Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 78
  1. #61
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,303
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Warner wows his receivers

    First of all, ridiculous isn't spelled with an E. If you're going to use my favorite word to make some kind of point, at least spell it right.


    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    You remember incorrectly. While I admit that he probably downplayed his injuries because he's a competitor, he never lied, because he didn't know that the hand was broken until the x-ray, which happened later in the season (or possibly right after the Eagles game).
    Warner said his hand was fine. Clearly, a broken hand is not fine. Even if he didn't know it was broken specifically, he had to know something was up with it, and he withheld that information because he wanted to be on the field. This has nothing to do with being tough or having heart, because I believe he has both those traits, but it has everything to do with his credibility when trying to gauge future injuries. If a person in the past has hidden the extent of an injury in order to play, he'll do it again in the future, and that's not the kind of behavior I'd want out of a leader, someone I'm supposed to trust running my offense. How can I trust him to get the job done when I can't trust him to tell me when he's not 100%?

    Had the Rams kept and started Warner, what happens in 2004 if Warner takes a hard shot and starts experiencing hand or concussion symptoms but says he's fine? Can you trust him? I don't think you can, because he's downplayed it in the past so he could stay on the field. That's the kind of situation and problem Warner's behavior brings up. I'll be the last person to question Warner's heart or toughness, but I'll sure as hell raise a few questions when his disregard for personal injury has a negative effect on the team.


    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    Something else about the Eagles game. Warner was sacked a rediculous 8 times...stellar offensive line play, wouldn't you say? Here's something else for your consideration...20 running plays for the game...an average of 5 per quarter...sound offensive game planning, right? Especially when your QB is getting massacred. 3 fumbles by the offense (one by Warner) certainly didn't help...and yet you contend Warner cost them the game single-handedly. Here's that word you like again...."rediculous", I say.
    I would suggest doing some homework. First, Warner fumbled the ball three times. Saying he fumbled once is flat-out wrong, and is only being used to mask the severity of the problem. He only lost one fumble, but actually fumbled the ball three times. Secondly, to try and demonize the number of rushing plays in this game strikes me as odd. Nevermind that in 2001, the Rams averaged 22 rushes per game, only two more than the 20 they attempted in Philly. Were you complaining about sound offensive game planning then? I doubt it. It would be one thing if this were the 2003 opener where the Rams rushed nine times. I've previously debated Mok on that issue, and I think he has a very good point in questioning that number of runs. But to question the Rams for running 20 times seems to be an argument based on pretty shaky ground considering their past. This isn't exactly a power running team, y'know.

    Clearly Warner was a main, if not the main, contributor to the Rams losing that contest. It's not like the defense gave up a lot; they held the Eagles to a field goal on offense. It was Warner's first quarter interception returned for a TD that put the Eagles ahead of the Rams. Furthermore, Warner was unable to hit a wide-open Bruce in the endzone because he couldn't get enough velocity under the ball due to his damaged hand. It sounds to me like Warner played a pretty big role in why the Rams lost that game. I'm not saying he was the only role, and I apoligize if I made that inference in my previous post. I don't think any one player can ever be the only reason a team wins or loses. But take Kurt out and put in a QB with a healthy hand, and we might be looking at a different outcome. It's clear as crystal that Warner played a big role in the outcome of that match, just like Bulger played a big role in losing against Carolina (although I'd contend the defense's inability to stop the run in that game had a bigger impact, but that's a whole other debate).

    But that's ridiculous, you say. Then again, it sounds like any argument faulting Warner for anything is ridiculous to you. After all, you were the one who wouldn't even admit to Warner's poor play in the "Bulger is the QB of choice" thread. When citing what's changed since 99-'01, you state, "All of a sudden we have a couple of injuries and some adversity and now he's a devisive presence on the team and the rest of the players can't relate to him." Just like Warner in his recent SportsCenter interview among other appearances, you avoid bringing up his own poor play as a factor to what went wrong in St. Louis. Now THAT'S ridiculous. :confused:

    Regardless, the entire debate about what happened in Philly isn't as important as the greater lesson we learned. Kurt's hand was hurting after the game in Washington, but rather than admit that his hand was hurting and take a back seat, he withheld that information so he could get on the field. Kurt had his chance to come back going into the Washington game, and he played well. But rather than acknowledge the injury he'd sustained in that game, he withheld the information and only made things worse, possibly widening the gap of mistrust between Kurt and others in the Rams organization right then and there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    Funny you should use the 2001 season in your argument...the season Warner won his 2nd League MVP award, and the Rams returned to the Super Bowl. I'm lost...that served your argument how?
    I brought up to 2001 season to show how long the effects of his first concussion lasted and how Warner himself didn't even know when he was fully healthy. Was I asking too much for you to actually respond to the point I was making instead of just shooting off blather of how great Warner was? I hope not, because I think the point is legitimate and only adds to the concern that should have been felt about Warner's health.


