Warner could still help us.

[moklerman]

We all agree that Marc Bulger's not washed up, right? Or ready for the broadcast booth? So, I'm going to use him for comparison's sake because I'm sure most of you are familiar with who he is.

He's been injured and missed 3+ weeks of action. Just like Warner. Warner, even though he hasn't been injured since 2002, is labeled as injury prone. Bulger, who's been injured every year, doesn't garner any concern at all in that area. People mention in passing that he needs to bulk up, etc. but no one's really "worried" about him staying healthy.

In Bulger's first two games this year:
52 att 85 com 61.2% 578 yds 6.8 y/a 3 td 2 int 83 rat
In Warner's first two games this year:
56 att 88 com 63.7% 591 yds 6.7 y/a 1 td 2 int 77 rat

One of these guy's is washed up and the other, most Rams fans can't wait to get back. Now, when looking at these numbers some of you might think "you can't judge Bulger's year by just the first two games" and that would lead me to ask: "can you judge Warner's in two?"

[AvengerRam]

His Super Bowl was in 1999. That's been light years in NFL time.

Light years are actually a measure of distance, not time. :tongue:

That said, I agree with your point.

I would love for Warner to have a GSOT deja vu this week and torch the Hawks, but I don't expect that will occur.

[AvengerRam]

We all agree that Marc Bulger's not washed up, right? Or ready for the broadcast booth? So, I'm going to use him for comparison's sake because I'm sure most of you are familiar with who he is.

He's been injured and missed 3+ weeks of action. Just like Warner. Warner, even though he hasn't been injured since 2002, is labeled as injury prone. Bulger, who's been injured every year, doesn't garner any concern at all in that area. People mention in passing that he needs to bulk up, etc. but no one's really "worried" about him staying healthy.

In Bulger's first two games this year:
52 att 85 com 61.2% 578 yds 6.8 y/a 3 td 2 int 83 rat
In Warner's first two games this year:
56 att 88 com 63.7% 591 yds 6.7 y/a 1 td 2 int 77 rat

One of these guy's is washed up and the other, most Rams fans can't wait to get back. Now, when looking at these numbers some of you might think "you can't judge Bulger's year by just the first two games" and that would lead me to ask: "can you judge Warner's in two?"

Let it go, dude.

[moklerman]

Let it go, dude.

As soon as you "let go" of Martz.

[AvengerRam]

[moklerman]

I'm sorry, I usually list examples and reasons for my opinions. If your incapable of disagreeing or supporting your opinions, maybe you are better suited for show & tell.

[Nick]

We all agree that Marc Bulger's not washed up, right?

And here I thought you'd be the first to appreciate a discussion about the Arizona Cardinals, but instead, you drag Marc Bulger into it. Did you hop into a Delorean driven by Doc Brown and travel back to 2003 before making this post? :tut

Anyway, back to the original topic, I hope Warner can pull out a win against Seattle, but I don't see it happening. The Cardinals' offensive line isn't good, their running game is pathetic, Anquan Boldin probably won't play, and their defense is mediocre at best. Never say never, but this one would shock me.

[AvengerRam]

I'm sorry, I usually list examples and reasons for my opinions. If your incapable of disagreeing or supporting your opinions, maybe you are better suited for show & tell.

[moklerman]

And here I thought you'd be the first to appreciate a discussion about the Arizona Cardinals, but instead, you drag Marc Bulger into it.

Drag? I'm not saying anything bad about him at all. I'm trying to illustrate that Warner being washed up is a flat out inaccuracy. I guess Rams fans will never be able to participate in a converstaion about qb's.

I just laugh at how poster's can proclaim Warner is washed up, nothing more than a backup, etc. and no one blinks an eyelash. But when I try to refute the baseless claims with stat's and circumstances, I'm the one who's stirring thing's up?

Now, can the Cardinals beat the Seahawks? Not on paper, but San Francisco showed everyone how much that really means against Tampa Bay.

But realistically, the Cards have had to reshuffle their o-line again this week so unless that somehow translates to a better running game, I don't see the Cardinals being able to keep up with Seattle. I'm hoping..."hoping" not expecting, Bryant Johnson to have an epifany and break out in his new role as #2 wr. I don't know who the Card's are going to use at the all-important #3 though. That will be the make or break position for them this week.

[r8rh8rmike]

Many around here didn't think Warner was in any way, shape or form a threat against us when we went into Arizona to face the Cardinals, yet with 1:53 on the clock, starting on his own 14 yard line, he completed six straight passes on an 81 yard drive, and come within an eyelash of beating us, only to be stopped by a penalty and clock runoff.

