Warners 2nd half stats in '07

[BigRedRage]

again, manning sprints and runs it well, warner has cement shoes and runs it like crap. makes sence now doesnt it?

 

[DaisyCutter]

Well, if Kurt is too slow to run the stretch running plays, wouldn't it make sense to just not run the stretch tecnique w/ him? It's a theory that very few teams employ anyway. Again, it was Whis' call. Does anyone that has attended camp this year know if they're still trying to use this techique w/ either Warner or Leinart?

The Cards don't run the stretch. It only looks that way because Warner takes so long to get the handoff out. We don't have a back that can turn the corner.

If Whis actually tried to run the stretch as often as Warner's defenders are suggesting, Whis and Haley would be the worst playcallers in the NFL.

The coaching staff has to change its playcalling philosophy when Warner is in the game, and that puts their game strategy in jeopardy. That's why Leinart is the current starter.

 

[Cards232]

"The coaching staff has to change its playcalling philosophy when Warner is in the game, and that puts their game strategy in jeopardy. That's why Leinart is the current starter."

Perhaps that's also why Warner had a 90 qb rating compared to Leinart's 62. If Whis sticks w/ Leinart & that strategy all year long, do you really feel we even get to 8-8? Remember, Warner bailed Leinart out on a couple of his starts.

"The strategy" under Warner seemed to work a lot better than "the strategy" under Leinart last year. The strategy w/ Leinart was mainly a dink & dunk. Considering we seemingly ran the ball a majority of the time on 1st & 2nd downs, which often times led to 3rd & long, if the defense doesn't respect the ability to go vertical, it sure plugs the lanes for the dink & dunk. That's part of why Leinart struggled imho.

 

[joeshmo]

My intent was not to offend, but rather to point out that one should not mock (as he was seemingly doing w/ Moklerman) w/o knowing what you're talking about. It's something that seems fairly common around here.

Saying someone is ignorant about football has nothing to do with pointing out that you dont like someone persumably mocking another. Your explaination makes no sense.

Then you go from calling one person ignorant and not knowing what they are talking about to saying most of the board doesnt know what they are talking about. Why even be apart of a message board that you think is fairly common to not know what they are talking about.

This is one of the most knowledgeable boards in all of football so take your own advice and "not mock w/o knowing what you're talking about."

 

[Cards232]

again, manning sprints and runs it well, warner has cement shoes and runs it like crap. makes sence now doesnt it?

I doubt if Marino, Fouts, Plunkett, etc. would have run it worth a crap either. That's why I'm not sure why they tried to run it. It's not like it's a proven theory that everyone accepts & runs. Very few teams do. Maybe there's a reason. Makes sense doesn't it?

 

[BigRedRage]

I doubt if Marino, Fouts, Plunkett, etc. would have run it worth a crap either. That's why I'm not sure why they tried to run it. It's not like it's a proven theory that everyone accepts & runs. Very few teams do. Maybe there's a reason. Makes sense doesn't it?

I do not see what foutz, marino and plunkett have to do with the fact that we run a stretch play that warner is incapable of doing.

 

[joeshmo]

again, manning sprints and runs it well, warner has cement shoes and runs it like crap. makes sence now doesnt it?

I have no clue about how fast Warner does or doenst do it. Never reall paid attention to it my self and dont really dont think that is part of the issue.

But I do know that Manning would without a doubt get there sooner for some very clear reasons. One, he is just faster and more agile maybe not by much but he is. Two, and this is a big one SIZE. Manning is like what 6'6" much taller then Warner with much longer arms and stride. Manning just putting his arm out he gets to the RB faster then Warner would. There is a reason people call it a game of inches. And inch can mean the difference between a tackle or no tackle.

 

[Cards232]

Saying someone is ignorant about football has nothing to do with pointing out that you dont like someone persumably mocking another. Your explaination makes no sense.

Then you go from calling one person ignorant and not knowing what they are talking about to saying most of the board doesnt know what they are talking about. Why even be apart of a message board that you think is fairly common to not know what they are talking about.

This is one of the most knowledgeable boards in all of football so take your own advice and "not mock w/o knowing what you're talking about."

Saying that it's fairly common around here is a far cry different than saying that "most of the board doesnt know what they are talking about". The football intellect on this board is actually pretty good. There are exceptions however, like on any board about any subject on the web. Those exceptions tend to be vocal & quite authoritative in their own minds. It is to the minority on the board, not the majority, to which I speak of.

 

[Cards232]

I do not see what foutz, marino and plunkett have to do with the fact that we run a stretch play that warner is incapable of doing.

