Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 81

Thread: Kurt warner

  1. #46
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,723
    Rep Power
    129

    Re: Kurt warner

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    This glove argument is a moving target.

    Let me just ask you this... do you really think Warner would be playing, and playing well, today if he had been with the Rams over the past few seasons?
    Impossible to say. Under the right circumstances, absolutely. Under the circumstances Bulger was in last year, he might have been playing, but probably not very effectively.


  2. #47
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is online now Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,849
    Rep Power
    169

    Re: Kurt warner

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike View Post
    Impossible to say. Under the right circumstances, absolutely. Under the circumstances Bulger was in last year, he might have been playing, but probably not very effectively.


    Come on, Mike... take a stand!

  3. #48
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,723
    Rep Power
    129

    Re: Kurt warner

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    Come on, Mike... take a stand!
    The Warner subject is a moving target.

  4. #49
    atcchris's Avatar
    atcchris is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Age
    51
    Posts
    300
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Kurt warner

    Fact: Warner led us to 2 Super Bowls
    Fact: Warner led us to 1 Super Bowl win
    Fact: Warner won 2 MVP awards
    Fact: Warner was tossed to the curb by Rams' management.
    Fact: Warner put up a perfect game, by QB rating, last week.
    Fact: Warner is still, 6 years later, a top caliber QB.

    These are facts, and they cannot be disputed.

    Opinion: Warner should have been put back in as a starter in 2003.
    Opinion: Warner would have led us to another Super Bowl in 2003.
    Opinion: The Rams would not have crumbled as a result.
    Opinion: Warner could well have operated at a high level since 2003. He worked his way to starting gigs at each of his successive teams, despite all odds against him.

    All of the above opinions contingent on Martz controlling his ego and/or the front office having a clue as to how to value a player who gave so much to the team.

    Question: Would we have been better off with him or without him? Could we get much worse than 8-8, 6-10, 8-8 and 3-13?
    Last edited by atcchris; -09-21-2008 at 12:24 AM.

  5. #50
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,723
    Rep Power
    129

    Re: Kurt warner

    One thing we know for sure Chris is that Kurt Warner is relentless and almost impossible to keep down. Definitely a special football player.

  6. #51
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Kurt warner

    1. How do you know that the glove cured the fumbling problems? Maybe it is simply that Warner is not getting hit as much as he did when he was in the Martz Min-Protect Offense.
    I believe Arizona was top 7 in allowing QB hits last year even though they didn't give up very many sacks. And the gloves didn't "cure" the problem just got it under control. Before the gloves, Warner couldn't be counted on to receive the snap from center and every play was a cause to hold one's breath. Since wearing the gloves, he's more "normal". He'll still fumble but not at an historic rate.
    2. How can you possibly assert that the Rams had "no interest" in looking for a solution to Warner's problems?
    I think all Rams fans remember the very quick and definite shift from Warner in 2003. The team decided a replacement was the better option. Why would they have benched Warner, made Bulger the unquestioned starter and then got rid of Warner. It seems pretty obvious to me that fixing Warner wasn't a priority. Replacing him was the path they chose.
    My point is this.... Assume that Warner was given another chance and, in fact, reclaimed his spot in 2003. I still don't think that Warner would be the Rams starter today. Warner was already battered at that point, and if he took all the hits that Bulger has taken from 2004 - today, I don't think he'd still be playing. You can only sustain so many hits (particularly when you've had concussions), and Warner needed the transition period as a backup to regain his health.
    I long ago came to realize that as much crap as Warner had to deal with since leaving the Rams, it was still the best thing for his career.
    I've watched virtually every game Warner has played since he left the Rams, and the change in his play after he decided to use the gloves has been the difference between night and day.
    It's not exactly an iron-clad proof but his passes are actually spirals since he started wearing the gloves too.
    Besides, I'm not seeing the statistical evidence of this glove argument. Since he left the Rams, Warner has appeared in 42 games, starting 37, and has fumbled 43 times (more than once per game). Just last year, he appeared in 14 games, starting 11, and fumbled 12 times. Where's this major improvement you are speaking of?
    From 2004-2006 without the gloves, Warner fumbled 31 times(3.6%) in 855 attempts+sacks. From 2006 on, with the gloves, he's fumbled 12 times(2.0%) in 577 attempts+sacks. Brady, Favre, Palmer and Bulger are all in the 1.1%(Bulger) to 1.3%. So, Warner's still a little too frequent but there is the possibility that the bulky elbow brace/dislocated elbow may be skewing the new numbers a little. I know one of the fumbles from last year was a James fumble that Warner was credited with and it seems like one of the other ones wasn't really his either. In any case, he's about twice as secure with the ball in terms of fumbling since adopting the gloves and as mentioned, they are "normal" fumbles and not just dropping the snap, etc.
    Let me just ask you this... do you really think Warner would be playing, and playing well, today if he had been with the Rams over the past few seasons?
    Probably about the same as he did with the Giants and '05/'06 Cardinals. If all else remained equal, the increase in sacks would have worked against him while not dealing with a learning curve and acclimating to new personnel would have benefited him.

