Do you really believe Kurt Warner will make it all 16 games again? (1 Viewer)

[Sigmund Bloom]

I don't see why Warner won't last 16 games. I disagree that younger players have a better chance at staying healthy / avoiding injury. The only advantage younger players have is that they tend to heal quicker. But all NFL players, by position, have nearly the same propensity for injury.

I don't agree with this at all. While difficult to quantify, the fact is that there are flat out some QB's who are more prone to concussions (which, of course, become easier to sustain with each successive one) than others. To my knowledge, Peyton Manning has never had a concussion in the NFL; Kurt Warner has had many. Moreover, and no doubt related, Manning has been known for getting rid of the ball quickly and avoiding hits while Warner has often held the ball too long, and therefore taken hits. There's no way I'd equate the two when it comes to injury risk.

Warner only took 26 sacks last year despite the fact that he dropped back to throw 598 times. He's not having issues with holding on to the ball too long these days. He's also not a runner, and his dangerous WR corps makes it very dicey for teams to throw all-out blitzes at him. He's also in a weak defensive division. I would say he's one of the least likely QBs to take big hits in the league.

 

[T Bell]

I don't see why Warner won't last 16 games. I disagree that younger players have a better chance at staying healthy / avoiding injury. The only advantage younger players have is that they tend to heal quicker. But all NFL players, by position, have nearly the same propensity for injury.

I don't agree with this at all. While difficult to quantify, the fact is that there are flat out some QB's who are more prone to concussions (which, of course, become easier to sustain with each successive one) than others. To my knowledge, Peyton Manning has never had a concussion in the NFL; Kurt Warner has had many. Moreover, and no doubt related, Manning has been known for getting rid of the ball quickly and avoiding hits while Warner has often held the ball too long, and therefore taken hits. There's no way I'd equate the two when it comes to injury risk.

Warner only took 26 sacks last year despite the fact that he dropped back to throw 598 times. He's not having issues with holding on to the ball too long these days. He's also not a runner, and his dangerous WR corps makes it very dicey for teams to throw all-out blitzes at him. He's also in a weak defensive division. I would say he's one of the least likely QBs to take big hits in the league.

Fair enough, and having not one but two elite WR's to throw to helps him to get rid of the ball, no doubt. But there's no way you can equate Warner's concussion risk with Manning's, right? It's not just QB's and concussions either. Certain WR's tend to get lower body injuries, especially hamstrings and groins. Santana Moss seems like he either outright misses or plays gimpy through a handful of games each year due to this. Isaac Bruce had these issues early on until he changed his training regimen to specifically address this. I recall a quote from Fred Taylor that he was four or five years into the league before he'd really learned how to train and get his body in shape and ready to address the rigors of playing in the NFL, something which BTW is born out by the number of games missed each season in his career. In this regard I agree with Switz that there's not a linear progression to injury risk over the course of a career, and it can even be the case that younger guys are more at risk because they like Bruce or Taylor don't know how to train when they first enter the league. I recall Jim Zorn getting all over Malcolm Kelly and Devin Thomas last year during training camp because they weren't in NFL shape, and that was due not to them being "lazy" or not working out but rather due to inadequate training regimens. Still, unlike Switz I don't take a blindly egalitarian approach ("everyone's got the same risk regardless of age") and it needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. With a guy like Warner or McNabb, they're hugely valuable using a PPG analysis, but you'd damned well better draft a good backup for them if they're your starter.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Name the five qb's he's better than.

And I could easily make a case for about five more.Titans

Chiefs

Cleveland

Buffalo

Denver (Orton has little upside)

I'd love to see your case....Kerry Collins is far better than Leinart

Cassell is better, Thigpen is probably better too

Derek Anderson is hit or miss, hard to say with Quinn, but my guess is put all three on a roster and Leinart comes out third

Trent Edwards has already proven he's better than Leinart

Orton is clearly better than Leinart

I'm just waiting to see your easy case...

switz, I realized I shouldn't have started this hijack so let's end it. It's LHUCKS. We all know his Leinart love and this isn't a winnable argument. He's likely to argue Matt has more upside than anyone not named Peyton or Brady.

 

[stevegamer]

You've lost me. We're talking about a 38 year old quarterback. I'm pretty sure that by sampling all 38 year old QB's I'm comparing apples to apples.