    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    So your saying part of reason he was let go was in consideration for future concussions and his well-being. I can't even argue with that kind of illogic.
    I'm saying part of the reason he was let go was health concerns and what that meant for the team. Clearly you don't want to pay $9+ million for a quarterback who is at a higher risk for concussions, has had multiple hand injuries, what appears to be a documented case of arthritis that affects his ability to grip the football (a problem we saw only a few days ago rear its ugly head once more), and has had problems staying healthy over the past two years. Perhaps you can't argue with the notion that health played into Warner's release because it makes too much sense to argue against? Or are you saying his health had absolutely no effect on his job security in St. Louis? Now that would also truly be ridiculous! :redface:
    Last edited by Nick; -08-16-2004 at 02:28 AM.

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



  2. #62
    Yodude's Avatar
    Yodude is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The State of Confusion
    Posts
    1,022
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Warner wows his receivers

    First of all, ridiculous isn't spelled with an E.
    Touche on the spelling error. However......

    and I apoligize if I made that inference
    Apologize is spelled with an O.......

    couldn't get enough velocity under the ball
    You don't get velocity UNDER the ball, you get velocity ON the ball......

    others in the Rams organization
    That should read Rams' organization, to denote possession......

    Here's a tip for you. I try to stay away from pointing out people's spelling or grammatical errors because that just leaves the door open for others to do the same. This is a sports forum, not 8th grade English class. However, if your superior intellect doesn't allow you to ignore other posters' short-comings, then here's a different tip. If you want to play the part of Self-appointed ClanRam Guru of Spelling and Grammer, before you start, get your own house in order first. :tongue:

    Now back to the topic.

    Clearly, a broken hand is not fine.
    Yes that's right, but since we aready know he didn't know it was broken until the x-ray, to say he lied about it is ridiculous. The hand was injured earlier in the season, and if I remember correctly (which maybe I don't) it was thought that the break actually occurred during the Eagles game when he hit it on an oposing player's helmet. Regardless, for you to imply that you are a mind-reader and pretend to know how Warner's hand felt prior to the game and call him a lier is a stretch.

    First, Warner fumbled the ball three times.
    I'll concede this point....when I was looking up the stats, I only looked at the fumbles lost column. I wasn't trying to to be misleading, I just didn't look at the other column....sorry for not passing your meticulous standards in the home-work department.

    Secondly, to try and demonize the number of rushing plays in this game strikes me as odd. Nevermind that in 2001, the Rams averaged 22 rushes per game, only two more than the 20 they attempted in Philly. Were you complaining about sound offensive game planning then?
    Sorry, but season statistical averages cannot be always be applied to a single-game scenario. I don't care if the season average per game was 5 running plays, when your QB is getting destroyed by the opposing defense becasue your offensive line sucks, and your team is not down by 3 touchdowns but by 7 points, then yes, 20 running plays are not sound offensive gameplanning. To compare that game to a situation where your QB can throw unmolested for 400 yards, which was the case many times during the 1999-2001 seasons is, well, you know......ridiculous.

    Then again, it sounds like any argument faulting Warner for anything is ridiculous to you. After all, you were the one who wouldn't even admit to Warner's poor play in the "Bulger is the QB of choice" thread.
    Not true. Just because I did not comment on it in the context of that particular thread does not logically lead to that conclusion. You are a Johnny-Come-Lately to this debate, at least on this forum and the old one. You were not present when the majority of the aguments on this topic happened. So for you to pretend to know my stance on certain aspects of it or to imply I said this or didn't say that is, well, yes, you guessed it.....ridiculous.


    For the record....I have always acknowledged that Warner's play was subpar during this time. What I refuse to do is blame him single-handedly for those losses. There were too many other factors involved for me to say that.Other factors such as poor offensive line play due to injuries, absense of a competent running ganme due to injuries to Faulk, Martz's refusal to acknowledge the absence of a quality 3rd and 4th receiver and adjust his offense accordingly (which he had no problem doing for Bulger, I might add), just to name a few. Not to mention the fact that in hind-sight, we now know that Warner hand was never really healed fully until well after the 2002 season. I don't think pointing out extenuating circumstances is in any way ignoring that Warner did not play well. Anyone that thinks so, is being, well, frankly.....ridiculous.