    It is a curious question when you really start thinking about it. I have very little faith in the front office but if they hadn't had to deal with paying Warner and Bulger starting money at the same time maybe they sign a key free agent that makes a difference? Draft positions change and on and on. Butterfly effect for sure.

  7. #52
    jkramsfan's Avatar
    jkramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Destin,Fl.
    Age
    50
    Posts
    3,507
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: Kurt warner

    I love how this debate never ends,I do respect each guys opinion and there is many different ones but bottom line is Kurt's with the Cards now and be happy he is still playing at a high level,it can only better his chances at a possible HOF shot which was dead in the water two seasons ago.

  8. #53
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Kurt warner

    Warner-watch:

    16/30 192 2 TD/1 INT vs. Washington.

    Leading the NFC in TD's and QB rating through 3 weeks. Keep it up, graybeard.

  9. #54
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,643
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Kurt warner

    Quote Originally Posted by AV
    Not sure there's a clear cause and effect there. I mean... I wear underwear every day and I never wet my pants, but that does not mean that I would if I ever went commando.
    Poignant, germane, & lucid..............yet HIGHLY disturbing!
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  10. #55
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Kurt warner

    Not sure there's a clear cause and effect there. I mean... I wear underwear every day and I never wet my pants, but that does not mean that I would if I ever went commando.
    I don't think the analogy is accurate. They both involve clothing but the order and effect are wrong. Now, if you'd never worn underwear and were constantly wetting your pants, then started wearing underwear and the wetting stopped that would be more germane and would present the possibility that the underwear was making some kind of difference.

    And yes, it's a disturbing image.

  11. #56
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,643
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Kurt warner

    I am really surprised the Warner fans are still arguing for him remaining with the Rams. He's playing great for the Cards, and is doubtful he'd be playing at all if he remained.

    And I must admit I'm a little surprised at the insistency with which some claim to have knowledge of what the organization or Martz or anyone else for that matter were "thinking" or "feeling" with any level of certainity. To read this thread, some would think certain individuals are either Martz, Warner, or Miss Cleo............how else would anyone know what someone else is thinking or feeling.

    But I digress.

    With the facts as they were, how could anyone make a different decision. Warner had just put together games of 88.5, 73.2, 48.5, 39.6, 70.8, 90.6, 43.6, & 79.4. Yet on the bench, they have a younger QB who in that same span put together performances of 134.1, 73.4, 89.0, 131.7, 100.5, 81.1, 112.5 & 105.8.

    Who would have chosen option 1 in that situation? How can you blame the Rams for starting Bulger in place of Warner at that point?

    And lest we forget, Warner got back on the field in week 17. Was he healed up and ready to go? Not according to the 44.9 rating he put up.

    Funny how there wasn't all this second guessing from '04-'06 when Bulger puts up 93.7, 94.4, and 92.9 compared to Warner's 86.5, 85.8, and 89.3. It wasn't until '07 that Warner finally notched a better rating than Bulger.

    Assuming Warner would have regained a level of health with the Rams that he now enjoys elsewhere (which I doubt), who would have wanted to wait FOUR YEARS for the better QB to manifest himself?!?!

    We're now wanting heads to roll after 3 games, but you wished we would have waited FOUR YEARS?!?!?


    Guys, I love Kurt Warner as much as the next man (not as much as Major's wife, but that's a different story). In fact, 13 was my jersey of choice at the Bash. But fellas, the decision was made right or wrong; and the world has been spinning a whole heck of a lot since then. Time to move on.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  12. #57
    atcchris's Avatar
    atcchris is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Age
    51
    Posts
    300
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Kurt warner

    And I must admit I'm a little surprised at the insistency with which some claim to have knowledge of what the organization or Martz or anyone else for that matter were "thinking" or "feeling" with any level of certainity. To read this thread, some would think certain individuals are either Martz, Warner, or Miss Cleo............how else would anyone know what someone else is thinking or feeling.

    But I digress.

