Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 77
  1. #31
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,012
    Rep Power
    164

    Re: The Giants on Kurt Warner

    It might. You may have been beaned in the head, subjected to hard fouls, or pile-driven into the mat. That might help.


  2. #32
    thoey's Avatar
    thoey is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, United States
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,005
    Rep Power
    32

    Re: The Giants on Kurt Warner

    You know, those of you that are tired of talking about Warner sure spend a lot of time and effort posting in a thread dedicated to talking about Warner. Why don't those of you that think we should "Quit discussing Warner, Bulgar is our QB now" just stay away from this thread?

    I am not going to try and convince you that this was a mistake. Do me a favor and grant me the same respect.
    This space for rent...

  3. #33
    Shadesofgrey's Avatar
    Shadesofgrey is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield
    Age
    40
    Posts
    248
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The Giants on Kurt Warner

    As much as I want Bulger to be the second coming of GSOT I don't really think he has the arm or the on field presense to make it happen. I think he's good, but will never fill Warner's 99-01 shoes...with the talent drain the Rams have experienced I really don't see him even have a chance to prove it...

  4. #34
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,919
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: The Giants on Kurt Warner

    Quote Originally Posted by thoey
    You know, those of you that are tired of talking about Warner sure spend a lot of time and effort posting in a thread dedicated to talking about Warner. Why don't those of you that think we should "Quit discussing Warner, Bulgar is our QB now" just stay away from this thread?
    I'm not sure if anyone is actually tired of talking about Kurt Warner as a player and a person. But I know personally, I'm tired of talking about Kurt Warner in threads that are supposed to be about Marc Bulger or the current Rams team. A discussion about Kurt in a thread like this in this forum is fine by me.

    I'm going to assume, though, based on the last part of your response that you're not going to address the points I made in response to your pseduo-criticism of the fans for not admitting, as you think they should, that the FO was wrong. Fair enough. But if you don't want to be responded to by someone with their opinion on your statements or the topic, perhaps it would be better not to post at all. Food for thought.

  5. #35
    jjsram is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Age
    47
    Posts
    107
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: The Giants on Kurt Warner

    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    Do you really believe that Kurt's playing well in the NY Giants offensive scheme mean the front office was wrong? I'd question anyone who says that. When the Giants start going 4-5 wide and passing 40+ times a game, then we'll only begin to get an idea.

    But as of right now, Warner is playing in a very controlled and very managable offense that isn't requiring him to be the playmaker he needed to be here. Some of us who had reservations about whether Warner could still play are being proven wrong, but again, that doesn't prove that he would have been just as good here.
    Nick, can you tell me which NFL team is passing over 40+ times a game?
    Did you know that the wideopen Rams O is passing the ball a whopping 6.3 more times in a game than the Giants?
    Did you also know that Warner's yards per completion is higher than Bulger's?

  6. #36
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,919
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: The Giants on Kurt Warner

    Quote Originally Posted by jjsram
    Nick, can you tell me which NFL team is passing over 40+ times a game?
    Did you know that the wideopen Rams O is passing the ball a whopping 6.3 more times in a game than the Giants?
    Did you also know that Warner's yards per completion is higher than Bulger's?
    Are you trying to tell me the Giants offense and Rams offense is comparable?

  7. #37
    jjsram is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Age
    47
    Posts
    107
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: The Giants on Kurt Warner

    Nope, the Giants run the ball better, and you didn't answer any of the questions. How is the third question possible?

  8. #38
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    49
    Posts
    8,614
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: The Giants on Kurt Warner

    Can we have a thread on James Hodgins? How about Jeff Zgonina? Or maybe Robert Holcolmbe? Oooh, maybe a rousing debate on whether we were wrong to let Fred Miller go... or Ryan Tucker... or even... dare I say... Az Hakim.

    You did not get it when he was here and you still don't. That ok you are still a Rams fan and thats all that counts.

  9. #39
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,012
    Rep Power
    164

    Re: The Giants on Kurt Warner

    I get it. I just wish some people would let it go.

  10. #40
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,919
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: The Giants on Kurt Warner

    Quote Originally Posted by jjsram
    Nope, the Giants run the ball better, and you didn't answer any of the questions. How is the third question possible?
    I didn't answer the questions because I was trying to get to the point you were implying instead of beating this horse further. But since that's the alley you want to travel down...


    1) The San Francisco ***** are averaging 39.25 attempts per game. I'd say that's pretty close. The Bengals average 38.5 attempts per game. Not that far off either. No team is currently at 40 attempts or more, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make, and perhaps did not articulate well. My point was that in the Giants offense, the liklihood of their asking Warner to throw 40+ times in a game is slim to none. Even in their loss to Philly, Warner only threw 28 times, and even when the Redskins turned the ball over seven times in one game and gave the Giants a lot of offensive opportunities, Warner only threw the ball 33 times. That's his high for the year. Very different from the number of times Rams' QBs are typically asked to pass, and I think we'll see a clear disparity once the year is over.


