Just when we start to praise Kurt for a good start to the season...

[Nick]

Isn't it nice that I get to watch the two worst offensive lines in football every week? Between the Rams and Giants it's getting very nerve racking to watch a pass play called.

What's interesting is that many have praised the Giants O-line for their play in recent weeks. It sounds as if they had a total breakdown this weekend though.

The second fumble could have just as easily been an interception. Warner was manuevering within a collapsing pocket and stepped up and was throwing the ball when a defender hit his arm, mid-motion and the ball popped up in the air and right into the arms of one of the d-lineman. I wouldn't put that one down as a mistake by Warner, just one of the bi-products of a bad line.

Wait, wait, wait.

Were you not the one who argued after the Falcons game that Bulger's fumble in the end zone was his fault, regardless of the situation, because he was the one who actually lost control of the ball? I believe your words were, "Bad blocking, good blocking or no blocking the guy who fumbles is responsible for fumbling."

So why, whenever Warner fumbles on this instance, you wouldn't put it down as a mistake by Warner but rather the bi-product of poor line play? I'm confused here, Mok.

[moklerman]

I believe your words were, "Bad blocking, good blocking or no blocking the guy who fumbles is responsible for fumbling."

Those were, and are my words. I thought I explained that this wasn't a "fumble" in the sense that Warner is usually (rightfully) criticized? He was throwing the ball and right when his hand was in the middle of his throwing motion someone stuck their arm in front of his arm and the ball got jarred/popped into the air. It wasn't a fumbled snap, or not protecting the ball like in so many of the Warner fumbles.

I wasn't relieving him of blame I was just saying that it was one of those flukey plays rather than his general lack of grip on the ball. This falls into the category of when the qb throws a good pass and the receiver tips it up for an interception.

The Bulger situation was completely different. Bulger was holding the ball, got hit and fumbled. In both cases the qb is ultimately responsible for turning the ball over.

So why, whenever Warner fumbles on this instance, you wouldn't put it down as a mistake by Warner but rather the bi-product of poor line play? I'm confused here, Mok.

I can see why you'd be confused if your interchanging "mistake" and "responsibility". Warner didn't make a mistake, but he was responsible for not getting the pass off sooner. It goes hand in hand though. On this particular play the line didn't give much time so they are responsible TOO. Bulger didn't make a mistake on his play either but the same things could be said in his situation. He was responsible for fumbling and the line was responsible, TOO because they didn't afford Bulger the time to get the pass off. He wasn't scrambling, farting around, exposing the ball or anything else and he didn't make a mistake, but he was responsible for fumbling. Same thing can be said for Warner on his particular play.

[moklerman]

Here's some stat's for you Nick. I dug these up while talking about Warner on the Giants BBWC board. Obviously no stat is conclusive but I found it interesting nonetheless.

Here's a list of the top 10(worst) qb's and the rate they fumble per sack-

Aaron Brooks-1/1.75 sacks
Chad Pennington-1/2
Jake Delhomme-1/2.2
Jake Plummer-1/2.3
Kurt Warner-1/2.75
Drew Brees-1/2.75
Michael Vick-1/2.78
Daunte Culpepper-1/2.85
Mark Brunell-1/2.8
Kyle Boller-1/2.86
Tom Brady-1/3

I know there are going to be other factors that can't be measured and that not all of the qb's fumbles were on sack plays, but I think it is somewhat indicative of the fact that qb's fumble more, the more they're sacked. Not a particularly profound statement but I was surprised at how frequently so many qb's fumble when hit. I thought Warner would be at the top of the list by far. I was actually hoping to illustrate that he wasn't too much worse than everyone else. Heck, he's barely top 5.

Let's even give credit to Bulger who didn't even make the list although he's been sacked and hit quite a few times this year. Kudo's.

[HUbison]

Mok, I'm kind of surprised to see so many scramblers on the list (Plummer, Culpepper, Brooks, Vick). I guess I figured those guys would take more care of the ball since their style exposes them more than pocket passers. Interesting stat, thanks.

[Nick]

I wasn't relieving him of blame I was just saying that it was one of those flukey plays rather than his general lack of grip on the ball.

Gotcha.

The Bulger situation was completely different. Bulger was holding the ball, got hit and fumbled. In both cases the qb is ultimately responsible for turning the ball over.

The Bulger situation was the one from Atlanta, where Bulger was in the pocket in the endzone and pulled his arm back to throw only to have the Falcons' DE slap his throwing arm and knock the ball loose, then grab it. I wouldn't say he was just holding onto the ball and it came loose when he got hit.

Anyways, I just wanted some clairification since the last sentence of your post made it sound like Warner wasn't responsible for it. It's all good in the hood now.