It has to do w/ the coach understanding the strengths & weeknesses of the players on his team & running plays that address & take advantage of the strengths.

Shula would have never run the stretch b/c of Marino's inability to run it effectively. I think that was wise. Marino turned out to be a pretty good qb. Their offense was among the best all time, & they did it w/o running the stretch. Imagine.

 

[Cards232]

I have no clue about how fast Warner does or doenst do it. Never reall paid attention to it my self and dont really dont think that is part of the issue.

But I do know that Manning would without a doubt get there sooner for some very clear reasons. One, he is just faster and more agile maybe not by much but he is. Two, and this is a big one SIZE. Manning is like what 6'6" much taller then Warner with much longer arms and stride. Manning just putting his arm out he gets to the RB faster then Warner would. There is a reason people call it a game of inches. And inch can mean the difference between a tackle or no tackle.

Very good point JS. That's why I don't understand why Whis tried to impliment it w/ the Cards. It's not like Leinart is a burner either. In my opinion, it takes time away from setting up for proper foot work on PA. Unless you have Brady kind of time in the pocket, it just takes too much time. But again, that's just my opinion.

 

[DaisyCutter]

"The coaching staff has to change its playcalling philosophy when Warner is in the game, and that puts their game strategy in jeopardy. That's why Leinart is the current starter."

Perhaps that's also why Warner had a 90 qb rating compared to Leinart's 62. If Whis sticks w/ Leinart & that strategy all year long, do you really feel we even get to 8-8? Remember, Warner bailed Leinart out on a couple of his starts.

"The strategy" under Warner seemed to work a lot better than "the strategy" under Leinart last year. The strategy w/ Leinart was mainly a dink & dunk. Considering we seemingly ran the ball a majority of the time on 1st & 2nd downs, which often times led to 3rd & long, if the defense doesn't respect the ability to go vertical, it sure plugs the lanes for the dink & dunk. That's part of why Leinart struggled imho.

The Cards were 3-2 in the games that Leinart started. So you tell me whether or not the "strategy" was working? Everyone says that Leinart today is far improved from the Leinart that started last season.

The correlation between QB starts and wins is ambiguous at best, and not useful to discuss. Is there any question that Leinart probably doesn't hold the ball in the end zone and then fumble it, like Warner did against the 49ers? Maybe Leinart goes 10 for 30 with ) TDs and 2 INTs against Tampa Bay, maybe he doesn't. Leinart probably doesn't throw 3 TDs against the Seahawks, but he probably doesn't get sacked 5 times and throw 5 more INTs, either.

There's no question that Leinart doesn't put up the yardage numbers or TDs that Warner does. From my point of view, the difference is that a team lead by Leinart probably doesn't have to.

 

[moklerman]

We don't want you to be depressed.

Thanks.

Well, if Kurt is too slow to run the stretch running plays, wouldn't it make sense to just not run the stretch tecnique w/ him? It's a theory that very few teams employ anyway. Again, it was Whis' call. Does anyone that has attended camp this year know if they're still trying to use this techique w/ either Warner or Leinart?

I honestly had never thought of this issue and it amazes me the conversation has gone on as long as it already has but my guess is that it was installed to appease Edge more than anything else.

There is a clear difference in run game with Matt compared to Warner and Edge himself has noticed and said as much.

Yards per attempt and attempts per game would give a clearer picture than yards per game. I excluded the Pit/Bal/Stl game since they shared duties.

w/Warner
328 att 1,153 yds 3.5 ypa 20.5 carries/game
w/Leinart
254 att 936 yds 3.7 ypa 21.1 carries/game

Doesn't seem like a clear difference as much as a clear similarity.

 

[Cards232]

The Cards were 3-2 in the games that Leinart started. So you tell me whether or not the "strategy" was working? Everyone says that Leinart today is far improved from the Leinart that started last season.

The correlation between QB starts and wins is ambiguous at best, and not useful to discuss. Is there any question that Leinart probably doesn't hold the ball in the end zone and then fumble it, like Warner did against the 49ers? Maybe Leinart goes 10 for 30 with ) TDs and 2 INTs against Tampa Bay, maybe he doesn't. Leinart probably doesn't throw 3 TDs against the Seahawks, but he probably doesn't get sacked 5 times and throw 5 more INTs, either.

There's no question that Leinart doesn't put up the yardage numbers or TDs that Warner does. From my point of view, the difference is that a team lead by Leinart probably doesn't have to.

First of all, do you think Warner had anything to do w/ any of Matt's wins?

