Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56
  1. #31
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    54
    Posts
    11,008
    Rep Power
    124

    Re: Warner could still help us.

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Av, you've always been the one to freely admit you hate threads that have anything to do with Warner! Why do you torture yourself by ALWAYS jumping into the fray?? Talk about incapable of letting it go. Free yourself and let it go dude.


  2. #32
    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: Warner could still help us.

    I think he needs to go to the broadcast booth, but if he can keep getting 4 million a year to play 6 or 7 games, go for it.

    I'm not one to critique down to the nth degree whether someone can play or not. First, I don't know the players so I'm not going to waste that much time on one individual. Second, I'm mostly going on the very little if at all knowledge of what it takes to be a starter in the NFL. Over the course of the whole season.

    IMHO, Warner doesn't have what it takes to sustain a level of success at the starting QB level anymore. Just my opinion. You won't be able to change it, because the stats aren't there for him after STL.

  3. #33
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is online now Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,022
    Rep Power
    164

    Re: Warner could still help us.

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike
    Av, you've always been the one to freely admit you hate threads that have anything to do with Warner! Why do you torture yourself by ALWAYS jumping into the fray?? Talk about incapable of letting it go. Free yourself and let it go dude.
    I have no problem talking about Warner. Just make it a timely and topical discussion.

    Warner vs. McCown... timely and topical.

    Warner vs. Bulger... let it go, dude.

  4. #34
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Warner could still help us.

    The fact that anyone thinks what I posted was a Warner vs. Bulger situation shows their total lack of mental capacity and/or comprehension.

    I defy you challenged individuals to show me where I put Warner vs. Bulger in this thread. C'mon, prove that all of this just isn't your own deluded bias.

  5. #35
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,922
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Warner could still help us.

    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    The fact that anyone thinks what I posted was a Warner vs. Bulger situation shows their total lack of mental capacity and/or comprehension.

    I defy you challenged individuals to show me where I put Warner vs. Bulger in this thread. C'mon, prove that all of this just isn't your own deluded bias.
    You're absolutely right. I apoligize for misrepresenting your post. However, let's go easy on the name-calling, shall we?

    Anyways, my point is that Bulger's name shouldn't be in a discussion on who gives the Cardinals the best chance of winning this weekend versus the Seahawks, which is what this thread was about. Was it really necessary to go on a tangent defending Warner when at best only two people might have actually suggested that he was past his prime? And even if you're going that route, why not compare him to McCown, the guy they say gives the Cardinals the best chance of winning but, from what I see, has performed worse than Warner this season?

    I guess I just don't understand why it was necessary to derail the thread by jumping to Warner's defense against an alligation that really was barely there, and on top of that, bring a comparison to Bulger into the mix. But hopefully we can get this thread back on track, and talk about Sunday's game.
    Last edited by Nick; -11-05-2005 at 04:15 AM.

  6. #36
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Warner could still help us.

    The reason I'm not debating about whether McCown gives the Cardinals a better chance to win is no one contradicted any of the five points I think contradict that idea.

    McCown can run better than Warner. That's the only argument I've heard in favor of him starting. I countered that idea by pointing out that even when he avoids the sack by scrambling he either throws inaccurately, get's sacked anyway or throws an interception most of the time.
    You're absolutely right.
    Just a little shock therapy to get people pointed in the right direction.
    Was it really necessary to go on a tangent defending Warner when at best only two people might have actually suggested that he was past his prime?
    How many is a justifiable number in your opinion? It's something I don't agree with and have legitimate arguments to support my point of view. Has it gotten to the point where I can't talk about Warner in a Warner thread? "Is McCown better than Warner" is about as ludicrous as "Is Martin better than Bulger".
    an alligation that really was barely there,
    a "little" there is still there. On top of which, it's relevant to the topic. My assertion's that Warner isn't finished as a starter are directly related to why he should be starting and is the Cardinals' best option, so I don't see how it's derailing anything.
    and on top of that, bring a comparison to Bulger into the mix.
    And what was the point of the comparison? Or is that irrelevant?

    I'm going to explain it for the last time. I used the current Rams qb, which happens to be Bulger, to illustrate that someone concluding Warner doesn't have what it takes anymore after only two games is unrealistic. To help illustrate that I chose a qb that I assume most Rams fans are famliar with and how they might perceive the start that he had this year. If a person didn't think Bulger's start to the year was an indicator of anything, then Warner putting up similar numbers shouldn't indicate anything either. It's all just a matter of perception and sometimes it helps to put the argument into more familiar terms to make someone realize that their perception may be skewed.

  7. #37
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,922
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Warner could still help us.

    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    The reason I'm not debating about whether McCown gives the Cardinals a better chance to win is no one contradicted any of the five points I think contradict that idea.
    I meant with your first post, not your fourth. But I'm hoping the thread now gets back on topic, so in an effort to help that along, I'll address some of your five points.


    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.
    1. It would seem to me someone being named the starter going into the season by Dennis Green of all people has little consequence, considering how often he changes QBs through the years.

    2. This is true, but keep in mind he was playing defenses like Dallas and Carolina, not St. Louis and New York.

    3-5. I'll take your word on these, because I haven't been able to watch many Cardinals games.

  8. #38
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    54
    Posts
    11,008
    Rep Power
    124

    Re: Warner could still help us.

    Another consideration here is the fact that McCown has a rib injury, although I still believe Green would have gone with Warner regardless.

    Bye the way, having "Warner" highlighted in red was an interesting effect while it lasted.