Nope. By comparing Warner to a sampling all 38 year old QB's, you're comparing apples to all non-citrus fruits.To further get it down to apples to apples, you need eliminate:1. Guys who don't enter the season as the starter. 2. Guys who weren't the starter the year before. 3. Guys who weren't any good the year before.4. Guys who changed teams.That will eliminate the melons, bananas, tropical fruit, berries, et al from your comparisons and get you down to just apples.

 

[FantasyTrader]

You make a very valid point that only four 38 year old QB's were coming off of 25+ TD seasons. But then you go on to say ZERO of those four examples managed to throw 25 TD's the following year. Not too compelling a reason for why Warner will. Again, I'm NOT saying he can't, just that NFL history would suggest is not's likely.

Which I'm sure brings you back to, "Well this is the 38 year old Warner, and he's an individual". Which brings me back to "Why not the 89 year old Favre?"

Which brings us all back to the insufficient sample size argument.I think we can all agree that, on average, all other things being equal, the younger player has a better chance at staying healthy than the older player.

But a sample size of four says nothing predictive.

But doesn't the fact that it is such a small sample size, tell us something here?

That very few QBs play as well Warner has into their late 30s. That doesn't change the fact that he is actually doing it. The rate of success of undrafted free agent QBs would have kept us from ever taking a chance on Warner by this logic. The way you win your league is by discerning who is the exception, not the rule. It's not very hard to run numbers that tell us the rate of success of players with specific attributes, but that's playing FF like we're blind and the games are just computer run simulations. We can do better than that - if Warner had trouble playing through injuries the last few years, or his mobility had become so compromised at his advanced age that it affected his game, then there would be something to the idea of knocking him down simply because of his age. I haven't seen it. If Warner gets hurt in 2009, it will likely be on a play that would have hurt a QB of any age. Maybe the age argument comes into play if he's a slow healer, but that's about it.

Take that thought a step further. WHY do very few QB's play as well as Warner into their late 30's? "The way you win your league is by discerning who is the exception, not the rule."

I believe I'm doing that. I would be willing to bet money that if I ran a poll, the heavy majority will vote that Warner will throw more than 25 TD's this year. WHy? Because he did it last year as well as the year before. Mine is not the popular opinion here.

 

[CalBear]

Take that thought a step further. WHY do very few QB's play as well as Warner into their late 30's?

Because there have only been something like 10 passers of Warner's caliber in NFL history. Maybe 5.

 

[FantasyTrader]

You've lost me. We're talking about a 38 year old quarterback. I'm pretty sure that by sampling all 38 year old QB's I'm comparing apples to apples.

Nope. By comparing Warner to a sampling all 38 year old QB's, you're comparing apples to all non-citrus fruits.To further get it down to apples to apples, you need eliminate:1. Guys who don't enter the season as the starter. 2. Guys who weren't the starter the year before. 3. Guys who weren't any good the year before.4. Guys who changed teams.That will eliminate the melons, bananas, tropical fruit, berries, et al from your comparisons and get you down to just apples.

I agree. And CalBear did all of that in post #39. His results? All 3 of individuals that met your specific criteria failed to throw 25 TD's the following year.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Take that thought a step further. WHY do very few QB's play as well as Warner into their late 30's?

Because there have only been something like 10 passers of Warner's caliber in NFL history. Maybe 5.

Disagree. I believe there's fully 25 QB's that would repeat and top Warner's numbers under the same circumstances. Maybe 40. *Above average pass protecting O-line.*Two of the games premiere WR's.*Shoddy run blocking, declining RB and below average defense. It's the perfect environment to breed an accurate QB's stats.

 

[CalBear]

I agree. And CalBear did all of that in post #39. His results? All 3 of individuals that met your specific criteria failed to throw 25 TD's the following year.

That's cherry-picking of the highest order, considering that Warren Moon threw 25+ TDs at age 39 and 41. So that makes six data points, two of which threw for 25+. Throw in Favre's 2007 (28) and Tarkenton's 1978 (25, not sure how I missed that so far), and it looks like there's a pretty decent chance for a 38+ year old starter to throw 25 TDs.(What do all these guys have in common? They're Hall of Famers).

 

[CalBear]

There have been 7 QB seasons with 500+ pass attempts at age 38+; four of those have had 25+ TDs. So if Warner gets 500 attempts (which would be almost 100 less than last year), he's a very good bet to get 25+ TDs. That's if you only look at the historical record, which, as I've already mentioned, is bunk.

 

[CalBear]

Take that thought a step further. WHY do very few QB's play as well as Warner into their late 30's?

Because there have only been something like 10 passers of Warner's caliber in NFL history. Maybe 5.