Second, what exactly do you think an inexperienced Leinart does at the end of that Niners game? Both the primary & secondary receivers ran into each other & blew the play up. Would Leinart have thrown it away, thus taking a safety & losing the game? There was no room to scramble, so that wasn't an option even for Leinart. Would he have thrown it up for grabs? Do you really feel that Leinart's decision making process is better than Warner's under those circumstances? Sorry, I just don't see it. If the receivers don't run into each other, the play goes for a long gainer & it's a whole new ballgame. Warner did the best he could have in that circumstance, the receivers did not.

As far as the Seahawks game, no one knows for sure. Warner was hounded all day. If you recall, he didn't have a full complimnent of healthy receivers either thus complicating the situation. Again, do you really feel an inexperienced Leinart does any better under the rush Warner had to deal w/ along w/ the receiver situation? Leinart can be very effective when given time, but very ineffective when not, as attested by earlier games last year. Seattle would have eaten him alive that game. But of course, that's pure speculation, not w/o some merit, but speculation none the less.

Anyway, there's one thing I think we can agree on........... GO CARDS! Whoever the qb is this year.

P.S. I'm a big a USC homer & have been since the late 60's. I'm also a HUGE Leinart fan. I try & be pragmatic that not withstanding.

 

[Bigdez22]

Can someone please tell me how many games Kurt lost last year??????


The SF game is a joke. Rackers missed the FG and Breaston let the ball go when he should have made the Fair catch, so you can blame that game elsewhere.

The TB game.....The whole team sucked that game(The D was ok). So you can throw that blame to everyone.

If Kurt would have been starting the whole year. We are in the playoffs. We would have won that SF game and if you judge by the way he was playing in the baltimore game, we would have been in a better spot to win that game.

I can understand if you want Matt to start, but lets tell the truth. Matt looked like crap last year and if it was not for the guts and strong play of Warner, this team does not win 8 games. But everyone is ready to hand the ball over to Matt because he has thrown a couple of nice balls up in flagstaff?

 

[Arizona's Finest]

Saying that it's fairly common around here is a far cry different than saying that "most of the board doesnt know what they are talking about". The football intellect on this board is actually pretty good. There are exceptions however, like on any board about any subject on the web. Those exceptions tend to be vocal & quite authoritative in their own minds. It is to the minority on the board, not the majority, to which I speak of.

Said the man with 41 posts

 

[Arizona's Finest]

Can someone please tell me how many games Kurt lost last year??????


The SF game is a joke. Rackers missed the FG and Breaston let the ball go when he should have made the Fair catch, so you can blame that game elsewhere.

The TB game.....The whole team sucked that game(The D was ok). So you can throw that blame to everyone.

If Kurt would have been starting the whole year. We are in the playoffs. We would have won that SF game and if you judge by the way he was playing in the baltimore game, we would have been in a better spot to win that game.

I can understand if you want Matt to start, but lets tell the truth. Matt looked like crap last year and if it was not for the guts and strong play of Warner, this team does not win 8 games. But everyone is ready to hand the ball over to Matt because he has thrown a couple of nice balls up in flagstaff?

The whole (game 1) SF game would have been different so your point is moot. How do you know Kurt doesn't throw two picks at mid field and gives the Niners 14 easy points? IMO that coverage was the best I saw ALL of last year in that first game so its all ifs and buts.

And the reason he looked so great in the BAL game is because the Ravens game planned for Leinart all week. That was just good coaching.

The SF home game should have been won by Rackers early but we also could have used not getting sacked in the end zone in OT debacle(f#$* that still pisses me off - i was in that end zone saying "throw the ball - throw the ball") I was also at the TB game. He was absolutely terrible and cost us the game.

Not to mention your points just bely my whole thesis that started this discussion.

I don't think Kurt would have won those games that you mentioned because he performs at his best when its unecessary. Since the Super Bowl loss with the Rams he is the A Rod of football. He puts up his numbers when its a 7 run game and hits into the DP when you need one run to win. At least that was the case the last two years. And its the most frustrating thing.

Maybe he improves at 38 or whatever he is. But even you unabashed Warner supporters know its in all of our best interests for Matt to win this job. And your taking WAYYY to small a sample size from a second year player who was learning a new system. Give me a break.

If you guys were calling the shots for the Giants - Eli Manning is sitting on the bench all last season while somone else wins the SB.

 

[Cards232]

Said the man with 41 posts

So, is it your assertion that the more you post, the better your football intellect is? Wow! Had I only known it was that easy.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Arizona's Finest]

So, is it your assertion that the more you post, the better your football intellect is? Wow! Had I only known it was that easy.

