throwback week



Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 67
  1. #16
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,871
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Warner Will Not Stay As Eli's Backup (CNNSI)

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike
    Expecting any player to live up to your definition of "team player" is going too far. I agree with your premis during any given season, but when a season is over and a player has the means and legitamate opportunity to better their position, there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing just that.
    I'm not saying there's something wrong with doing it. Just that it doesn't make him a team player, in my opinion. And I don't think it's expecting too much, since there have been many examples of guys happily going down the depth chart or taking less money to remain with a team. We may get to see some of it this offseason, depending on what goes on with Isaac Bruce and Marshall Faulk.


    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    I think that might be the big difference of opinion right there. You think the Rams/Giants "needed" him to be a backup. I (and apparently Kurt) think they "wanted" him to be a backup.
    I don't know, the Rams certainly could have used his services at the Carolina game. While I'm not sure if Warner would have lit up the Panthers defense, I doubt he would have thrown six interceptions. The Rams needed a veteran back-up familiar with the system that day, and they didn't have one.

    Perhaps it is a difference of opinion, though.

    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  2. #17
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,067
    Rep Power
    131

    Re: Warner Will Not Stay As Eli's Backup (CNNSI)

    I'm not saying there's something wrong with doing it. Just that it doesn't make him a team player, in my opinion. And I don't think it's expecting too much, since there have been many examples of guys happily going down the depth chart or taking less money to remain with a team. We may get to see some of it this offseason, depending on what goes on with Isaac Bruce and Marshall Faulk.
    A "team player" is defined during a season, not during a career IMO. I don't see a guy having to take a demotion or paycut to remain with a team as proof of "team player" status. I guess we just see things differently.

  3. #18
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,871
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Warner Will Not Stay As Eli's Backup (CNNSI)

    What I think is being missed is that I'm not saying Warner is a bad guy or isn't helpful to his teams. I'm just not sure calling him a team player in this context was the right title. I still admire and respect him both as a man and as a player in this league.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  4. #19
    talkstoangels61 Guest

    Re: Warner Will Not Stay As Eli's Backup (CNNSI)

    All i know is,i just wished i could be a Head coach for an NFL team with the likes of warner being availiable to come play for me (salivating ) i'd snatch him up in a N.Y. minute!..........I'd of never cut him!............but, now with all of the crap going on with mad Mike it seems like its all going to come out in the wash!................
    What goes around comes around people,just always keep that in mind!

  5. #20
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,044
    Rep Power
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    That's very true and I agree. I don't think he would have kept his mouth shut and I don't think he should have. And that's really where the argument from my side of the fence begins on the whole Warner issue.

    That's my question for you, AV. Do you think it was right, in 2003, for Martz to proclaim Bulger the starter(by actions, not words) and not give Warner a shot at earning his job back?

    Answer that question and you'll see where most Warnerite's ire stems from.
    Good Lord! Do you have any idea how many times I've addressed this issue?

    Yes - I think Martz did a poor job of handling the transition.

    No - I don't think, after Warner's offseason comments, that he should have been kept around to "compete for the job."

  6. #21
    moklerman Guest

    Re: Warner Will Not Stay As Eli's Backup (CNNSI)

    Good Lord! Do you have any idea how many times I've addressed this issue?
    Nope, none at all. I wasn't condemning you, just offering what I thought was an accurate starting point to a Warnerite's (for lack of a better term) position. I wasn't sure, by your posts in this thread, if you understood what some of us are actually upset about in regards to Warner.

    Like I said, it would have been impossible and detrimental to all parties to keep Warner, especially after 2003.
    No - I don't think, after Warner's offseason comments, that he should have been kept around to "compete for the job."
    And that's why Martz and Warner will always be tied to the "poor decisions by Martz" argument. "It's not Kurt, we're just moving in a different direction" will just never fly for some of us. It's b.s. and everyone knows it. If a guy like Vick was brought in I could see a change in direction but Bulger is a clone of Warner so...no need to re-hash things again. I just thought I would throw out where the problem is for some of us in case you weren't cogniscent of it.

