retirement but I really think people overlook what he did in Green Bay. It wasn't all him obviously coaching was a big part but if you look the 6 years before Favre took over at QB in Green Bay they had one season over .500, 3 of those years they were 4-12. They won 10 games combined the last 2 years before Favre took over, and 9 games his first year as their QB. 5 out of 6 years 6 wins or less before he got there, one out of 16 years less than 8 wins since he became the starter. It's hard for me to just accept when people say yeah but Favre was on a good team as if he wasn't a HUGE reason why the team was so good.

 

[Cards232]

Fair enough.

Yes Favre had some off years, 99 and 2000 were not good sandwiched by several greeat years. 05 and 06 weren't good, he was pretty old. 99 they had a huge issue at WR they were starting Antonio Freeman and Bill Schoeder at WR that year, both remarkably caught over 70 balls and over 1000 yards. The next year both caught just over 60 balls and were over 900 yards. Again that's Freeman and Schroeder, not Holt and Bruce in their prime or Boldin and Fitzgerald in their prime. I am as fed up with Favre now as anybody but the guy was an incredible QB.

Favre had one year in his career as a starter where Green Bay wasn't at least a .500 team. 2005, he was 36, led the NFL in INT's, but still had 20 TD's and nearly 4000 yards passing with Driver being the only decent WR on the roster.

I don't forget that the Rams in '98 weren't good, I also don't forget that before '99 they added Faulk, Holt and Bruce. Bruce had been injured in 98 and played in only 5 games. Warner was great but you add 3 future HOF players to any offense in the same year and it's going to get a lot better. Remember even in the preseason that year Trent Green was lighting up the scoreboard nobody knew the Rams would be that good in the regular season but that was just an amazing situation adding those 3 skill players all in the same season. Warner was brilliant that year without question.

AS for exceeding Brady's first 3 years as a starter I completely disagree. Brady won 2 Superbowls in his first 3 years as starter and was the MVP of both games. Even in 2002 he led the NFL in passing TD's. He didn't have the mind boggling stats Kurt did but he out Super Bowled him 2 to 1(wins both made 2) and those New England teams weren't exactly loaded with WR's they had talent but not like he had last year. He proved last year if you gave him really good Wr's he was pretty good.

and I think you're glossing over why Kurt ceased to be a Ram, it was because he could no longer play in Martz' system he'd been hit too much and was showing signs of being punchdrunk, they benched him to protect him.

Kurt's first 3 years were staggeringly good but his falloff was just as staggering his 4th year he had 3 TD's and 11 picks and 8 fumbles in just 7 games. He had the thumb/hand injury and had to be benched. The next year in 2 games he had 6 fumbles and 1 pick before they benched him.

With the Giants he knew his job coming in, manage the game, wait for Eli manning to be ready to play, he was doing well enough to keep them in games they were 5-4 when he got benched. Again not to belabor the point but he was benched largely because he had 12 fumbles and had been sacked 39 times in those games and the sacks were getting worse week to week. as soon as Manning took over the sacks dropped off, in 80 less attempts on the same team, as a rookie, Manning was sacked 26 times less than Warner. They benched Kurt not just to play Manning, but to protect Warner.

Kurt seems to have got past all that, didn't look like it in 06 when he was doing the exact same thing with taking sacks and fumbling over and over, he seems to have got past that and I hope that continues.

That said, comparing his career to that of Brady or Favre is just not a good comparison for Kurt, those 2 guys are first ballot HOF Qb's with staggeringly good careers, Kurt's a guy who had 3 years of brilliance and has been hit or miss since then largely due to his inability to stay healthy.

I'd add on the Montana type stuff. You're completely overlooking the team Warner walked into in 99 with the Rams. There are a lot of NFL Qb's who could win an MVP award with Faulk, Bruce and Holt. I doubt many would have put up the numbers Kurt did but hell just the year before Randall Cunningham won an MVP in a similar situation with the Vikings. Perspective works both ways.

First off, yes Brady had 2 SB's to Warner's 1. The 2002 SB was an absolute joke w/ what the ref's let the Cheatriots get away w/. Apparently, had Martz chosen to have his team hold on defense like the Pats did, they would have gotten away w/ it as well, but he didn't. Warner outplayed Brady by a LONGSHOT in that game & probably should have won the MVP even though they didn't win. Brady was a joke that game!