Disagree. I believe there's fully 25 QB's that would repeat and top Warner's numbers under the same circumstances. Maybe 40. *Above average pass protecting O-line.*Two of the games premiere WR's.*Shoddy run blocking, declining RB and below average defense. It's the perfect environment to breed an accurate QB's stats.

Kurt Warner at 38 isn't one of the top 10 passers of all time--but Kurt Warner at 28 was. You have to expect one of the top 10 passers of all time to perform better at 38 than the average schlep.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

There have been 7 QB seasons with 500+ pass attempts at age 38+; four of those have had 25+ TDs. So if Warner gets 500 attempts (which would be almost 100 less than last year), he's a very good bet to get 25+ TDs. That's if you only look at the historical record, which, as I've already mentioned, is bunk.

$$$These kinds of analyses are not useful. With such limited data points, you can manipulate the stats many ways.Warner has a similar chance to succeed as he did last year. Possible reasons he won't:More rushingBoldin leavesHistorical production of 38 year old QBs plays no role in Warner's situation going forward.

 

[Jon_Moore]

Your first sentence is accurate, your second sentence is misleading given the opportunity. He had two bad preseason games...that's it. I'll take what he showed in the regular season in his rookie year as more indicative...the guy has skills.

People just want to rip on him because he's the golden boy that parties...he's better than at least five starting QBs in the NFL right now IMHO.

You can't be seriousOne of the worst Quarterback battles of all time:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/boxscore;_ylt=...gid=20070910025

And Leinart managed to lose it...

 

[thayman]

There have been 7 QB seasons with 500+ pass attempts at age 38+; four of those have had 25+ TDs. So if Warner gets 500 attempts (which would be almost 100 less than last year), he's a very good bet to get 25+ TDs. That's if you only look at the historical record, which, as I've already mentioned, is bunk.

$$$These kinds of analyses are not useful. With such limited data points, you can manipulate the stats many ways.Warner has a similar chance to succeed as he did last year. Possible reasons he won't:More rushingBoldin leavesHistorical production of 38 year old QBs plays no role in Warner's situation going forward.

Fantasy Trader: Warner is a bit more of a unique situation, barring injury there is no reason he shouldn't put up top 10 number this year. Comparing him to journeymen QBs doesn't make much sense.

 

[Tau837]

MAYBE with Warner you'll want to draft your backup earlier than with Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Rivers, or Brady, but even with those guys you run the risk of destroying your season if you don't have a backup plan.

And just to further your point all of those QB except for Manning have missed games to injury - Rodgers couldn't even make it through practice the next week after finally getting a chance when Favre left the Dallas game and he finished it up.

Rivers has never missed a game due to injury.

 

[Tau837]

The way you win your league is by discerning who is the exception, not the rule.

Best point of this thread.

 

[Tau837]

Take that thought a step further. WHY do very few QB's play as well as Warner into their late 30's?

Because there have only been something like 10 passers of Warner's caliber in NFL history. Maybe 5.

Not sure why some are having trouble with this.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Take that thought a step further. WHY do very few QB's play as well as Warner into their late 30's?

Because there have only been something like 10 passers of Warner's caliber in NFL history. Maybe 5.

Not sure why some are having trouble with this.

I'm having trouble with it because I believe Warner is a very good quarterback that has been blessed with elite supporting casts wherever he's went his entire career. I believe that if you give any one of DOZENS of NFL QB's Warners career path, they put up the same (if not better) numbers. In fact, I believe the only thing seperating Trent Green and Warner is one of the most inopportune torn ACL's in league history. No way of proving/disproving that of course. Just conjecture.

 

[FantasyTrader]

There have been 7 QB seasons with 500+ pass attempts at age 38+; four of those have had 25+ TDs. So if Warner gets 500 attempts (which would be almost 100 less than last year), he's a very good bet to get 25+ TDs. That's if you only look at the historical record, which, as I've already mentioned, is bunk.

$$$These kinds of analyses are not useful. With such limited data points, you can manipulate the stats many ways.Warner has a similar chance to succeed as he did last year. Possible reasons he won't:More rushingBoldin leavesHistorical production of 38 year old QBs plays no role in Warner's situation going forward.

Fantasy Trader: Warner is a bit more of a unique situation, barring injury there is no reason he shouldn't put up top 10 number this year. Comparing him to journeymen QBs doesn't make much sense.

I get that and I completely agree. Barring injury, Warner easily repeats as a top 10. I'm not barring injury. In fact, I'm banking on it.