  7. #22
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,706
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Warner Will Not Stay As Eli's Backup (CNNSI)

    Maybe I'm not reading this thread right, but this isn't really a surprise or even newsworthy is it? I mean from the moment he signed his contract, everyone knew it would be a one-and-done. I've never heard from anyone who thought Warner would complete both years of the contract. I mean that's why the void language was in the contract. The Giants knew he was leaving and even wrote the perfect out situation in to his contract.

    And as far as leaving the Rams without a good back-up...didn't we fire him? It's not like he quit.

    Having said that, Nick & Mok bring up yet another interesting debate (you two are better than Hannity & Colmes). What is the definition of a "team player"? IMO, a team player is one who, willingly, does what his team asks him, in good faith, to do. The Rams asked him to be their QB. He did. The Rams asked him to be the Bulger's back-up. He did. The Rams asked him to pack up his stuff and move out. He did. The Giants asked him to be their QB until Eli was ready. He did. That, by my definition any way, is a team player.

    Some will say that when the Rams asked him to pay back part of his salary, he didn't. Yea, but the Rams could have asked him to play for free too. He wouldn't have done that either. After winning a SB on a league minimum salary, I'd give him a pass for not wanting to pay back what he had earned, but that's just my opinion. Certainly subject to debate.
    "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

  8. #23
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,574
    Rep Power
    75

    reasonably efficient level

    If Warner had played (14) games the same as Marc compare the numbers.


    Warner 348-554 4090 yards 12 TD 8 INT record 5-2, 86.5 quarterback rating

    Marc 314-480 3784 yards 18 TD 13 INT record 8-6 91.7 Quarterback rating

    I would take these numbers from both guys and say they look better then “reasonably efficient level” There are only 3 QB with plus 4000 yards and they played 15 games.
    Once again the numbers don’t lie, some just can say it out loud that Warner can still play at a high level they use words like “reasonably efficient level” when in fact these numbers would be in the top half of the whole NFL.

    What would you consider to be let say good numbers or better then average numbers, reasonably efficient level come off like, take it or leave it just ok I guess. Warner once again given a chance to finish the season would have had a good one and the system was all new to him much like Chris can’t play for Martz anymore.

    Some guys can spin it better then Martz at times I guess.

  9. #24
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,706
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Warner Will Not Stay As Eli's Backup (CNNSI)

    Rambo, that's a good comparison, but to be completely fair Warner was 5-4, not 5-2. But that's still a good comparison.
    "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. #25
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,044
    Rep Power
    171

    Re: Warner Will Not Stay As Eli's Backup (CNNSI)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos
    Once again the numbers don’t lie
    Actually, the numbers do lie if you fail to correctly calculate the projected statistics. Here are the real numbers:

    Kurt Warner started 9 games for the Giants, and had the following stats in those 9 starts (you have to exclude his mop-up stats from the Raven game:

    Attempts: 268
    Completions: 168
    Yards: 1,927
    TDs: 6
    Interceptions: 4

    This projects to the following stats for 14 games - Compared to Bulger's projected 14 game totals in parenthesis:

    Attempts: 417 (480)
    Completions: 261 (314)
    Completion %: 62.6 (65.4)
    Yards: 2,998 (3,784)
    TDs: 9 (19)
    Interceptions: 6 (13)
    QB Rating: 85.4 (91.4

    So, spin those numbers any way you want, but those are the real numbers, not the fiction you posted (It appears, by the way that you calculated Warner's stat projections as if he had only started 7 games, instead of 9, and included his stats from the Raven game, which he did not start).
    Last edited by AvengerRam; -12-30-2004 at 12:50 PM.

  11. #26
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,574
    Rep Power
    75

    Re: Warner Will Not Stay As Eli's Backup (CNNSI)

    Attempts: 417 (480)
    Completions: 261 (314)
    Completion %: 62.6 (65.4)
    Yards: 2,998 (3,784)
    TDs: 9 (19)
    Interceptions: 6 (13)
    QB Rating: 85.4 (91.4

    Using these number, not that they would be better or worse since warner never got to play. They still look better then "reasonably efficient level". It should be noted on the team he played with they stank before he played there and they have not won a game after he was benched. I think the Rams are much deeper the the Gaints.

  12. #27
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,044
    Rep Power
    171

    Re: Warner Will Not Stay As Eli's Backup (CNNSI)

    As I said, spin it as you like, just use the real numbers.