    I'm saying part of the reason he was let go was health concerns
    I don't agree. He was healthy when he was cut and since the injuries, he surely must have passed at least 18,000 physicals between the Rams' and Giants' medical staffs. I don't think that his health, or fear for his health in the future played any part in his release. Not saying I can't be wrong , but that's my opinion.

    Perhaps you can't argue with the notion that health played into Warner's release because it makes too much sense to argue against?
    Don't overestimate your skill at making sense. If that's the stance that the Rams' organization chose to adopt, why is Faulk still on the team?
    Clannie Nominee for ClanRam's Thickest Poster

  3. #63
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,303
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Warner wows his receivers

    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    Here's a tip for you.
    Please, I'm not being preachy or acting like I'm some sort of infallible guru of spelling. I don't care about normal spelling mistakes because those happen. At worst, I'll crack a small joke about it and move on (which was what I was trying to do here, alas). But when your entire post uses the theme of this word, which is supposedly some good-natured rib at me because I use it a lot, the joke would be a lot more effective if the word was spelled right.



    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    Yes that's right, but since we aready know he didn't know it was broken until the x-ray, to say he lied about it is ridiculous.
    Warner said his hand was fine. Are you telling me Warner wouldn't feel a broken bone in his throwing hand? You chastise me for pretending to know how Warner's hand felt because I assume a broken hand hurt (a real zinger, right?), yet you seem to be making an equal assumption by claiming it was absolutely fine. I mean, you'd have to be saying his hand was absolutely pain-free, since that's the only situation in which Warner wouldn't have been lying when he said his hand was fine.

    Either his hand was absolutely pain free and Warner was telling the truth (we know this not to be true because after the Eagles game, Martz says Warner could play but he won't because the pain is too great: see KFFL.com), or Warner was experiencing some pain and said he was fine instead of disclosing the truth. Which is it?



    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    I'll concede this point....when I was looking up the stats, I only looked at the fumbles lost column. I wasn't trying to to be misleading, I just didn't look at the other column....sorry for not passing your meticulous standards in the home-work department.
    It's not meticulous. It seems fairly simple. When you want to look up how many times someone fumbled, you look for total fumbles, not just ones the player lost. That's like saying a quarterback threw 25 times in a game because he completed 25 passes.

    How is this meticulous? :confused:



    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    Sorry, but season statistical averages cannot be always be applied to a single-game scenario.
    That's a nice opinion... which I disagree with. It would seem to me you're merely complaining about it only because it didn't work. It's not abnormal for the Rams to run 20 times in a game because, as the theory goes, they're supposed to depend on their QB to help get the job done through the air. Again, this isn't a power running team. The bottom line is Kurt didn't get the job done in this game, and you can't just brush that off because of seven sacks or the supposed lack of running plays in the game plan. Yes they were factors, but it seems like more telling factors were Warner's inability to efficiently throw the ball.



    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    So for you to pretend to know my stance on certain aspects of it or to imply I said this or didn't say that is, well, yes, you guessed it.....ridiculous.
    I base my opinion on what I see. I'm sorry, the check hasn't yet cleared on my copy of ClanRam annals so I haven't been able to catch up with your entire position post-by-post over the last three years (see, I can be sarcastic too!). But when you make posts like this that conveniently omit Warner's struggles, it paints a pretty telling picture of your opinion of what happened.



    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    I don't think that his health, or fear for his health in the future played any part in his release.
    Then we'll agree to disagree here. We've heard numerous reports from Bernie about Warner's arthritic hand being able to pass physical tests because the injury comes and goes. That's a concern, as are the concussions he's sustained, IMO. Guys pass physicals all the time, but that doesn't mean injuries aren't concerns for their respective teams. To dilute this matter into whether or not he could pass a physical really undermines the argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    Don't overestimate your skill at making sense. If that's the stance that the Rams' organization chose to adopt, why is Faulk still on the team?
    (1) Because Faulk can still be effective on the field. Or have we forgotten the end of 2003 already? Faulk's awesome performance as a receiver in the playoffs? And (2) because Faulk's a reasonably priced starter, unlike Warner, who would have been paid $9+ million to reappear as a back-up.