    2) Yes, I was aware of that. Now, did you know the following...

    -Percentage of pass attempts thrown in formations of three or more WRs: Marc Bulger (70%), Kurt Warner (60%)
    -Percentage of pass attempts thrown in formations of four or more wide receivers: Marc Bulger (23%), Kurt Warner (12%)
    -Percentage of pass attempts thrown in formations with one or more tight ends: Kurt Warner (83%), Marc Bulger (54%)
    -Percentage of pass attempts thrown in formations with two tight ends: Kurt Warner (24%), Marc Bulger (10%)

    Again, these offenses are very, very different, which is why I'm saying that success in NY doesn't necessarily equate to success in St. Louis.


    3) This is possible because the Giants are gaining more yards on fewer attempts on their throws over 20 yards then the Rams are. I would imagine this has a lot to do with YAC, but that's a guess at this point because I can't find YAC stats.

  11. #41
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,012
    Rep Power
    164

    Re: The Giants on Kurt Warner

    A bit of advice. When it comes to stats, don't mess with the bull (Nick) or you'll get gored by the horns (that last post).


    Well done, Nick.

  12. #42
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    49
    Posts
    8,614
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: The Giants on Kurt Warner

    I get it. I just wish some people would let it go.
    This was the best QB ever to play for our RAMS our RAMS; no one has ever taken us to where KW did. To handle his career with the RAMS the way this FO and coach Martz did is the first step to becoming a doormat again. Granted Marc has played very good and I hope he can keep it up. But you don’t pay a guy big money, tell him he is the guy and let him play one game and pull the plug. He won so many games for us, took big hits for us, made the rest of the league including the winners respect us “same old sorry ass Rams”. It hard for many us to get over the way he was handled. Martz could spin it all he wanted when he was coaching him, now his play is tell the truth, he was not a used up 30 something flash in the pan. Thank God Marc is playing at this level our Martz would be in deep s***!

  13. #43
    thoey's Avatar
    thoey is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, United States
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,005
    Rep Power
    32

    Re: The Giants on Kurt Warner

    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    I'm not sure if anyone is actually tired of talking about Kurt Warner as a player and a person. But I know personally, I'm tired of talking about Kurt Warner in threads that are supposed to be about Marc Bulger or the current Rams team. A discussion about Kurt in a thread like this in this forum is fine by me.

    I'm going to assume, though, based on the last part of your response that you're not going to address the points I made in response to your pseudo-criticism of the fans for not admitting, as you think they should, that the FO was wrong. Fair enough. But if you don't want to be responded to by someone with their opinion on your statements or the topic, perhaps it would be better not to post at all. Food for thought.
    Sorry Nick, I kinda gave up on the conversation after your post to my comment due to the sarcastic turn in the thread by the Bulgarites. I appreciate that you are still willing to discuss it, as long as it is in the right context and thread, but there are some that just want those of us that still think this was a BAD mistake to just go away. I won't go away, but I just don't need to respond to that trash from people who try to dictate what can and can't be said. Sometimes I think it is a shame on what has happened to our team and this forum as a result of it.

    Your comments:

    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    Do you really believe that Kurt's playing well in the NY Giants offensive scheme mean the front office was wrong? I'd question anyone who says that. When the Giants start going 4-5 wide and passing 40+ times a game, then we'll only begin to get an idea.

    But as of right now, Warner is playing in a very controlled and very manageable offense that isn't requiring him to be the playmaker he needed to be here. Some of us who had reservations about whether Warner could still play are being proven wrong, but again, that doesn't prove that he would have been just as good here.
    Yes, in a way I do see that as being wrong. A good front office / coaching staff, that wants to win, needs to put every player in position to succeed. If KW has lost a step due to wear and tear, that can partially be attributed to the play calling of the coach and the front office's lack of desire to rebuild a weak offensive line. Since Martz did not call plays that allowed for more protection (Like he did for MB) and since the front office made NO attempt to draft or acquire through free agency any sort of O line, I do hold them at the very least partially responsible.

    Our team, with MB at the helm, is still not running the GSOT style offense they were running with KW in the early years. As many have mentioned, and I agree, they probably never will again. Part of that was just cause it was something special, the other part, in my opinion, is because that line still has not been upgraded and because MB can't run it. Okay, maybe he can't run it yet and might grow into it. But if the line doesn't get an upgrade, he will end up the same way as KW, Martz will run him into the ground and drop him once he is broken goods.