 

[CalBear]

I get that and I completely agree. Barring injury, Warner easily repeats as a top 10. I'm not barring injury. In fact, I'm banking on it.

What do you think the average injury risk is for starting NFL QBs, and what do you think Warner's is?

 

[FantasyTrader]

I get that and I completely agree. Barring injury, Warner easily repeats as a top 10. I'm not barring injury. In fact, I'm banking on it.

What do you think the average injury risk is for starting NFL QBs, and what do you think Warner's is?

I'm not sure. Great question. I feel like 2008 was pretty average. Possibly a bit more attrition than normal. I'd guess it's high 30's%-43%. Of the top 26 QB's auctioned according to Fantasy Auctioneer last year, 14 played all 16 games with Vince Young being void and both Bulger and JaMarcus Russell starting 15 (but I still gave them "no's").Manning, Brees, Roethlisberger, McNabb, Favre, Cutler, Garrard, Eli, Rodgers, Delhomme, Rivers, Pennington, Campbell and Warner.And 11 succombed to injury. 42.3%. All told, 19 QB's played all 16 games last year. I would estimate, factoring in positives of Warner's 7th ranked sack % of 4.4 and a much improved backfield presence as well as negatives of age + natural attrition rate, Warner has a 40/60 shot at playing 16 games. Roughly 1.5 times more likely than the average QB to miss time.

 

[T Bell]

I get that and I completely agree. Barring injury, Warner easily repeats as a top 10. I'm not barring injury. In fact, I'm banking on it.

What do you think the average injury risk is for starting NFL QBs, and what do you think Warner's is?

I'm not sure. Great question. I feel like 2008 was pretty average. Possibly a bit more attrition than normal. I'd guess it's high 30's%-43%. Of the top 26 QB's auctioned according to Fantasy Auctioneer last year, 14 played all 16 games with Vince Young being void and both Bulger and JaMarcus Russell starting 15 (but I still gave them "no's").Manning, Brees, Roethlisberger, McNabb, Favre, Cutler, Garrard, Eli, Rodgers, Delhomme, Rivers, Pennington, Campbell and Warner.And 11 succombed to injury. 42.3%. All told, 19 QB's played all 16 games last year. I would estimate, factoring in positives of Warner's 7th ranked sack % of 4.4 and a much improved backfield presence as well as negatives of age + natural attrition rate, Warner has a 40/60 shot at playing 16 games. Roughly 1.5 times more likely than the average QB to miss time.

You assess injury risk both by rate of injury (% chance to miss at least one start) and also by severity of injury (games missed). I think the leaguewide rate % is around 50%. Severity is tougher to measure, but among those QB's missing games I'd guess the average number of games missed is in the 2-3 range. I would think that Warner would rate "above average" in both risk categories, however.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Take that thought a step further. WHY do very few QB's play as well as Warner into their late 30's?

Because there have only been something like 10 passers of Warner's caliber in NFL history. Maybe 5.

Disagree. I believe there's fully 25 QB's that would repeat and top Warner's numbers under the same circumstances. Maybe 40. *Above average pass protecting O-line.*Two of the games premiere WR's.*Shoddy run blocking, declining RB and below average defense. It's the perfect environment to breed an accurate QB's stats.

Kurt Warner at 38 isn't one of the top 10 passers of all time--but Kurt Warner at 28 was. You have to expect one of the top 10 passers of all time to perform better at 38 than the average schlep.

Nope. Still disagree. He doesn't even sniff the top 10. I believe if you give DOZENS of QB's that "greatest show on turf" offense that they match him. Very good QB, but not even top 25.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I get that and I completely agree. Barring injury, Warner easily repeats as a top 10. I'm not barring injury. In fact, I'm banking on it.

What do you think the average injury risk is for starting NFL QBs, and what do you think Warner's is?

I'm not sure. Great question. I feel like 2008 was pretty average. Possibly a bit more attrition than normal. I'd guess it's high 30's%-43%. Of the top 26 QB's auctioned according to Fantasy Auctioneer last year, 14 played all 16 games with Vince Young being void and both Bulger and JaMarcus Russell starting 15 (but I still gave them "no's").Manning, Brees, Roethlisberger, McNabb, Favre, Cutler, Garrard, Eli, Rodgers, Delhomme, Rivers, Pennington, Campbell and Warner.And 11 succombed to injury. 42.3%. All told, 19 QB's played all 16 games last year. I would estimate, factoring in positives of Warner's 7th ranked sack % of 4.4 and a much improved backfield presence as well as negatives of age + natural attrition rate, Warner has a 40/60 shot at playing 16 games. Roughly 1.5 times more likely than the average QB to miss time.