    Regardless, there's a reason the Rams made a move to draft Steven Jackson, and I'd wager it's because this team doesn't see Faulk being around in a year or two based upon his injury history and age.

    Regardless, the whole point of this is that Warner has had plenty of chances and hasn't taken advantage of them. First, he said he was fine going into Philly despite having pain in his hand. Imagine what would have happened had Warner gotten his hand checked out after the Washington game? He would have avoided the mess that was Philadelphia, and our last memories of Warner in 2002 would have been a pretty darn good game against the Redskins that we nearly won. Secondly, he was named the undisputed starter in 2003 despite there being a legit contender for that position in Marc Bulger, a contender who now is our starting QB. And third, he was even asked by Martz to start warming up in 2003 so he could take over for Bulger, and turned that shot down! And even then, the Rams were willing to keep him on the roster if he'd restructure his contract, and he refused! Warner even claims that they said he'd have a shot to compete again for the starting job! How many more chances should he have received!? For someone to cry over the spilled milk of Warner's departure by saying he never got a fair shot is -- here it comes now -- ridiculous.

    You'll be happy to know this post was spell checked in Word, for your reading pleasure.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  4. #64
    rampower's Avatar
    rampower is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    cumbria, UK
    Age
    41
    Posts
    832
    Rep Power
    28

    Re: Warner wows his receivers

    Lest not forget,

    warner had a proven, cheaper replacement at hand.

    they even got to try him out for more than a season before they let kurt go;

    Jackson hasn't played a down, give him a couple of seasons, then he may be the starter.

  5. #65
    adarian_too's Avatar
    adarian_too is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Hollow
    Posts
    1,378
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: Warner wows his receivers

    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    For someone to cry over ... Warner's departure by saying he never got a fair shot is ...
    ... an interesting point. Not that I want to rejoin this discussion at this point for fear of diverting attention away from legitimate issues, but ... the notion of a "fair shot" or lack thereof has some merit I think. I wouldn't go so far as to say that KW "never" got a fair shot to reestablish himself, but I certainly think that the contributing factors that accelerated his departure were not handled similarly as they were with MB.

    First, take the O-line question. KW suffered from porous right-side blocking arguably since '99 when Tucker and his replacement couldn't keep KW from short-arming throws - almost to the point of Kearse getting to him before he could even release the ball. When the FO finally gets a consensus blocker did KW get a "fair shot" of benefiting from an established line? No. Pace has barely returned to the team, Wohlbaugh's hand is broken, Turley probably isn't up to speed with the Rams' playbook, and I doubt many would claim the o-line has established any sense of continuity as of yet. After KW goes down and a loss is in the book, sMartz begins to spin again and reconsider his need for a FB to supplement the blocking. Don't need a proven FB we are preached to before the season began. Oops, maybe we do need one, but we will give him to MB and let people argue about why KW isn't getting it done anymore.

    Second, let's just briefly talk about play-calling. With MB, sMartz begins to talk about Max-protect. Less 5WR sets, leave a FB in and bring the TE over to help with strong-side rushes. Did KW receive this kind of play-calling support to help overcome the blitz packages and get more time to find a receiver? Not enough to say that KW and MB were given the same tools from which to achieve success. I am not going to say this example of a play call is definitive statement but it is revealing to me ... MB goes down, KW is asked to enter the game in 2002 after a long haitus from his injury on 3rd and long ... what play was called??? ... a rollout right. St. Clair hasn't blocked anyone yet, Warner never was fleet of foot, he hasn' been in game conditions for weeks and sMartz expects him to suceed? The result? 4th down.

    So what am I driving at? sMartz handled the game differently depending on which QB was in the game. If you disagree with this then you probably won't agree that KW wasn't given an opportunity to benefit from the adjustments that arguably should have been made regardless of which QB was in the line-up. And if you don't think that the play of the o-line was a major factor in KW's lack of success then you definitely won't buy into the idea.

    But that is where I come down. The o-line play was a big part in the Rams' losses. KW should have had the opportunity to have played with a cohesive line that had practiced and played long enough to show what they were made of. And if the line was deficient, then KW should have benefited from a max-protect scheme too. And if the ground game was appropriate to close a game, then KW should have not had the pressure to make a throw too.

    If after having the same adjustments made for him that were made for MB, then I would say KW had a "fair shot" to prove his skills had not truly diminished. Instead, what it appears to me is that sMartz envisioned another 0-5 start that he suspected he could not survive again so he made the change ... . One game does not a season make.