    With the facts as they were, how could anyone make a different decision. Warner had just put together games of 88.5, 73.2, 48.5, 39.6, 70.8, 90.6, 43.6, & 79.4. Yet on the bench, they have a younger QB who in that same span put together performances of 134.1, 73.4, 89.0, 131.7, 100.5, 81.1, 112.5 & 105.8.
    I don't think you're comparing apples with apples. Bulger's games in 2003 were against clearly inferior opponents, and he didn't look good in those games. The buzz at the time was "when is Warner going to get his chance"

    The fact that Warner did NOT get a chance, seeing as how he was a 2-time MVP, and led us to 2 Super Bowls speaks volumes about what the FO and Martz were "thinking".

    And lest we forget, Warner got back on the field in week 17. Was he healed up and ready to go? Not according to the 44.9 rating he put up.
    After being benched for all those games, thrown into a game after Bulger had already lost it, and you're quibbling about his rating? The die was cast when Warner was not put back in the lineup after 2 games being out. Our future was destroyed at that time. Although we smoke-and-mirrored our way into ALMOST getting home field throughout the playoffs, we were dead when the decision was made to kick Warner to the curb and go with Bulger.

    I was pleading against that decision back then, and the results are in. You can pinpoint when the decline began. When the Rams heirarchy broke faith with Warner (and us fans)

    That's the frustration of all this. The egos and "business decisions" out of the FO are horribly out of touch with principles necessary for winning teams.

    What do I hope to accomplish by pointing this out? Vent my spleen., mostly, I guess. I'm not willing to jump ship to another team yet, so I take the standard fan's way out - I grouse about their stupidity.

  13. #58
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,643
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Kurt warner

    After being benched for all those games, thrown into a game after Bulger had already lost it, and you're quibbling about his rating?
    Not quibbling, just stating the fact. But surely a 2-time MVP, that led us to 2 Super Bowls would have no problem with the Lions, would he? Unless of course, he still wasn't healthy?
    I don't think you're comparing apples with apples.
    I'm sure you don't. Doesn't change the fact, that at the time, Bulger was winning, Warner wasn't.
    Bulger's games in 2003 were against clearly inferior opponents
    Why? Because Bulger was the one that led the Rams to a win? The facts disagree with you. Warner's opponents had a .467 win% against the rest of the NFL. Bulger's opponents had a .470 win% against the rest of the NFL. So in truth......Warner faced slightly inferior teams compared to Bulger during that time.
    and he didn't look good in those games.
    He looked a lot better than Warner had looked. After the SB, Warner had 1 game with a 90+ rating. During that same time, Bulger had 11.
    The buzz at the time was "when is Warner going to get his chance"
    Actually, the buzz at the time was...."Wow, Warner is 0-8 since the Super Bowl, but this Bulger kid is now 18-3"
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  14. #59
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Kurt warner

    I'm sure you don't. Doesn't change the fact, that at the time, Bulger was winning, Warner wasn't.
    Hubison, you'll lose all credibility of your argument with me with a statement like that.

    But if it all boils down to 8 games, Bulger's last 8 games in 2003(169/273 1,759 10 TD/13 INT 72.9 rating) hardly make him the clear choice to keep and Warner the clear choice to cut in 2004. Remember, for this argument, past achievements mean nothing.

    I'm not arguing that it was best for Warner to have stayed a Ram but I do find much fault in how and why the Rams decided to get rid of him.

  15. #60
    atcchris's Avatar
    atcchris is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Bedford, Texas
    Age
    51
    Posts
    300
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Kurt warner

    hubison, I don't know which games you're comparing... is it Warner's in 2002 vs Bulger's in 2003? Or what?

    Warner pushed hard to come back in 2002. He probably shouldn't have, but he did. They were down to their 3rd string QB many times. Warner's a gamer and he's going to try everything he can to help his team win.

    When you say that the teams Warner played had X pct against everyone else and the teams Bulger played against had Y pct, that's bogus. Warner was hurt in the games you are using for his stats, Bulger wasn't.

    We will never know what Warner would do against the teams Bulger played against in 2003. *I* say that he would have done better than 10TD/13 INT.

    If your point is that Warner was "done" after the Super Bowl loss, well, you're entitled to your opinion, but the one thing that exposes that as iffy is the fact that Warner is still smoking and Bulger.. not so much.

    Only slimy organizations kick their injured heroes to the curb. Our organization is guilty.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. PaRamFan48 Chistmas '99
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: -03-18-2006, 11:18 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: -05-17-2005, 12:40 AM
  3. Replies: 48
    Last Post: -07-01-2004, 09:49 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
  •