You must be registered for see images

You'll notice the comment was in reference to your elaborating on the tendencies and nature of this board. Not football intellect. I would say post count is indicitive of your ability to make insights to how ASFN operates.

But I digress. No hard feelings bud and welcome aboard.

 

[BigRedRage]

It has to do w/ the coach understanding the strengths & weeknesses of the players on his team & running plays that address & take advantage of the strengths.

Shula would have never run the stretch b/c of Marino's inability to run it effectively. I think that was wise. Marino turned out to be a pretty good qb. Their offense was among the best all time, & they did it w/o running the stretch. Imagine.

good for them, still do not see the correlation between how are team does run it and those teams did not. Throwing out great QB names and comparing them to warner does not make the argument legit. Either way, its moot by now.

 

[joeshmo]

You'll notice the comment was in reference to your elaborating on the tendencies and nature of this board. Not football intellect. I would say post count is indicitive of your ability to make insights to how ASFN operates.

I thought that was pretty clear. How he came to his conclusion is dumbfounding.

 

[joeshmo]

I excluded the Pit/Bal/Stl game since they shared duties.

Considering Warner was primaraly throwing the football in the 2 minute hurry up offense in those games barely if at all handing the ball off the only reason you would exclude those games is because it helps your arguement. When in reaility because Matt was the primary run game manager you cannot exclude those games.

 

[joeshmo]

Originally Posted by Cards232
Saying that it's fairly common around here is a far cry different than saying that "most of the board doesnt know what they are talking about". The football intellect on this board is actually pretty good. There are exceptions however, like on any board about any subject on the web. Those exceptions tend to be vocal & quite authoritative in their own minds. It is to the minority on the board, not the majority, to which I speak of.

????? - Failry Common equals the majority not the minority. I wonder if people sometimes forget what meaning of words actually are sometimes. To Clear it up.

com·mon - Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kom-uhn]

Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, noun
–adjective

1. belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question: common property; common interests.
2. pertaining or belonging equally to an entire community, nation, or culture; public: a common language or history; a common water-supply system.
3. joint; united: a common defense.
4. widespread; general; ordinary: common knowledge.
5. of frequent occurrence; usual; familiar: a common event; a common mistake.

 

[Cards232]

????? - Failry Common equals the majority not the minority. I wonder if people sometimes forget what meaning of words actually are sometimes. To Clear it up.

com·mon - Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kom-uhn]

Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, noun
–adjective

1. belonging equally to, or shared alike by, two or more or all in question: common property; common interests.
2. pertaining or belonging equally to an entire community, nation, or culture; public: a common language or history; a common water-supply system.
3. joint; united: a common defense.
4. widespread; general; ordinary: common knowledge.
5. of frequent occurrence; usual; familiar: a common event; a common mistake.

To clear it up:

Definition, Fairly -

1. In a fair manner, justly
2. Moderately; acceptably
3. To a noticeable degree
4. Utterly; completely
5. Actually

Thus, fairly common would not necessarily conotate a majority.

You will also notice I followed up in an ensuing post w/ "The football intellect on this board is actually pretty good. There are exceptions however, like on any board about any subject on the web. Those exceptions tend to be vocal & quite authoritative in their own minds. It is to the minority on the board, not the majority, to which I speak of".

To my fellow Cards fan, I wish you & yours the best today.

 

[Cards232]

You'll notice the comment was in reference to your elaborating on the tendencies and nature of this board. Not football intellect. I would say post count is indicative of your ability to make insights to how ASFN operates.

But I digress. No hard feelings bud and welcome aboard.

My apologies for the misunderstanding. Understand however, I had been a lurker on this board for years before signing up. You will also notice I've been a member for over a couple of years now. My lack of posting prowess doesn't indicate a lack of consistent viewing, nor an understanding of the posters here.

Have a good one my man.

 

[moklerman]

Considering Warner was primaraly throwing the football in the 2 minute hurry up offense in those games barely if at all handing the ball off...

I'm glad you see that it wouldn't be fair or relevant and that those games were unique situations. To include them would skew the data. For example, in the Pittsburgh game Warner only handed it off to James 4 times but James got 24 yards on those limited carries. The limited carries would skew the attempts discussion as would the 6 yards per carry help skew the effectiveness discussion. No, I think the 12+ games each worth of stat's that I gave for this is much more indicative of "normal" situations and a good indicator of Edge's production with each QB. Less than 1 attempt different per game and .2 yards different per carry.