    Man I didn't want to go down this road again, but I just bristle when I think that people believe that KW and MB were given the same tools to succeed in the end. Frankly, all KW could do was fail. Every time he threw for less than 300 yards, his performance would be analyzed to death. He was expected to exceed the standards he had set up for himself.


    It reminds me of another quote:

    "Do a little bit more each day than people expect, and each day people will expect a little bit more."
    Last edited by adarian_too; -08-16-2004 at 03:49 PM. Reason: just revising some facts so my distortions are more plausible ...

  6. #66
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,303
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Warner wows his receivers

    Quote Originally Posted by adarian_too
    sMartz handled the game differently depending on which QB was in the game.
    Of course he did, because we're talking about two different QBs with slightly different strengths/weaknesses and experience levels. You can't expect every QB on your roster to have the field vision that Warner displayed in his earlier years, or the delivery speed of Bulger. Each player has strengths and weaknesses, and things need to be slightly adapted to that.

    I think Kurt Warner was put into the situation he's always been in, a situation he's succeeded in before, and he faltered. He wasn't confident in the pocket because he was fearing the rush rather than ignoring it, and therefore wasn't seeing the field the way he used to. Combine that with an arthritic hand that wasn't always cooperative, and Kurt's got himself a problem. I'm not denying that the offensive line was a factor, but I think Martz put Warner in a situation similar to those he's succeeded with in the past, and it wasn't just the offensive line that failed to deliver.


    Quote Originally Posted by adarian_too
    KW should have had the opportunity to have played with a cohesive line that had practiced and played long enough to show what they were made of.
    He had that opportunity in Chicago, and he turned it down. 'Nuff said, in my book. It makes no sense to me for people to say Warner should have had another opportunity when Martz offered him just that and Kurt turned it down. For whatever reason, the fact is he turned down his shot.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  7. #67
    Yodude's Avatar
    Yodude is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The State of Confusion
    Posts
    1,022
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Warner wows his receivers

    Please, I'm not being preachy or acting like I'm some sort of infallible guru of spelling. I don't care about normal spelling mistakes because those happen. At worst, I'll crack a small joke about it and move on (which was what I was trying to do here, alas). But when your entire post uses the theme of this word, which is supposedly some good-natured rib at me because I use it a lot, the joke would be a lot more effective if the word was spelled right.
    I realize that, and for the record, my comments, other than the actual arguments I made, were also in jest. Maybe it seems I was a little more aggressive, but that was not intentional and was meant, as you say, to be good natured ribbing. No hard feelings. :redface:


    Warner said his hand was fine. Are you telling me Warner wouldn't feel a broken bone in his throwing hand? You chastise me for pretending to know how Warner's hand felt because I assume a broken hand hurt (a real zinger, right?), yet you seem to be making an equal assumption by claiming it was absolutely fine. I mean, you'd have to be saying his hand was absolutely pain-free, since that's the only situation in which Warner wouldn't have been lying when he said his hand was fine.

    I agree to the point that I don't know exactly how Warner felt. I'm inclined to believe that Warner had pain in his hand, which is perfectly normal in a situation where multiple injuries have already occurred. Have you never had an injury that was for all intents and purposes healed, but there was still pain? I know I have. Like you are willing to do with the front office in certain instances, I am willing to give Warner the benefit of the doubt on this one. Just because his hand still hurt, its a big reach to assume he knew it was broken and he felt compelled to lie about it for his benefit. I'm more inclined to believe it still hurt, but being the competitor he is, felt he could play through it.

    When you want to look up how many times someone fumbled, you look for total fumbles, not just ones the player lost.
    If you had bothered to read the statement you actually inserted as a quote, you would see that I clearly stated that I simply looked at the wrong column, it was not an intentional attempt at misrepresenting a statistic.

    That's a nice opinion... which I disagree with. It would seem to me you're merely complaining about it only because it didn't work. It's not abnormal for the Rams to run 20 times in a game because, as the theory goes, they're supposed to depend on their QB to help get the job done through the air.
    I did not say you can never apply statistical averages to a single game...I said sometimes they don't apply. Yes, the theory is the QB should get the job done. But if the QB is getting annihilated because the o-line stinks, you have to adjust. Your theory would completely negate the notion that a coaching staff sometimes needs to make in-game adjustments to the game-plan.


    I base my opinion on what I see. I'm sorry, the check hasn't yet cleared on my copy of ClanRam annals so I haven't been able to catch up with your entire position post-by-post over the last three years
    I didn't say you should access the ClanRam annals, merely pointed out you should not pretend to know my views on a subject just because I haven't commented on every angle of it.

