Warners 2nd half stats in '07

[Arizona's Finest]

Jesus Mokler, your going to protect him till the day he retires arent you?

Love is blind

 

[Russ Smith]

Wow man you are just killing your credibilty every time you decide to post. Manning played brilliantly down the stretch and was in no way Trent Dilfer in that run. He won SB MVP for gods sakes!

I agree with the rest of your post but I think you're mistaken above.

The last 8 games last year Manning threw more picks than TD's and had a rating just under 70. In December he completed only 51% of his passes and had a rating of 71.2. He wasn't losing games singlehandedly but he wasn't
brilliant.

He did play extremely well in the Super Bowl.

 

[BigRedRage]

He did play extremely well in the Super Bowl.

really, that is all that matters

 

[DaisyCutter]

I agree with the rest of your post but I think you're mistaken above.

The last 8 games last year Manning threw more picks than TD's and had a rating just under 70. In December he completed only 51% of his passes and had a rating of 71.2. He wasn't losing games singlehandedly but he wasn't
brilliant.

He did play extremely well in the Super Bowl.

FO did a great write-up on this. The Giants' season hinged on a missed field goal by the Eagles. Akers knocks that through, and Philly is in the postseason instead of the G-Men.

But Manning had a fantastic postseason against three of the four best teams in the NFL by any measure. 30 att/gm, 6 TDs, 1 INT, 95.7 QB rating. He never seemed rattled, and brought his team back from the brink of elimination multiple times.

Eli isn't going to be his brother or Brett Favre, but in the postseason there's no question that he did a pretty fine pre-2007 Tom Brady impression, and the Giants have a pretty good record with him as the starter.

 

[moklerman]

Love is blind

Ignorance is bliss.

No you missed my point I was talking about the fan perspective. Fans almost always love the backup QB, because most teams are not so set at QB that the starter is immune to criticism. They lose the fans tend to blame the starting QB.

AS mentioned before if Kurt didn't want to start I wouldn't want him on the team. At his age with his past success he HAS to want to start otherwise he no longer has confidence and you let him go.

I didn't miss it, I just didn't address all of it. My Carr/Collins comment was just reiterating what you already said. I agree that the backup is always the most popular guy on the team but don't agree that a team has to force itself to play the young guy when there is a productive alternative. It's worked out very well for New England and NYG but I think it's also safe to say that both of those situations are pretty unusual. Generally, a young QB, who's going to get the job eventually anyway gets inserted and retains the job by playing well or just being as good as the veteran. Or, a team spends a ton on a QB and is forced to play him because of the investment. Leinart doesn't really fit into either one of these categories. I would almost equate him to Sorgi or Rodgers. They've all shown promise but there's a better, proven guy on the roster. Of course the Rodgers comparison is outdated now but unless you have a Drew Bledsoe imploding and costing the team wins or a low ceiling Jon Kitna that won't take you where you want to go, I don't agree with starting the unproven guy just to see what he's got. Especially on a team with a playoff shot. In general I think it's better to play a young QB when the season is likely not a playoff scenario. In '06, the Cards did that and it looked like Leinart might be the answer. In '07, it looked like he wasn't and the veteran backup seemed to earn the right to compete.

With all the free agents the Cards are going to have soon the window of opportunity seems much to small to risk experimenting or dealing with growing pains of a young QB even if he is the future. But, the risks don't clearly outweigh the rewards with Warner for a lot of people so it's an understandable opinion to want to risk it with Leinart. They're all wrong, of course.

 

[Russ Smith]

Ignorance is bliss.