Now, I think Kurt will have an extremely tough road against Seattle, but if his team can somehow get him the support he needs, he is fully capable of doing some damage to the Seahawks. Given a legitimate chance, Kurt Warner is still a viable NFL QB IMO. I'll be rooting for him big time.

[Nick]

I'm not saying anything bad about him at all.

I didn't say you were bashing or badmouthing him. I said you were dragging him into a conversation that has nothing to do with him, which like it or not, deny it or not, you are.

And as for Ram fans not being able to participate in a discussion of QBs, believe it or not, there actually was a conversation about two QBs in Arizona taking place before you posted. Maybe you can join that one sometime soon.

I just laugh at how poster's can proclaim Warner is washed up

Of course, no one in this thread even said the words "washed up" until you posted them.

In fact, of the ten people who posted a total of fifteen times before you did, only two of them even expressed an opinion that can be classified as criticism of Warner's play this season.

But I guess that was enough to sound the Mok alarm to come and quelch the fires of injustice and blasphemy. The bottom line is the debate between Bulger and Warner is tired, played out, and over. Both teams have moved on, and both players have moved on. If you want to relive it, I suggest you contact H. G. Wells and see what he can do for you.

Otherwise, let's get back to our regularly scheduled program...

Now, can the Cardinals beat the Seahawks? Not on paper, but San Francisco showed everyone how much that really means against Tampa Bay.

Tampa Bay lost their starting QB and Pro Bowl defensive end for that game, so it's not exactly a great comparison unless Hasselbeck isn't playing this week.

Perhaps a better comparison would actually be our game against Jacksonville. We lost our starting QB (which you could say the Cardinals are by benching McCown), had two starting receivers on the bench (Arizona looks like they won't be playing Boldin), and were minus a star defensive player in Little (the Cards are without Rolle in the secondary).

Also, the Cards, like we did, are taking on an opponent who appears strong but may be expecting an easy game or looking past them.

Maybe Warner provides a spark and can make something happen. I hope he can, because that puts us one step closer to taking a division lead if we can do well in Seattle.

[AvengerRam]

yet with 1:53 on the clock, starting on his own 14 yard line, he completed six straight passes on an 81 yard drive.

With the defense the Rams were playing on that drive, the Venus de Milo would have completed 5-6 passes.

[r8rh8rmike]

With the defense the Rams were playing on that drive, the Venus de Milo would have completed 5-6 passes.

I'm not sure that was the case when Warner got them into Ram territory, but regardless, he took the situation he was given and exploited it.

If your Venus de Milo theory is correct though, I guess it's a good thing we were saved by the penalty and subsequent clock runoff.

[moklerman]

I said you were dragging him into a conversation that has nothing to do with him,

Which NFL qb's are on the "safe" list for comparisons? If people have truly moved on like you say, then why can't this example be used to illustrate that two games do not a season make? That's all that I was pointing out.

there actually was a conversation about two QBs in Arizona taking place before you posted.

There was mention of it, but when I posted the thread had steered toward talk of Warner being better off in the broadcast booth.

But, to answer why McCown was benched in favor of Warner: 1. Warner is the starter, McCown was the fill in until Warner was close to 100% 2. McCown's rating went down each week, from 110 to 55 in the course of four games. 3. McCown can't run a 2-minute drill and folds when the game is on the line. 4. McCown is terribly inconsistent. 5. His ability to avoid sacks with his athleticism is highly overrated and doesn't outweigh is propensity to make a mistake once he is on the run.

Of course, no one in this thread even said the words "washed up" until you posted them.

How bout Denny Green and Warner in the broadcast booth !!

Well, don't hold your breath....I just think Warner needs to go to the broadcast booth.

Or maybe Green is just an idiot...Besides, what did Warner do as a starter to warrant any trust?

With the defense the Rams were playing on that drive, the Venus de Milo would have completed 5-6 passes.

I don't think I was quoting when I said people were claiming he was washed up but these are the types of things being said. Not exactly a stretch.

The bottom line is the debate between Bulger and Warner is tired, played out, and over.

It saddens me that you actually think that's what I was saying. It just goes to show that people read what they want to read.

I will give you the fact that in general, the posters have been hopeful and supportive of Warner's chances this week (in this thread).

Tampa Bay lost their starting QB and Pro Bowl defensive end for that game, so it's not exactly a great comparison unless Hasselbeck isn't playing this week.

Did you understand the point I was trying to make? As long as that happened, I think it was a perfectly good example. Granted, I could have looked to see which team's rosters had suffered the exact same injuries at each position and whose records were identical but why go to such lengths? Was anyone out there confused as to the point I was making?

[AvengerRam]

No, we're clear that your point was to, once again, rehash the whole Warner/Bulger thing because you are incapable of letting it go.