    Then we'll agree to disagree here.
    Agreed!


    You'll be happy to know this post was spell checked in Word, for your reading pleasure.
    I'll point out that it was you who initiated the "good-natured-ribbing".


    Adarian_too....nice post!
    Last edited by Yodude; -08-16-2004 at 06:29 PM.
    Clannie Nominee for ClanRam's Thickest Poster

  8. #68
    Yodude's Avatar
    Yodude is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The State of Confusion
    Posts
    1,022
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Warner wows his receivers

    Of course he did, because we're talking about two different QBs with slightly different strengths/weaknesses and experience levels.
    That's fine, under normal circumstances. With Warner healthy, Faulk healthy and a decent o-line, I would expect a somewhat different game plan for Warner and Bulger. But when you consider that Warner was coming off multiple injuries, hardly having played for an extended period of time, and the other team factors, would it not make a little more sense to let your QB ease back into the game by helping him with some sane play calling? How can that concept be so difficult to grasp?
    Clannie Nominee for ClanRam's Thickest Poster

  9. #69
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,303
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Warner wows his receivers

    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    Just because his hand still hurt, its a big reach to assume he knew it was broken and he felt compelled to lie about it for his benefit. I'm more inclined to believe it still hurt, but being the competitor he is, felt he could play through it.
    I don't think Warner knew it was broken and lied about it. But I think if you're a quarterback who's coming off a major hand injury and your hand is heavily wrapped ice all the way in the middle of the week, then it's something that needs to be looked at and not shrugged off with a simple, "It's fine." Perhaps this is the fault of the medical staff and Martz just as much, but if I'm an athlete and I'd just broken my hand and after my first game back it needs to be heavily iced, if only for the sake of the future of my career, I'd ask for it to be checked out prior to my next game.

    When you say you believe it still hurt but he felt he could play through it doesn't change the fact that he lied about his injury, does it? We both agree that there was pain there, but for whatever reason, he withheld that information so he could play. So again, this would bring about trust questions if future injuries occurred. I'm not trying to demonize Warner by saying he lied about it. I'm trying to make a point about whether or not you'd be able to trust him with a past history of not being completely honest about his injuries.



    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    Your theory would completely negate the notion that a coaching staff sometimes needs to make in-game adjustments to the game-plan.
    Not entirely. My theory is based on the idea that the team needs to score and do what's necessary to get that done with the personnel they had. You'll notice that in the first half, the Rams pass/run ratio was a pretty close 20/13. I say pretty close because if you exclude the two-minute drill at the end of the half -- coincidentally, a ten play drive that consisted of eight passes that resulted in the only points of the game for St. Louis -- then you'd see the Rams actually ran as much as they threw in the first half, and it wasn't getting them anywhere because they couldn't sustain drives.

    Given the turnover and fumble problems, the Rams couldn't sit around and plan to mount a 15-play drive to march down the field. Only three times were the Rams able to mount a drive over six plays! They weren't sustaining long drives, which means they had to try and get down the field fast, which means passing. I tend to agree with that logic. The downfall was they were relying on a quarterback who had a hand injury to do the job, something they didn't know because their QB didn't tell them he was experiencing pain.

    But your argument is that they should have pounded the ball on the ground? With what? Both Faulk and Gordon were questionable going into the game -- Faulk with a foot injury and Gordon with a concussion. So who do they do this pounding with, Trung Canidate? The Rams knew about these injuries going into the game. What they didn't know about was Warner's hand feeling funky because he didn't tell them. Perhaps if they knew Warner's hand was funky and he was having some pain in it, they would have adjusted the gameplan accordingly. But when your QB tells you he's fine, then you're counting on him to go out there and play like it.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  10. #70
    theodus69's Avatar
    theodus69 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    so.cal.
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,202
    Rep Power
    19

    Re: Warner wows his receivers

    damn ,that took me a week to get through this. Let's start the Clanram feud! With your host-Al? Superbowl # 2 would have been ours if kurt gets the chance. Did he get it ?-NO ,did they win it?- NO!!!! And i'm not talking about the Packer - Raider Superbowl #2 either! How's about Superbowl win # 2- how's that? Can't wait til monday!
    I stopped going to the dentist.......I got tired of the cavity searches!

  11. #71
    Yodude's Avatar
    Yodude is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The State of Confusion
    Posts
    1,022
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Warner wows his receivers

    Hmmmmmm.....let's see.....today we have this.........