You assess injury risk both by rate of injury (% chance to miss at least one start) and also by severity of injury (games missed). I think the leaguewide rate % is around 50%. Severity is tougher to measure, but among those QB's missing games I'd guess the average number of games missed is in the 2-3 range. I would think that Warner would rate "above average" in both risk categories, however.

Yeah, I'll buy that. If 42.3% missed ANY time last year, it would stand to reason the rate would jump by factoring in severity. But again, I only used 2008...(extremely small sample size thing again). CalBear hopefully comes along shortly with more accurate historical numbers.

 

[LHUCKS]

I get that and I completely agree. Barring injury, Warner easily repeats as a top 10. I'm not barring injury. In fact, I'm banking on it.

What do you think the average injury risk is for starting NFL QBs, and what do you think Warner's is?

How do you quantify risk?Im in corporate finance risk management...mind you.

 

[T Bell]

I get that and I completely agree. Barring injury, Warner easily repeats as a top 10. I'm not barring injury. In fact, I'm banking on it.

What do you think the average injury risk is for starting NFL QBs, and what do you think Warner's is?

How do you quantify risk?Im in corporate finance risk management...mind you.

We'll keep that in mind, drone.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I get that and I completely agree. Barring injury, Warner easily repeats as a top 10. I'm not barring injury. In fact, I'm banking on it.

What do you think the average injury risk is for starting NFL QBs, and what do you think Warner's is?

How do you quantify risk?Im in corporate finance risk management...mind you.

I freely admit my quantification of risk is extremely subjective. I'd appreciate being schooled on a better way.

 

[switz]

Nope. Still disagree. He doesn't even sniff the top 10. I believe if you give DOZENS of QB's that "greatest show on turf" offense that they match him. Very good QB, but not even top 25.

Yeah, which is why Trent Green was able to lead them to just as good a W-L record, right? The same Trent Green that went on to have some very good seasons in KC.Mind you in the two seasons that Warner started every game for St.L they went 13-3 and 14-2. They also were the #1 Offense in points and yards while he played... and the won the SB twice.

What's interesting is Marc Bulger took over the very same offense in '02, and they dropped to 23rd offense. This was the season Warner got hurt, and Martin and Bulger tried to fill in. Obviously Bulger isn't a bad QB, but he certainly wasn't able to keep that offense flowing like Warner.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Nope. Still disagree. He doesn't even sniff the top 10. I believe if you give DOZENS of QB's that "greatest show on turf" offense that they match him. Very good QB, but not even top 25.

Yeah, which is why Trent Green was able to lead them to just as good a W-L record, right? The same Trent Green that went on to have some very good seasons in KC.Mind you in the two seasons that Warner started every game for St.L they went 13-3 and 14-2. They also were the #1 Offense in points and yards while he played... and the won the SB twice.

What's interesting is Marc Bulger took over the very same offense in '02, and they dropped to 23rd offense. This was the season Warner got hurt, and Martin and Bulger tried to fill in. Obviously Bulger isn't a bad QB, but he certainly wasn't able to keep that offense flowing like Warner.

Nope, you're absolutely right. Thus, why I mentioned the torn ACL. All I remember (granted, it was meaningless preseason) is Green entering the preseason as a starter and in one game being a ridiculous 21 for 22 or 22 for 22, I can't remember. Too many years. But the Rams were looking equally as All-World until Green gets crumpled by a Rodney Harrison hit. What he would have gone on to do, we have no idea.

 

[CalBear]

Nope, you're absolutely right. Thus, why I mentioned the torn ACL. All I remember (granted, it was meaningless preseason) is Green entering the preseason as a starter and in one game being a ridiculous 21 for 22 or 22 for 22, I can't remember. Too many years. But the Rams were looking equally as All-World until Green gets crumpled by a Rodney Harrison hit. What he would have gone on to do, we have no idea.

In 2000, Warner started 11 games and threw 347 passes; Green started 5 and threw 240. Warner completed 67.7% of his passes with 9.9 yards/attempt (an NFL record which still stands)--the team went 8-3 with Warner at starter. Green completed 60.4% of his passes for 8.6 yards/attempt, and the team went 2-3. It seems obvious that Warner (who holds three of the top 15 yards/attempt seasons of all time) is, at the very least, a significantly better QB than Trent Green, who himself is no slouch (#11 in career passing yards/game, #17 in yards/attempt).