I didn't miss it, I just didn't address all of it. My Carr/Collins comment was just reiterating what you already said. I agree that the backup is always the most popular guy on the team but don't agree that a team has to force itself to play the young guy when there is a productive alternative. It's worked out very well for New England and NYG but I think it's also safe to say that both of those situations are pretty unusual. Generally, a young QB, who's going to get the job eventually anyway gets inserted and retains the job by playing well or just being as good as the veteran. Or, a team spends a ton on a QB and is forced to play him because of the investment. Leinart doesn't really fit into either one of these categories. I would almost equate him to Sorgi or Rodgers. They've all shown promise but there's a better, proven guy on the roster. Of course the Rodgers comparison is outdated now but unless you have a Drew Bledsoe imploding and costing the team wins or a low ceiling Jon Kitna that won't take you where you want to go, I don't agree with starting the unproven guy just to see what he's got. Especially on a team with a playoff shot. In general I think it's better to play a young QB when the season is likely not a playoff scenario. In '06, the Cards did that and it looked like Leinart might be the answer. In '07, it looked like he wasn't and the veteran backup seemed to earn the right to compete.

With all the free agents the Cards are going to have soon the window of opportunity seems much to small to risk experimenting or dealing with growing pains of a young QB even if he is the future. But, the risks don't clearly outweigh the rewards with Warner for a lot of people so it's an understandable opinion to want to risk it with Leinart. They're all wrong, of course.

I guess I misread your response you seemed to be saying that including Manning ruined my whole point. I was just clarifying I wasn't talking about him playing ahead of Warner in NY I was talking about him as an example of how fans almost always like the backup QB, Manning had to win a superbowl to get Giants fans off his back.

I don't care who plays if we win games but my take right now is starting Warner will only lead to him inevitably getting hurt, we're better off starting Matt and if he struggles or gets hurt, we still have Warner available to play.

 

[DaisyCutter]

Ignorance is bliss.

I didn't miss it, I just didn't address all of it. My Carr/Collins comment was just reiterating what you already said. I agree that the backup is always the most popular guy on the team but don't agree that a team has to force itself to play the young guy when there is a productive alternative. It's worked out very well for New England and NYG but I think it's also safe to say that both of those situations are pretty unusual. Generally, a young QB, who's going to get the job eventually anyway gets inserted and retains the job by playing well or just being as good as the veteran. Or, a team spends a ton on a QB and is forced to play him because of the investment. Leinart doesn't really fit into either one of these categories. I would almost equate him to Sorgi or Rodgers. They've all shown promise but there's a better, proven guy on the roster. Of course the Rodgers comparison is outdated now but unless you have a Drew Bledsoe imploding and costing the team wins or a low ceiling Jon Kitna that won't take you where you want to go, I don't agree with starting the unproven guy just to see what he's got. Especially on a team with a playoff shot. In general I think it's better to play a young QB when the season is likely not a playoff scenario. In '06, the Cards did that and it looked like Leinart might be the answer. In '07, it looked like he wasn't and the veteran backup seemed to earn the right to compete.

With all the free agents the Cards are going to have soon the window of opportunity seems much to small to risk experimenting or dealing with growing pains of a young QB even if he is the future. But, the risks don't clearly outweigh the rewards with Warner for a lot of people so it's an understandable opinion to want to risk it with Leinart. They're all wrong, of course.

Holy smokes did your arguement just implode under the weight of its own ridiculousness. Comparing Matt Leinart to Jim Sorgi? Saying that Kurt Warner isn't like Drew Bledsoe "imploding and costing his team games" (2005 as starter: 2-8, 2006 as starter: 2-4).

Totally off the deep end. Kurt Warner will kill this team with costly interceptions and fumbles and forcing plays. Boneheaded plays you can correct. Preparation problems you can correct. Mechanics problems you can correct. Those aren't Kurt Warner's problems. Warner's problems cannot be corrected; they're the cost of doing business, and unless you have a Top 5 defense backing you up, you're not going to make the playoffs with him under center.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

FO did a great write-up on this. The Giants' season hinged on a missed field goal by the Eagles. Akers knocks that through, and Philly is in the postseason instead of the G-Men.