Unless you have inside info on what Martz as thinking as he benched Warner, please save it. Both Faulk & Bruce at the time said Warner was the same as he had always been & they had no lack of confidence in him. My opinion is that Martz was trying more to prove how great he was by showing he could do it w/ any qb. Bulger had the same team as Warner did & never came close to the same #'s.

In Kurt's 4th year, he played half those games injured (broken throwing hand) on a team that was reeling after the SB loss. The whole team was in a funk.

He was benched w/ the Giants b/c he fumbled too much & had too many sacks? Coughlin has said Warner was the best he's ever seen or coached. Once again, Eli has never come close to Warner's #'s at the time or since. You may have a point that he may have been benched to save him, but not b/c of his inabilities, but b/c their line was like a sieve & he had no one to throw to. Kurt was doing the same thing in 06. He also had the same type of line!

Did you Notice Brady fumble in the SB last year? Was that b/c he had ball control problems, or b/c he got waxed? Warner definitely has ball control problems, no doubt about it, but they are severely overblown here. Most of his fumbles come when he is getting plastered. No one complained of those problems when he was lighting it up in St. Louis, & he fumbled plenty then too while he was setting all those records.

Please relate to me all the years & games missed for Warner due to health problems, especially the last several as he's gotten older.

Lastly, you made my point w/ the Montana deal, & the point I've been making all along. Great qb's play on great teams. Warner had those great years b/c he was a great qb, but also b/c he played for a great team. Same for Montana, same for Brady. Put any of those guys on the Saints, & it would be a very different story as it was for Archie Manning when he played for the Saints. Manning was great, but never had the careers that the others had, not b/c of his abilities, but b/c of the team. Same w/ Plunkett who was considered back up talent at best before he went to Raiders.

I appreciate your comments though & the civil discussion. Have a good one my friend.

 

[Gee!]

Stopped reading right here: "He's better than Matt Hasselbeck or Jeff Garcia, and probably better than Donovan McNabb, or even Tom Brady"



Holy hell thats funny!

Ya, I dont see them QB's wearing gloves to cure their fumblitis.. I like Kurt and all, but that was a pretty big statement by that dude.. If Kurt didnt fumble so much, I would feel alot more relaxed when he's in the game cause thats his major downfall, and he does it so well..

 

[Gee!]

Nice to see a pro-Warner article by someone that's not a beat writer for his current team. Of course, the picture he's painted leaves out quite a few details. Forget mentioning Warner in the same breath as other good QB's though. My impression is that Warner isn't regarded much more highly than Dilfer or Brad Johnson by many Card's fans.

Will you just shut your face? Dam Warner fan trying to impose his will on Cards fans how great his idol is..

 

[Arizona's Finest]

First off, yes Brady had 2 SB's to Warner's 1. The 2002 SB was an absolute joke w/ what the ref's let the Cheatriots get away w/. Apparently, had Martz chosen to have his team hold on defense like the Pats did, they would have gotten away w/ it as well, but he didn't. Warner outplayed Brady by a LONGSHOT in that game & probably should have won the MVP even though they didn't win. Brady was a joke that game!

Wow. Just Wow.

Despite your protests I still they are going to give him credit for 3 rings, not 2. LOL

 

[Cards232]

Wow. Just Wow.

Despite your protests I still they are going to give him credit for 3 rings, not 2. LOL

The rings? No doubt about it. As I said, Martz didn't play the "game" right.

McGinest admitted after the game that he & the rest held all game long b/c they weren't calling it. Warner took 2 shots to the head (one on an int. returned by Law for TD) that normally would have brought suspensions by the NFL. Ask the Colts about the Pats propensity for holding in the playoffs.

BTW, stat line for the qb's SB XXXVI:

Warner 28-44, 365 yards

Brady 16-27, 145 yards

There used to be great clips of the game showing these things, but the NFL had them taken down. Amazing.