  13. #28
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,871
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Warner Will Not Stay As Eli's Backup (CNNSI)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos
    They still look better then "reasonably efficient level".
    You're welcome to that opinion, but I respectfully disagree. Warner showed he could be efficient in a very controlled offense that wasn't asking him to be the man. The role of quarterback in Tom Coughlin's Giants offense is no where near as demanding as the role of quarterback in Martz's offense. Warner didn't blow me out of the water - in a much less risky and less pass-oriented offense, Warner's projected TD to INT ratio is nearly exactly the same as Marc's in the Rams more wide-open offense - but showed that under the right circumstances, he can be a good player.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  14. #29
    theodus69 Guest

    Re: Warner Will Not Stay As Eli's Backup (CNNSI)

    well considering Warner started in a new offense and Bulger in his familiar one, I think the #'s show Warner would have been the one to keep and start! You all will see that Bulger is just another transition of the downward spiral that has been swirling all year! Yes the Playoffs :tongue: This team isn't at all as good as 1978 team!Even though Ferigamo Did throw more INT's I do believe! Needless to say This team is not the Team I want to see in the Playoffs! But if by some chance they win it all...............I'll take all the hell you boys can dish out! Because I will deserve it! :redface:

  15. #30
    moklerman Guest

    Re: Warner Will Not Stay As Eli's Backup (CNNSI)

    I think the #'s show Warner would have been the one to keep and start!
    Theodus, I understand and share your belief that Warner would have beaten out Bulger in a straight-up, qb competition but all of us Warner fans need to adopt and understand one very important fact about Warner's career with the Rams. Kurt Warner would NOT have succeeded as a qb with the Rams with Mike Martz as head coach. Warner's health and/or abilities are not the issue. Mike Martz wanted Bulger as the qb. Period.

    So, while I like to speculate on what Warner can or can't do, his current abilities, etc., I've finally come to grips with the fact that you just can't speculate on what Warner would have done compared to what Bulger would have done because Martz simply wouldn't have allowed Warner to be his qb.

    As far as the argument that Warner can only succeed in a controlled environment, protected by the offensive scheme, I'm going to have to disagree. I don't think that he can carry a team by himself, but that doesn't happen in the NFL. Look at Vick or Tiki Barber. Tiki had a fantastic year, yet the Giants still lost 8 out of the last 9.

    But comparitively speaking, I think his numbers with the Giants' offense were pretty good. His td total was low, but(there's always a "but") somewhat misleading. I posted an article on this earlier in the year and I think it's valid. I don't have the exact numbers anymore but basically, there were about 13 plays that I counted where Giants receivers either caught a pass and were stopped at the 1 yard line, flat out dropped a td in the end zone or a td was called back due to penalty (the last two examples only added 3 potential td's I think) when Warner was in at qb. Add that to the new offense, scaled back (if you can do that with a TC offense) at the start of the year, and Warner's conservative numbers aren't really bad at all.

    His completion percentage, yards per attempt, interception percentage and overall turnovers were very acceptable. The sacks he took are something that will have to be looked at by whoever wants to give him a chance but I think they're something that could easily be overcome even if Warner was solely responsible (which I don't think was the case).

    Now, for the Achille's heal (or the Warner's thumb). The fumbling. Unacceptable, of course. But (there's that word again), Warner has finally come to terms with the fact that it's a problem, acknowledged that he's working on it and hopefully will get better at protecting the ball. It's quite possible that it may just be a part of his "game". Some guys just fumble. Dave Kreig did it. So did Eric Dickerson. So does Daunte Culpepper. It's not a good thing but it can be worked on. Add to that the other study I did. My opinion is that most qb fumbles are directly related to being sacked. Under those terms (fumbles per sack), Warner isn't at the bottom of the list and in fact, is about the same as most qb's in the league. Warner's problems with fumbles seem to lay in the fact that his come in groups. One way or ther other, it will be an issue for whether or not he wins a starting job.

    I think he's still the most accurate qb in the league once he throws the ball. It's getting to that point that has been a problem for him lately.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: -05-17-2005, 12:40 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: -10-18-2004, 04:59 PM
  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
  •