But Manning had a fantastic postseason against three of the four best teams in the NFL by any measure. 30 att/gm, 6 TDs, 1 INT, 95.7 QB rating. He never seemed rattled, and brought his team back from the brink of elimination multiple times.

Eli isn't going to be his brother or Brett Favre, but in the postseason there's no question that he did a pretty fine pre-2007 Tom Brady impression, and the Giants have a pretty good record with him as the starter.

Exactly my point DC and thank you for pulling the numbers. I remember watching from the NE game on last year and thought "Whoa - this is a completely different QB." He looked damn awesome. You can attribute it to Shockey being gone or just him catching fire at the right time but it sure seems all those years they invested in the kid and supported him paid off.

I'm not saying that always going to be the case but again I think Matt has shown enough where he should be given the benefit of the doubt going into year 3.

 

[moklerman]

I don't care who plays if we win games but my take right now is starting Warner will only lead to him inevitably getting hurt, we're better off starting Matt and if he struggles or gets hurt, we still have Warner available to play.

I think most fans probably feel this way but I think in the long run it would be better for both Matt and the Cardinals if the roles were reversed. Warner starting would make for a lesser risk to the start of the season and given the likelihood of whichever guy starting getting hurt, Leinart coming in to save the day and start the "future" would be a lot more positive environment. Starting Matt will just put him under more scrutiny and have him looking over his shoulder. A great measure of his character to be sure but all in all, I think long term the Cards would be better served by putting Warner in that situation. Warner would be under the same scrutiny but is more used to it and might still be successful trying to hold on to the job and if he doesn't Matt comes in and is given plenty of rope to learn on the job because the Cards "have" to play him at that point. If Leinart is the starter and struggles, what does that do to the team if he's left in when an option is available?

I certainly am rooting for Warner for personal reasons but it seems the most prudent course of action to me as well.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

I agree with the rest of your post but I think you're mistaken above.

The last 8 games last year Manning threw more picks than TD's and had a rating just under 70. In December he completed only 51% of his passes and had a rating of 71.2. He wasn't losing games singlehandedly but he wasn't
brilliant.

He did play extremely well in the Super Bowl.

Your my fav poster Russ but you lost me on this one. The last regular season game and the whole post season Manning was just fantastic.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

Kurt Warner will kill this team with costly interceptions and fumbles and forcing plays. Boneheaded plays you can correct. Preparation problems you can correct. Mechanics problems you can correct. Those aren't Kurt Warner's problems. Warner's problems cannot be corrected; they're the cost of doing business, and unless you have a Top 5 defense backing you up, you're not going to make the playoffs with him under center.

And that my friends is the way you wrap up an good arguement in a pretty little bow.

Well put DC.

 

[DaisyCutter]

I think most fans probably feel this way but I think in the long run it would be better for both Matt and the Cardinals if the roles were reversed. Warner starting would make for a lesser risk to the start of the season and given the likelihood of whichever guy starting getting hurt, Leinart coming in to save the day and start the "future" would be a lot more positive environment. Starting Matt will just put him under more scrutiny and have him looking over his shoulder. A great measure of his character to be sure but all in all, I think long term the Cards would be better served by putting Warner in that situation. Warner would be under the same scrutiny but is more used to it and might still be successful trying to hold on to the job and if he doesn't Matt comes in and is given plenty of rope to learn on the job because the Cards "have" to play him at that point. If Leinart is the starter and struggles, what does that do to the team if he's left in when an option is available?

I certainly am rooting for Warner for personal reasons but it seems the most prudent course of action to me as well.

Um... like he was two years ago? Or in New York? Or with Marc Bulger looking over his shoulder?

The season's over if the Cards start worse than 2-2; if that happens, at least you got Leinart some reps and have the questions answered about whether we're going to have to go after a new QB. If Leinart kills you, it'll be because he's not as good as you thought he could be. If Warner kills you, it's just Warner being Warner, and your season is over, and you don't know more than you did before.

It makes no sense to invest your season in a QB who is a pending free agent so that he can make more money.

 

[Russ Smith]

Your my fav poster Russ but you lost me on this one. The last regular season game and the whole post season Manning was just fantastic.

I thought by down the stretch you meant regular season. I agree down the stretch in the playoffs he was outstanding.

I meant they didn't make the playoffs because of Eli they made it in spite of him, but then he played exceptionally in the playoffs which is why they won.

 

[DaisyCutter]

I thought by down the stretch you meant regular season. I agree down the stretch in the playoffs he was outstanding.

I meant they didn't make the playoffs because of Eli they made it in spite of him, but then he played exceptionally in the playoffs which is why they won.

I don't know; this is probably overstating the point. They certainly didn't ride Eli Manning to the playoffs, but they didn't get there "in spite of him" the way that the Seahawks made the playoffs in spite of Shaun Alexander discovering that he had no heart, or the Titans making the playoffs in spite of Vince Young's lack of progress as a passer.

 

[moklerman]

Holy smokes did your arguement just implode under the weight of its own ridiculousness. Comparing Matt Leinart to Jim Sorgi? Saying that Kurt Warner isn't like Drew Bledsoe "imploding and costing his team games" (2005 as starter: 2-8, 2006 as starter: 2-4).

I could entertain your point if you hadn't boiled Warner's career down to 2005 & 2006.

I guess I'll simply have to quit using examples. Jim Sorgi is a young, inexperienced QB who has a proven veteran in front of him and in my opinion, Leinart should again sit(like Sorgi) until it's determined whether or not Warner's '07 success was a fluke or reemergence. Rodgers should have stayed behind Favre.

Totally off the deep end. Kurt Warner will kill this team with costly interceptions and fumbles and forcing plays. Boneheaded plays you can correct. Preparation problems you can correct. Mechanics problems you can correct. Those aren't Kurt Warner's problems. Warner's problems cannot be corrected; they're the cost of doing business, and unless you have a Top 5 defense backing you up, you're not going to make the playoffs with him under center.

Warner has more recently shown that he's closer to regaining his MVP form than Leinart is of fulfilling his potential. Even if Warner just duplicated what he did last year it would be pretty good and we're talking about him being in the 2nd year of Whis' system, not having a dislocated elbow, healthy WR's better o-line play and from what I've seen the first continued good coaching he's had in years. I certainly wouldn't expect everyone to agree with my predictions but they aren't baseless or off the deep end.

I'm sure before '07 you would have also hypothesized that Warner couldn't improve his fumbling problem but he actually did. The possibility of continued improvement is there and I think the coaches feel the same way as does Warner. He's been willing and receptive to focusing on his problems and has improved his game because of it. These are not my opinions, that's just how it is.

 

[Russ Smith]

I don't know; this is probably overstating the point. They certainly didn't ride Eli Manning to the playoffs, but they didn't get there "in spite of him" the way that the Seahawks made the playoffs in spite of Shaun Alexander discovering that he had no heart, or the Titans making the playoffs in spite of Vince Young's lack of progress as a passer.

Maybe but not much of a stretch to say in spite of I think. They started off 0-2 and then won 6 straight games. He had 8 TD and 7 INT in those 6 games and never had even a 90 passer rating. He wasn't responsible for the 0-2 start but he was even less responsible for the 6 game win streak.

He was terrible in losses to Minnesota and Washington, 4 picks against the Vikings, 18-53 against Washington. Those were both key games against teams they were battling for postseason position and he essentially lost both games for them. But you have to give it to him when they needed it most he had a great post season.

 

[moklerman]

Um... like he was two years ago? Or in New York? Or with Marc Bulger looking over his shoulder?

All of which were time he spent playing with a physical handicap. I don't understand how his 2007 is viewed as equivalent to his 2003-2006. The possibility that he reverts to that is there but he hasn't shown that to be likely since the last two games of '06 and all of last year. If you truly think how he looked in the season opener of 2003 is the same as he looked last year then your perception is far too removed from mine for us to argue about it.

The season's over if the Cards start worse than 2-2; if that happens, at least you got Leinart some reps and have the questions answered about whether we're going to have to go after a new QB. If Leinart kills you, it'll be because he's not as good as you thought he could be. If Warner kills you, it's just Warner being Warner, and your season is over, and you don't know more than you did before.

Well, if you're willing to make that decision in 4 games then wouldn't Leinart get 12 games of experience in my scenario? Warner hardly killed the Cardinals last year and at worst, the team was 7-7 in games he had significant playing time. And that's putting the entirety of the team's record all on him.

If they started with Warner and he falters, boom, end of story no more QB controversy, no more "starter's money or backup money", no more wondering if he might be good again. No more questions asked. If Leinart starts and falters or just doesn't do particularly well, the proverbial most popular guy in town is getting chants from the crowd.

It's just a very risky approach in my opinion.

 

[DaisyCutter]

I could entertain your point if you hadn't boiled Warner's career down to 2005 & 2006.

I guess I'll simply have to quit using examples. Jim Sorgi is a young, inexperienced QB who has a proven veteran in front of him and in my opinion, Leinart should again sit(like Sorgi) until it's determined whether or not Warner's '07 success was a fluke or reemergence. Rodgers should have stayed behind Favre.

Jim Sorgi has no future in the NFL, and if Peyton Manning went down, the Colts' season would be finished. Same with Matt Cassell. The more pressing comparisons are probably Josh McCown & JaMarcus Russell in Oakland (McCown will win a couple games in a row for you, but you're not making the playoffs with him), or the instances featuring Kurt Warner, who has never shown the ability to be effective when he's put under pressure, either on the field or on the sideline.

Warner has more recently shown that he's closer to regaining his MVP form than Leinart is of fulfilling his potential. Even if Warner just duplicated what he did last year it would be pretty good and we're talking about him being in the 2nd year of Whis' system, not having a dislocated elbow, healthy WR's better o-line play and from what I've seen the first continued good coaching he's had in years. I certainly wouldn't expect everyone to agree with my predictions but they aren't baseless or off the deep end.

I'm sure before '07 you would have also hypothesized that Warner couldn't improve his fumbling problem but he actually did. The possibility of continued improvement is there and I think the coaches feel the same way as does Warner. He's been willing and receptive to focusing on his problems and has improved his game because of it. These are not my opinions, that's just how it is.

What we saw with Warner last year isn't Whis's system. Warner doesn't want to operate in Whis's system, which is why he had a meltdown with Todd Haley on the sideline after he choked away the Saints game with another overly aggressive interception. Warner is going to want to pass 60% of the time and not check down to his RB.

Warner fumbled 9 times last season! At least one of them cost the Cards a game. Yes, he's not fumbling every start; he's fumbling every other start (almost). Either way, you're going to get killed.

Off the deep end is thinking that this team can win the way its highly paid coaching staff wants to with Kurt Warner. Off the deep end is thinking that Matt Leinart compares to Jim Sorgi (maybe you don't watch any Colts games).

 

[BigRedRage]

Anyone with photoshop want to add a kurt warner cheerleader outfit to moklers avatar?

 

[DaisyCutter]

If they started with Warner and he falters, boom, end of story no more QB controversy, no more "starter's money or backup money", no more wondering if he might be good again. No more questions asked. If Leinart starts and falters or just doesn't do particularly well, the proverbial most popular guy in town is getting chants from the crowd.

It's just a very risky approach in my opinion.

This isn't Madden. Just pulling in QB1 and inserting QB2 doesn't just happen with no ill-effects. You yank Leinart in and out of the starting lineup, and that has an effect. As QB1, Leinart gets most of the practice reps (which he needs), and most of the responsibility (which he also needs pressed on him). Warner isn't going to get any better with extra practice time.

The Cards are going to win or lose playing Whis's brand of football. He's not going to go on the hot seat because Warner is audibling to passes on two-thirds of downs. That's why Leiart is the starter; Whis knows that he can't do his job with Warner under center.

The same thing happens in your scenario if Leinart struggles. Either player is going to hear chants for the other guy, probably after his first incomplete pass. The problem is that if the team goes with Warner, you have Leinart starting from scratch missing 25% of the season's practice time, pressed into action because the team's season is in jeopardy (or over), and he's inexperienced and underprepared.

 

[moklerman]

who has never shown the ability to be effective when he's put under pressure, either on the field or on the sideline.

C'mon, now. Opinions are obviously split on this situation but the picture you're trying to paint of Warner is, well...baseless. It's the same thing as if I tried to argue that Warner ALWAYS excels under pressure and NEVER makes mistakes.

What we saw with Warner last year isn't Whis's system. Warner doesn't want to operate in Whis's system, which is why he had a meltdown with Todd Haley on the sideline after he choked away the Saints game with another overly aggressive interception.

I think your feelings and perceptions are muddying your objectivity. First, Whis isn't oblivious. I give him credit for adjusting his approach on the fly last year. Second, are you really giving Warner credit for having the juice to make Whis run an offense that he doesn't want to run? Third, the meltdown occurred after Warner got sacked and stripped by Fujita. I assume Haley was upset because Warner didn't throw the ball away or just take a sack but it was 3rd and 11 so I can see why Warner thought he had to make something happen. He was wrong, but I can see the thought process. Warner had 3 TD's and 1 INT and a 100+ rating that day so while I agree that his mistakes were costly I don't agree with laying the loss all at his feet. Rackers missed another FG, the defense let NO hold the ball almost 7 minutes to end the game, etc. Your picture seems to paint the idea that if only Warner hadn't screwed things up the Cardinals would have beaten the Saints that day.

Warner fumbled 9 times last season! At least one of them cost the Cards a game.

Like I said, to lay everything at Warner's feet seems much more off the deep end than anything my biased viewpoints might suggest. Proposing that Warner's fumble was why the Cardinals didn't win the SF game is simply exaggerating Warner's shortcomings. Couldn't it just as easily be said that Warner helped drive the team down with only 1:18 to go and then again in overtime for a 32 yd FG attempt? I mean, 1 minute drive to tie the game is performing under pressure isn't it?

Off the deep end is thinking that this team can win the way its highly paid coaching staff wants to with Kurt Warner.

Well, Whis and the staff think it's a possibility. Otherwise, I'd assume they would gladly have cut the high-priced, potential distraction.

This isn't Madden. Just pulling in QB1 and inserting QB2 doesn't just happen with no ill-effects.

I agree and that's why I think my scenario is the best way. My way, there's one switch at most. The current way, if/when Leinart struggles there is going to be dissension by some. It's unavoidable. If he's kept in there despite struggling, I think the coach will lose some credibility after his "best player plays" mantra. If he's pulled, then he will have to be re-inserted again at some point and the yo-yo'ing will take it's toll.

The Cards are going to win or lose playing Whis's brand of football. He's not going to go on the hot seat because Warner is audibling to passes on two-thirds of downs.

Again, I think this is more perception than reality. The team was winning, scoring and Edge was getting the same amount of carries with Warner at QB. Most QB's would like to throw the ball more than run it and I think Warner's statements have been blown way out of proportion.

Either player is going to hear chants for the other guy, probably after his first incomplete pass. The problem is that if the team goes with Warner, you have Leinart starting from scratch missing 25% of the season's practice time, pressed into action because the team's season is in jeopardy (or over), and he's inexperienced and underprepared.

I agree but for Leinart's sake I think it would be more beneficial to hear the crowds cheering for him than for Warner. Leinart would indeed lose some practice time under normal circumstances but he's played enough that he isn't coming in from scratch no matter how little practice time he may get.