 

[Russ Smith]

First off, yes Brady had 2 SB's to Warner's 1. The 2002 SB was an absolute joke w/ what the ref's let the Cheatriots get away w/. Apparently, had Martz chosen to have his team hold on defense like the Pats did, they would have gotten away w/ it as well, but he didn't. Warner outplayed Brady by a LONGSHOT in that game & probably should have won the MVP even though they didn't win. Brady was a joke that game!

Unless you have inside info on what Martz as thinking as he benched Warner, please save it. Both Faulk & Bruce at the time said Warner was the same as he had always been & they had no lack of confidence in him. My opinion is that Martz was trying more to prove how great he was by showing he could do it w/ any qb. Bulger had the same team as Warner did & never came close to the same #'s.

In Kurt's 4th year, he played half those games injured (broken throwing hand) on a team that was reeling after the SB loss. The whole team was in a funk.

He was benched w/ the Giants b/c he fumbled too much & had too many sacks? Coughlin has said Warner was the best he's ever seen or coached. Once again, Eli has never come close to Warner's #'s at the time or since. You may have a point that he may have been benched to save him, but not b/c of his inabilities, but b/c their line was like a sieve & he had no one to throw to. Kurt was doing the same thing in 06. He also had the same type of line!

Did you Notice Brady fumble in the SB last year? Was that b/c he had ball control problems, or b/c he got waxed? Warner definitely has ball control problems, no doubt about it, but they are severely overblown here. Most of his fumbles come when he is getting plastered. No one complained of those problems when he was lighting it up in St. Louis, & he fumbled plenty then too while he was setting all those records.

Please relate to me all the years & games missed for Warner due to health problems, especially the last several as he's gotten older.

Lastly, you made my point w/ the Montana deal, & the point I've been making all along. Great qb's play on great teams. Warner had those great years b/c he was a great qb, but also b/c he played for a great team. Same for Montana, same for Brady. Put any of those guys on the Saints, & it would be a very different story as it was for Archie Manning when he played for the Saints. Manning was great, but never had the careers that the others had, not b/c of his abilities, but b/c of the team. Same w/ Plunkett who was considered back up talent at best before he went to Raiders.

I appreciate your comments though & the civil discussion. Have a good one my friend.

I agree that Brady in the 2002 Superbowl was not an easy MVP pick, he did get that largely on the winning drive. That was the drive where with no TD's and John Madden suggesting they take a knee and try to win in OT, Brady drove them down for the winning FG.

Kurt had a lot of yards in that game but he threw a picksix to Ty Law for the first Patriot TD and he threw another pick for a long return to set up a FG(the game description says holt slipped coming off the line contributing to the INT).

Kurt actually got away with another huge turnover in that game that people forget they ran a QB sneak down 17-3 on 4th and goal, Kurt fumbled and Tebucky Jones ran it back 97 yards for a TD. The play came back due to a holding call on the pats Willie McGinest.

Kurt had a great drive to tie the game up, then Brady's game winner.

As well as Kurt played in that game his mistakes led to the win for NE.
You can't give the losing QB an MVP award when his turnovers led to his team losing.

Again I already gave you the reason why I don't buy that Kurt's fumbles and sacks were due to the giants having a sieve OL, that exact same OL gave up 26 less sacks to a rookie Eli Manning, the same year, in 80 less attempts. It wasn't the OL that was the problem with those sacks, it was Kurt holding the ball too long because he was told not to take chances and throw picks.

one guy gets sacked 39 times in 10 games, the other 13 in 6 in the same season it's kind of hard to believe that doesn't have something to do with the QB's?

I agree on Manning but again you can't say what if, it's impossible to prove things. All you can do is evaluate what actually happened. The point of this article is that Warner is the most underrated QB in the league and comparable to Brady and Warner, their career numbers say that's not true.

As for why he got benched by Martz sure I'm making an assumption but the whole country saw that game against the Giants where Kurt had a concussion, told them he was fine, fumbled over and over. He never played another game until the end of the season. It's not hard to assume that he was benched for his own protection. Remember he kept telling them he was fine, he was playing with a concussion and later admitted he wasn't fine he was having trouble hearing the play calls and had a bad headache. They should have figured that out themselves but they didn't, which IMHO was a big reason why they benched him they had gone through it with him before insisting he was ok and playing like he wasn't, so they benched him to protect him.

I really don't feel like looking up any more on Warner I don't dislike Kurt at all I just think it's silly to say he's as good as Brady or Favre basing the entire argument on what if he played on the Pats or Packers. It's a completely theoretical debate it's no more valid than the projected game stats FOX is showing before games now.

 

[Russ Smith]

Wow. Just Wow.

Despite your protests I still they are going to give him credit for 3 rings, not 2. LOL

We were only talking aobut the first 3 years as starters for both of them.

Both played in 2 superbowls, warner won one, lost one, Brady won both.

Kurt did have better stats than Brady in his lost Superbowl but he also gave the Patriots 10 points with his 2 picks(they won 20-17) and he had another turnover for a TD called back for ironically a defensive holding call on McGinest on a QB sneak play.

 

[Cards232]

I agree that Brady in the 2002 Superbowl was not an easy MVP pick, he did get that largely on the winning drive. That was the drive where with no TD's and John Madden suggesting they take a knee and try to win in OT, Brady drove them down for the winning FG.

Kurt had a lot of yards in that game but he threw a picksix to Ty Law for the first Patriot TD and he threw another pick for a long return to set up a FG(the game description says holt slipped coming off the line contributing to the INT).

Kurt actually got away with another huge turnover in that game that people forget they ran a QB sneak down 17-3 on 4th and goal, Kurt fumbled and Tebucky Jones ran it back 97 yards for a TD. The play came back due to a holding call on the pats Willie McGinest.

Kurt had a great drive to tie the game up, then Brady's game winner.

As well as Kurt played in that game his mistakes led to the win for NE.
You can't give the losing QB an MVP award when his turnovers led to his team losing.

Again I already gave you the reason why I don't buy that Kurt's fumbles and sacks were due to the giants having a sieve OL, that exact same OL gave up 26 less sacks to a rookie Eli Manning, the same year, in 80 less attempts. It wasn't the OL that was the problem with those sacks, it was Kurt holding the ball too long because he was told not to take chances and throw picks.

one guy gets sacked 39 times in 10 games, the other 13 in 6 in the same season it's kind of hard to believe that doesn't have something to do with the QB's?

I agree on Manning but again you can't say what if, it's impossible to prove things. All you can do is evaluate what actually happened. The point of this article is that Warner is the most underrated QB in the league and comparable to Brady and Warner, their career numbers say that's not true.

As for why he got benched by Martz sure I'm making an assumption but the whole country saw that game against the Giants where Kurt had a concussion, told them he was fine, fumbled over and over. He never played another game until the end of the season. It's not hard to assume that he was benched for his own protection. Remember he kept telling them he was fine, he was playing with a concussion and later admitted he wasn't fine he was having trouble hearing the play calls and had a bad headache. They should have figured that out themselves but they didn't, which IMHO was a big reason why they benched him they had gone through it with him before insisting he was ok and playing like he wasn't, so they benched him to protect him.

I really don't feel like looking up any more on Warner I don't dislike Kurt at all I just think it's silly to say he's as good as Brady or Favre basing the entire argument on what if he played on the Pats or Packers. It's a completely theoretical debate it's no more valid than the projected game stats FOX is showing before games now.

The Giants line was a sieve. Manning didn't have as many sacks due to 2 reasons mainly: 1- Manning was more able to scramble for his life, 2- Coughlin called for a lot more quick hitters w/ Manning in than w/ Warner. Warner was using 4-5 step drops, while Manning mostly 3 step quick hitters. Thus one of the reasons for the disparity in YPC numbers.

BTW, on Law's picsix, Warner was hit in the head by Vrabel as he was throwing. Should have been a roughing the passer at the very least. How accurate would you be getting hit in the head while throwing?

You might find the following video interesting: (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3529369093687376012). It's not nearly as comprehensive as the afore-mentioned but interesting none the less. 3 different shot to the head on Warner. The clip w/ Faulk being held is also interesting. Faulk complained that that happened all game long. The other video showed that, as well as Bruce & Holt getting the same treatment. The video also showed Holt getting the jacknife treatment by 2 Pat.'s defenders on a ball thrown to the opposite side of the field.