    I don't think Warner knew it was broken and lied about it.
    Where earlier we had this.........


    Only he lied to his team about his hand being broken and cost them a game against Philly
    I hope you can see why I'm a little confused.


    But I think if you're a quarterback who's coming off a major hand injury and your hand is heavily wrapped ice all the way in the middle of the week, then it's something that needs to be looked at and not shrugged off with a simple, "It's fine."

    Honestly, I'm not going to pretend that I remember exactly what everyone involved said. But, I seem to recall (and I may be wrong) that Warner never said that he didn't have pain. My recollection is that he said it still hurt but that it was OK. Your own quote would seem to uphold this scenario....if he indeed was icing the hand after every practice, I submit then that it was common knowledge that there was pain in the hand. In addition, I think that the second break actually occurred DURING the Eagles game when he bumped the hand on an opposing player's helmet.

    Further, how do you reconcile your stance with the fact that Favre (crucify me if you will for bringing him into this discussion) played a large portion of last season with a broken finger? Why should Warner then be thought less of for being willing to play through pain himself.


    The Rams knew about these injuries going into the game. What they didn't know about was Warner's hand feeling funky because he didn't tell them.
    I repeat that if the hand was being iced all week after practice.....the coaching staff would have to be a bunch of morons to think it didn't hurt.


    They weren't sustaining long drives, which means they had to try and get down the field fast, which means passing. I tend to agree with that logic.
    Maybe if they were down 2 or 3 TD's I'd be inclined to agree with you, but the deficite was one touchdown. Certainly not a panic situation that justifies hanging your QB out to dry when he was being killed all day anyway. In additon, the passing game wasn't working either, now was it? So why not at least go to something resembling the Max-Protect so that your QB doesn't get his spine snapped? The bottom line is, as adarian pointed out, that things could have been done to limit the damage and take some heat off of Warner. There's no way you can justify that it was OK for Bulger, but it was OK to just throw Warner to the wolves.
    Clannie Nominee for ClanRam's Thickest Poster

  12. #72
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,303
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Warner wows his receivers

    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    I hope you can see why I'm a little confused.
    Then I made a mistake in the phrasing of my original post. My point was that Warner insisted his hand was fine when it clearly wasn't, which again, leads to the issue of trust: how can you believe Kurt when he says he's fine? This seems to show you can't. Are you disagreeing with this?


    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    Further, how do you reconcile your stance with the fact that Favre (crucify me if you will for bringing him into this discussion) played a large portion of last season with a broken finger? Why should Warner then be thought less of for being willing to play through pain himself.
    Where have I ever praised Favre for playing a large portion of last season with a broken finger? It'd be one thing if I praised Favre for playing only to turn around be down on Kurt for playing, but I don't recall ever being forthcoming with praise toward Brett for what he did. So I guess I'm not seeing your point.



    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    In additon, the passing game wasn't working either, now was it?
    The passing game was the only aspect of the gameplan capable of scoring points on that day. So yes, I'd say it worked much better than the running game.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  13. #73
    Yodude's Avatar
    Yodude is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The State of Confusion
    Posts
    1,022
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Warner wows his receivers

    My point was that Warner insisted his hand was fine when it clearly wasn't, which again, leads to the issue of trust: how can you believe Kurt when he says he's fine? This seems to show you can't. Are you disagreeing with this?

    How could he have insisted that the hand was fine if he was indeed icing it all week after practice like you say.

    M point about Favre wasn't that you paised him, it was to counter your agument that Warner was a detriment to the team by playing with an injury. Sure, hindsight being what it is, we can now say that the hand had enough damage at the time that he shouldn't have played. I'm arguing your point that Warner eroded trust among his teammates and coaching staff....I think that everyone new the hand hurt (they were icing it all week as you claim), but no one knew just how bad it was. Another point here...if the hand was indeed so bad as to render Warner totally ineffective, why was this not apparent to the coaching staff who watched him practice with said hand all week long?