[Nick]

Here's some stat's for you Nick.

Is it Christmas already?

Here's a list of the top 10(worst) qb's and the rate they fumble per sack-

Aaron Brooks-1/1.75 sacks
Chad Pennington-1/2
Jake Delhomme-1/2.2
Jake Plummer-1/2.3
Kurt Warner-1/2.75
Drew Brees-1/2.75
Michael Vick-1/2.78
Daunte Culpepper-1/2.85
Mark Brunell-1/2.8
Kyle Boller-1/2.86
Tom Brady-1/3

Very interesting list, Mok. I'm surprised Culpepper isn't higher up there, but I guess most of his fumbles came from him running and not holding onto the ball on the run instead of being sacked.

[moklerman]

Just to clarify, those stats are from this year and are total fumbles, not just fumbles during a sack. I got the stats from Yahoo and they don't break down when the fumble occurred. In general terms, a qb is probably going to fumble during a passing related action(dropping back, pocket collapse, blindside, etc.) but I have no way to break it down that finitely.

[Nick]

Oooh, okay. I thought we were talking career numbers for some reason.

[AvengerRam]

It does not appear that Kurt is about to lose his starting job...


From CNNSI.com:

Giants coach Tom Coughlin quickly grew impatient when peppered with questions about QB Eli Manning's development. "Kurt Warner is our starting quarterback . . . Eli's the backup quarterback," Coughlin finally said in an attempt to end the discussion.
-- New York Post

[moklerman]

As a Warner fan, I have to admit it's nice to be on the other side of the "yibbit, yibbit, yibbit" comments from a coach. Of course, all things being equal would mean that Warner should be benched and Eli given a chance. I don't happen to think that's the case and it's very nice to have a coach who's willing to work with Warner and stand by him instead of making him a scapegoat. Both things that Martz, for whatever reason(personal most likely), chose not to do for his qb at the time.

[Nick]

He didn't stand by Warner after 2002 by handing him the starting job for the next season? Interesting...

[moklerman]

He didn't stand by Warner after 2002 by handing him the starting job for the next season?

? Are you talking about 2003? I seem to remember Kurt and the Rams making it to the Super Bowl and Kurt winning an MVP in 2001. Most qb's don't have to prove themselves after that the following season.

Now, if you're talking about 2003 and Kurt being named the starter after his injury plagued, mistake prone 2002 then we have a debate. I don't think it's that radical for Martz to award him the job coming off of injury as well as respecting what he'd done in the past. But if you think Martz stood by Warner by yanking him after the first game and "deciding to go in a different direction" without letting him fight for his job then we just have different definitions of support and loyalty.

[Nick]

I'm talking about after the 2002 season going into 2003.

You imply Martz wasn't loyal to his QB by saying that it must be nice for Kurt to now have a coach who stands by him. I would contend that Martz did exactly that by naming Kurt the starter going into 2003 after a bad 2002 season where a younger QB showed tremendous potential.

It wasn't a radical move, but it was a loyal one.

I believe Martz's decision after Week One was made based on a number of factors, most importantly winning. The last thing he wanted to do was start out 0-5 again. With Kurt banged up, perhaps Martz's loyalty for the rest of the team superseded his loyalty to Kurt in this instance, and Martz chose to put in the player who gave the Rams the best chance to win.

I'm not entirely interested in a debate, just voicing an opinion. It seems like whenever people criticize Martz for not being loyal to Kurt, they conveniently leave out this little portion of history or decide to shrug it off. And I think that's wrong.

[moklerman]

I see your point but don't agree with it at all. I happen to think that Martz only started Warner out of pressure from above in the first game of 2003. Once Kurt had his concussion(which Kurt denies having) Martz didn't let him sniff the starting lineup. He didn't even get the customary 10% of the snaps in practice that a 2nd string qb should get. Even when Bulger stuggled there was no hint of Warner getting a "chance" to win the job back.

So, while "Martz" awarded Kurt the starting nod in 2003(with little practice time in preseason to boot) he illustrated no loyalty to Warner and ABSOLUTE loyalty to Bulger after game one. All of this very contradictory to his statements in the preseason regarding Warner starting.

I don't know the reasons, but Warner, on some level was a scapegoat for 2002. The balloon portion of his contract was coming up and maybe management AND Martz decided it was best to get rid of Kurt and Martz played the role of bad guy for the sake of the team. But something doesn't add up. For the Rams pay to get rid of Warner just doesn't make sense to me. Not only did they completely give up on him they are paying this year and next a pretty good chunk of change to make sure he's not on the roster.

[Nick]

On the flip side of the coin though, they would probably be paying a larger chunk of change to retain him. Unless, of course, your theory on his restructuring would come to pass.

But you bring up very interesting and valid questions.