  9. #39
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Warner could still help us.

    1. It would seem to me someone being named the starter going into the season by Dennis Green of all people has little consequence, considering how often he changes QBs through the years.
    He definitely has that reputation but I'm not so sure it's a case of him having a hair trigger when the qb struggles. He inherited Gannon in 1992 and apparently didn't think he was a good fit and traded him, then came Jim McMahon who was never that good or healthy, then Warren Moon came in for two years and performed well but was almost 40 years old, then Brad Johnson who played well for two years but then got hurt, then Cunningham who played well then retired, then George who played well but is a cancer and then came Culpepper.

    Other than his first year as head coach in 1992, getting rid of Gannon, he hasn't really lowered the axe on qb's, it's been age and injury. Now, in Arizona things have been a little different but the circumstances are such that I could see just about any coach making the same moves. McCown was inherited and hasn't responded to the starting role. Shaun King is...Shaun King. John Navarre is a rookie who probably isn't terribly good (from what I've seen) and Warner got hurt.

    Now, I could be wrong but it seems to me the moves Green's made at qb aren't really impatience, just realistic.
    2. This is true, but keep in mind he was playing defenses like Dallas and Carolina, not St. Louis and New York.
    I think New York is better than Carolina on defense this year but whatever strength of opponent circumstance there might be is a wash to me in that Warner had to play the first game with a fifth string center, without the all five starters together (until game 3), in a new offense for the whole team, a rookie offensive coordinator, the starting center unable to snap shotgun and playing with his snapping hand in a cast, etc. Just think of the first 2 games of 2003 for the Rams. The o-line was a mess for Warner and Bulger and until they started to gel a little bit things didn't run smoothly. By the third, fourth game etc. they started to play a little more like a unit.

    It's too bad that Boldin got hurt, I would really like to see what the offense could do when healthy. They can move the ball up and down the field and I'm wondering if they can ever get a handle on their red zone troubles. But, they have another starter missing from the o-line this week in addition to Boldin so I'm assuming that once again there won't be any timing or cohesion overall. Especially with Warner playing his first game in weeks.

  10. #40
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,922
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Warner could still help us.

    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    McCown was inherited and hasn't responded to the starting role.
    He wasn't playing lights out, but went 3-1 after the bye week in 2004 and still got benched for Shaun King. Personally, I think that's impatience, while this year may be more realistic.


    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    I think New York is better than Carolina on defense this year
    The stats don't really support it, except in PPG.

    -Overall (YPG): Carolina (17), New York (30)
    -Passing (YPG): Carolina (26), New York (30)
    -Rushing (YPG): Carolina (2), New York (11)
    -Points Per Game: New York (15), Carolina (21)


    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    but whatever strength of opponent circumstance there might be is a wash to me in that Warner had to play the first game with a fifth string center, without the all five starters together (until game 3), in a new offense for the whole team, a rookie offensive coordinator, the starting center unable to snap shotgun and playing with his snapping hand in a cast, etc.
    Keep in mind McCown was also playing in a new offense with a rookie coordinator, and did not have the starting right tackle for any of his games, so he's had his problems as well. But you make very fair points.

  11. #41
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    54
    Posts
    11,008
    Rep Power
    124

    Re: Warner could still help us.

    All I know is that I want Seattle to go down in flames and IMO Warner is the better option to try and make that happen. He was effective against the Seahawks in the first meeting, was able to move the offense, got the Cardinals in scoring position and helped to keep things close. It was 10-9 when he went down, then got ugly on the way to a 37-12 defeat. I like Green's decision.

  12. #42
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Warner could still help us.

    He wasn't playing lights out, but went 3-1 after the bye week in 2004 and still got benched for Shaun King.
    Which leads me to believe that he wasn't playing the way Green wanted him to, regardless of the "team's" record.
    -Points Per Game: New York (15), Carolina (21)
    They're not night and day different in terms of who's better, but ppg is what really matters on defense isn't it? Neither is performing great, I just think New York is better this year. Shutting out the Redskins is far more impressive than anything Carolina's done this year.
    Keep in mind McCown was also playing in a new offense with a rookie coordinator,
    I agree that both qb's have been under tough circumstances but breaking the offense in in two road games and facing the Rams for the first time are tougher situations in my opinion. McCown had every opportunity to take hold of the starting job while Warner was injured but underperforming against Carolina and Tennessee hurt his chances and playing badly against the Cowboys was all Green needed to see.

  13. #43
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is online now Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,022
    Rep Power
    164

    Re: Warner could still help us.

    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    The fact that anyone thinks what I posted was a Warner vs. Bulger situation shows their total lack of mental capacity and/or comprehension.

    I defy you challenged individuals to show me where I put Warner vs. Bulger in this thread. C'mon, prove that all of this just isn't your own deluded bias.

    Okay...

    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    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
    Any more misplaced denials?

  14. #44
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Warner could still help us.

    Any more misplaced denials?
    So, please tell me how this is a Warner vs. Bulger argument. Please show me where I was arguing that one was better than the other.

    Now go find one of your little pictures and completely miss the point again so we know it's actually you posting.

  15. #45
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is online now Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,022
    Rep Power
    164

    Re: Warner could still help us.

    Mok, you need to just back down with grace here.

    You posted Bulger vs. Warner stats to make a point, and later denied you compared Bulger vs. Warner saying you defied anyone "to show me where I put Warner vs. Bulger in this thread."

    I showed you, and you're still denying it.

    You're just embarrassing yourself now.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

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
  •