    Now as to New York. They have taken a "has been" GSOT QB, realized that he isn't still GSOT caliber, but is still a serviceable QB, if presented with the right scheme and tools. They are reaping the benefits of our front office's mistake. And what do they have to show for it?

    Att Comp Yds Comp% Yds/Att TD TD% INT INT% Long Sack/Lost Rating
    114 77 908 67.5 8.0 2 1.8 1 0.9 47 12/81 93.8

    He is 8th in both passing and in QB Rating. MB is ahead of him with 3rd in yardage and 6th in rating:

    Att Comp Yds Comp% Yds/Att TD TD% INT INT% Long Sack/Lost Rating
    139 96 1101 69.1 7.9 4 2.9 2 1.4 36 10/68 96.2

    Not really that much difference between the two QB's.

    Now, compare the Rams offense to the Giants offense. We have better receivers, no doubt. Arguably a better RB core. Both lines were considered to be awful in pre-season, but have been serviceable.

    Warner has worse tools to work with but the difference between him and MB is the following:

    Att Comp Yds Comp% Yds/Att TD TD% INT INT% Long Sack/Lost Rating
    -25 -19 -193 -1.6 +.1 -2 -1.1 -1 -.5 +11 2/13 -2.4

    I wonder what KW could have done with the tools on the Rams, but with the play calling of the Giants. Or with what plays the Rams are calling for MB.

    Biggest stat not shown above:

    Rams 2 wins 2 losses
    Giants 3 wins 1 loss

    The biggest argument for releasing KW was that the team was not behind him and were not winning with him. Where are we now? Time to drop MB? Go with Chandler till he gets hurt (first series) and then Smoker?

    No matter what anyone says. The Rams made a mistake. The Giants took advantage of that for now. Who knows how it will end. But I think the downward spiral that is caused by past success and free agency just took a steep decline. How long until the front office decides to right the ship?

    Welcome to the 80's revisited. A mediocre team with occasional flashes of brilliance.
    Last edited by thoey; -10-07-2004 at 12:54 PM.
    This space for rent...

  14. #44
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    50
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    64

    Re: The Giants on Kurt Warner

    I'm not so sure about the worst tools argument. Toomer/Hilliard are 2 very good WR's and Barber just needed a foot somewhere that the sun dosen't shine to bring out his talent. Plus, who on the Rams roster at TE can compare with Shockey?

  15. #45
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,919
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: The Giants on Kurt Warner

    Quote Originally Posted by thoey
    Our team, with MB at the helm, is still not running the GSOT style offense they were running with KW in the early years.
    And I'm sure none of that has to do with a stronger running game, more experience and arguably talent at the receiver position, or a better tight end? You seem pretty quick to claim Bulger can't run the offense, but let's be honest - this isn't a team that has GSOT potential right now. Maybe once Curtis and McDonald get some more experience, and maybe if Manu develops, and maybe if the line improves. But it's not there yet.


    Quote Originally Posted by thoey
    They have taken a "has been" GSOT QB, realized that he isn't still GSOT caliber, but is still a serviceable QB, if presented with the right scheme and tools.
    It's interesting you mention this. I'll come back to it.


    Quote Originally Posted by thoey
    I wonder what KW could have done with the tools on the Rams, but with the play calling of the Giants.
    Nothing, because the Rams aren't going to be running that offense. Are you suggesting the team should have changed their offensive philosophy because of Warner rather than just switching personnel and keeping with what they've been doing? That sounds like a huge mistake in management to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by thoey
    The biggest argument for releasing KW was that the team was not behind him and were not winning with him. Where are we now? Time to drop MB? Go with Chandler till he gets hurt (first series) and then Smoker?
    Why? The big difference is when we were losing with Warner, Warner wasn't playing that well. He was throwing very costly interceptions despite the defense keeping us in some of those games. When we've lost this season, Bulger has been playing very well. He's put up QB ratings over 100 in both the Rams losses. And to simplify Warner's release in that he lost the team and wasn't winning is not a great argument. Those are only parts of multiple reasons. Again, had Warner been willing to give back some bonus money to decrease his cap number, he might still be a Ram.


    Quote Originally Posted by thoey
    No matter what anyone says. The Rams made a mistake.
    No. No matter what anyone says, you think the Rams made a mistake. Your opinion isn't exactly an indisputable fact, thoey.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: -05-17-2005, 12:40 AM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: -12-31-2004, 05:44 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: -10-18-2004, 04:59 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: -06-18-2004, 10:23 AM
  5. Interesting Takes From Warner & Coughlin
    By r8rh8rmike in forum NFL TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -06-10-2004, 11:06 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •