BernieM wrote:
i'm so bored with all of the warner worship and selective memories -- excuse me while I yawn again -- but to answer, yet again...and again...and again...

I encouraged martz to start running the ball around 2000, when it was obvious that they couldn't stop anyone on defense that year and needed to eat some clock. It came up again in 2001 before the playoffs and of course my columns after the 2001 Super Bowl loss were about how Martz needed to run the ball more against the Patrtiots. I'm certain I broached the subject again before now, because Martz and me have gone round and round on it through the years. There's another point of view here; if a team is winning and scoring I don't care how he does it. When a team isn't winning and isn't scoring, then it's time to look at the approach. that's where we are now. and for the umpteenth time, I am not responsible for a reader's reading-comprehension level. I am not responsible for what a reader retains, or chooses to retain, from what I've written through the years.

Thanks very much.

Cheers,
Bernie

BernieM wrote:
While I'm reluctant to continue feeding this bizarre Warner obsession, which has a never-ending cycle, I'll respond:

Any student of NFL history knows that other so-called damaged goods QBs have revitalized their careers elsewhere.

The classic example is Jim Plunkett.

Though he didn't go elsewhere to do so, I saw John Unitas go through more than one cycle of rallying his career from abuse and injuries.

Heck, I covered a guy who did it -- Neil Lomax. He was so gun shy and worn down physically after the 1985 season, that it took him until 1987 to fully recover, mentally and physically.

If Kurt makes it back to the elite level to stay for a while, it will be because he's healthy and thus capable of physically doing the job.

As I have said all along, if his hand is sound, and doesn't flare up, he's fine.

One thing that clearly has happened in his favor is that he seems much calmer in the pocket now. The time away from getting hit and pounded was beneficial to him.

As for my credibility -- in general terms -- anyone who thinks that me or any other sports columnist, or sports fan, or human being is right all of the time, please join us in the real world. I've never made that claim, and never will make that claim, that I am always right. And I do not hesitate to admit when I am wrong.

God forbid I should be as arrogant as some of my critics.

And in this instance, I consider the source. Some of the Warner fans are hardly objective about this situation. The gentleman who created this thread, for instance, has an e-mail address that basically serves as a tribute to Warner.

And there's nothing wrong with that -- but at the same time, I always must keep in mind who I am dealing with.

I understand that some people will dismiss anything I have to say that's remotely negative about an athlete, simply because of their fondness and devotion to that athlete. That's part of the experience of being a fan.

Cheers,
Bernie

BernieM wrote:
Boxcar,

This will be an ongoing story. Kurt had a rough opener, then two good games. What some of the Warnerites don't want to recognize is that I've always written about Kurt based on his performance. Except once...I wrote about him before anyone really knew what was there, and I expressed optimism over his ability to step in for Trent Green and do the job. I don't think many folks shared that confidence at the time.

I will watch the Green Bay game later tonight, when I'm done with my baseball-column duties at Busch. I understand that Favre is hurt. That's a factor in this one. Giants certainly should be able to win it now. The GB defense has been bad this season (for the most part) so I'm surprised that (so far) that NY hasn't exploited the situation. But now I see that the Giants are ahead after a long TD drive....and that they are running the ball very well...and that Kurt has completed a high percentage of passes. Going by the stats, it looks like mostly short stuff. But if that's what it takes to win, that's what you do.


Cheers,
Bernie

BernieM wrote:
Bard (if you see this)....

Is Kurt showing the mobility today that we saw last week against Cleveland? That's been one of the more interesting things about his play so far this season...he's showing some nimble feet.

Cheers,
Bernie

BernieM wrote:
Thanks, Mr. Drabowsky, for the report.

I'll say this about Coughlin and staff: they have done an excellent job of playing to Kurt's strengths, and putting him into position to succeed.

That is a very well-coached team so far.

Cheers,
Bernie

BernieM wrote:
Follow ups:

* Bard: You may be a "warnerite" but you ain't blind, and you try like hell to be objective, which again is why I respect you.

* Who thought Green Bay would "wipe the floor" with the Giants?
If people watched the first three weeks of the season, I don't see how they'd make that assumption. Gints have played well, and GB is in decline.

* There's pressure on Bulger for one reason tonight: the Rams are 1-2 and need a win against an 0-3 team. That's the only reason there's pressure on him and the entire team.

Cheers,
Bernie

On Cardinals running against the Saints for 200+ yards.
BernieM wrote:
Hey, but Fast & Furious is what we do...



Cheers,
Bernie

On that arthritic hand on the washed up #13.
BernieM wrote:
Looks good, actually.

Cheers,
Bernie