    The passing game was the only aspect of the gameplan capable of scoring points on that day. So yes, I'd say it worked much better than the running game.
    3 points versus 0 points, while better, is not much better as you point out. Are you saying that, however unlikely, there was absolutely no chance that
    a back, any back on the team, could possibly break a long run and score. Perhaps the defense could have even scored...our defense did lead the league in touchdowns scored on turnovers. All I'm saying is that there is no way the coaching staff couldn't have done something, anything at all, to minimize the beating Warner was taking.
    Clannie Nominee for ClanRam's Thickest Poster

  14. #74
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,303
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Warner wows his receivers

    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    How could he have insisted that the hand was fine if he was indeed icing it all week after practice like you say.
    That's a great question. I'd love to know how anyone -- Warner himself, Martz, anyone -- could have believed Warner's hand was fine when he had to ice it halfway through the week. I'm just basing my position on what I've read, which is that he said his hand was fine. Obviously there was still pain, but it seemed like Warner downplayed that. Heck, he even downplayed it after Philly and said it was fine until Martz (or Brenda, depending on which story you believe) ordered an X-Ray and found out about the fracture.


    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    I'm arguing your point that Warner eroded trust among his teammates and coaching staff.... Another point here...if the hand was indeed so bad as to render Warner totally ineffective, why was this not apparent to the coaching staff who watched him practice with said hand all week long?
    I don't believe Warner practiced until Wednesday or Thursday, but I'd have to check that out to be sure. He supposedly looked good in practice but broke down on the field I suppose. I believe in practice he wasn't allowed to take a snap but instead simulated a snap by just holding the ball in position so to avoid the impact.

    Anyways, I believe that when you say your hand is fine and then go out and have clear problems with it that contribute to your team losing, it affects your chemistry with the team, both players and coaches. And I'm sure this was a bigger issue in Warner's case than in Favre's because the Rams had a talented winner on the bench. I applaud both Warner and Favre for being tough and wanting to play through pain, but in both cases, I think they're really increasing the chances of being a negative force on their team by playing at less than 100%, and I think in Warner's case, it's plausible that said negative force could have found its way into the locker room.



    Quote Originally Posted by Yodude
    Perhaps the defense could have even scored...our defense did lead the league in touchdowns scored on turnovers.
    Go back to the game log. The Rams defense recovered four fumbles and couldn't mount any points from them. Three of the four fumbles were recovered in Rams territory for no gain. The other fumble was recovered in Philly territory, but that drive ended when Warner underthrew Bruce and was picked off.

    As for our runners breaking off a big one, considering Gordon was recovering from a concussion and Faulk a high ankle sprain, I wouldn't put money on their speeding down the field in that game. Gordon's never broken a run longer than 29 yards. Faulk longest of the season was 44, but again, with a high ankle sprain, it's debatable how effective he could be and if he could outrun defenders on a long break-away. Anything's possible I guess, but the Rams were gaining 5.2 yards per pass while only 3.8 per rush. Clearly passing the ball offered the best chance to get downfield in scoring position, especially when so many of our drives ended quickly, IMO.

    Look, it's obvious both of us have differing opinions on this. Clearly we're not going to change each other's mind. Even if you don't believe Warner was given a fair shot in 2002 or the start of 2003, it's hard for me to fathom the suggestion when Martz offered him just that in the Chicago game and Warner turned it down. But I suppose that's just something we'll have to disagree on. Hopefully we can all put our full support behind our current starter instead of continuing to dwell on these issues, though.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  15. #75
    adarian_too's Avatar
    adarian_too is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Hollow
    Posts
    1,378
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: Warner wows his receivers

    Two final reactions at this point:


    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    I'm not denying that the offensive line was a factor, but I think Martz put Warner in a situation similar to those he's succeeded with in the past.
    Even though sMartz may have been trying to duplicate similarly successful situations of the past, he was ignoring the recent past and the need to make adjustments for KW immediately. KW did not lose the Washington game with the fumble, St Clair lost the game failing to engage Arrington. The lack of blocking was a glaring contributor to KW failures. sMartz did not make an allowance for the blocking inadequacies for KW until the off-season, whereas for Bulger he made them in-season.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    He had that opportunity in Chicago, and he turned it down. 'Nuff said, in my book. It makes no sense to me for people to say Warner should have had another opportunity when Martz offered him just that and Kurt turned it down. For whatever reason, the fact is he turned down his shot.
    This is an entirely different issue - related to the timing of the "fair shot" which I haven't addressed. Relative to benefiting from a cohesive and geling line, KW deserved the benefit of the doubt in the early part of the season while everyone was figuring out each other's tendencies. Relative to the Chicago game, I'm inclined to think that that was a strategic career mistake on the part of KW (only if he were actually given the choice of entering the game in the 2nd half - not just asking him what he thought about the prospect - because if he did have an actual shot and turned it down, I would have a hard time convincing myself that he deserved equal footing coming into the off-season).

Page 5 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
  •