 

[Tau837]

Nope, you're absolutely right. Thus, why I mentioned the torn ACL. All I remember (granted, it was meaningless preseason) is Green entering the preseason as a starter and in one game being a ridiculous 21 for 22 or 22 for 22, I can't remember. Too many years. But the Rams were looking equally as All-World until Green gets crumpled by a Rodney Harrison hit. What he would have gone on to do, we have no idea.

In 2000, Warner started 11 games and threw 347 passes; Green started 5 and threw 240. Warner completed 67.7% of his passes with 9.9 yards/attempt (an NFL record which still stands)--the team went 8-3 with Warner at starter. Green completed 60.4% of his passes for 8.6 yards/attempt, and the team went 2-3. It seems obvious that Warner (who holds three of the top 15 yards/attempt seasons of all time) is, at the very least, a significantly better QB than Trent Green, who himself is no slouch (#11 in career passing yards/game, #17 in yards/attempt).

 

[FantasyTrader]

Nope, you're absolutely right. Thus, why I mentioned the torn ACL. All I remember (granted, it was meaningless preseason) is Green entering the preseason as a starter and in one game being a ridiculous 21 for 22 or 22 for 22, I can't remember. Too many years. But the Rams were looking equally as All-World until Green gets crumpled by a Rodney Harrison hit. What he would have gone on to do, we have no idea.

In 2000, Warner started 11 games and threw 347 passes; Green started 5 and threw 240. Warner completed 67.7% of his passes with 9.9 yards/attempt (an NFL record which still stands)--the team went 8-3 with Warner at starter. Green completed 60.4% of his passes for 8.6 yards/attempt, and the team went 2-3. It seems obvious that Warner (who holds three of the top 15 yards/attempt seasons of all time) is, at the very least, a significantly better QB than Trent Green, who himself is no slouch (#11 in career passing yards/game, #17 in yards/attempt).

I expected more from you than this. For someone harping cherry picking and small sample sizes throughout this thread, I didn't think you of all people would rely on 5 games from a Trent Green that was only a year removed from a torn ACL to draw the conclusion that, "at the very least, Warner is a significantly better QB than Trent Green".

 

[CalBear]

I expected more from you than this. For someone harping cherry picking and small sample sizes throughout this thread, I didn't think you of all people would rely on 5 games from a Trent Green that was only a year removed from a torn ACL to draw the conclusion that, "at the very least, Warner is a significantly better QB than Trent Green".

Well, I could also draw that conclusion from the fact that Kurt Warner is going to the Hall of Fame and Trent Green isn't. If you want to prove that Trent Green is as good as Kurt Warner, you're the one who has to come up with some evidence, because obviously the coaches in St. Louis didn't think so and neither will the Hall of Fame voters.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I wanted to chime back in and simply thank the SP for what I think is a very interesting thread. I wsa hoping that I would be persuaded by both sides, even folks I traditionally disagree with such as TBell have some nice posts in here, and LHucks as the court appointed human pinata never hurts. For a 2 star thread I like it, thanks guys.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I expected more from you than this. For someone harping cherry picking and small sample sizes throughout this thread, I didn't think you of all people would rely on 5 games from a Trent Green that was only a year removed from a torn ACL to draw the conclusion that, "at the very least, Warner is a significantly better QB than Trent Green".

Well, I could also draw that conclusion from the fact that Kurt Warner is going to the Hall of Fame and Trent Green isn't. If you want to prove that Trent Green is as good as Kurt Warner, you're the one who has to come up with some evidence, because obviously the coaches in St. Louis didn't think so and neither will the Hall of Fame voters.

No I don't. That's what's so fun about having abou having these conversations. Because no two players will ever take the exact same career track. I believe that had he not torn his ACL, Trent Green goes on to duplicate what Warner accomplished in St. Louis. But we'll never know. I also believe that, had any number of players had the supporting cast of Warner during his career, they would have matched his stats. And trying to prove/disprove something as subjective as talent is a fool's errand.

 

[FFCardsFan]

I expected more from you than this. For someone harping cherry picking and small sample sizes throughout this thread, I didn't think you of all people would rely on 5 games from a Trent Green that was only a year removed from a torn ACL to draw the conclusion that, "at the very least, Warner is a significantly better QB than Trent Green".

Well, I could also draw that conclusion from the fact that Kurt Warner is going to the Hall of Fame and Trent Green isn't. If you want to prove that Trent Green is as good as Kurt Warner, you're the one who has to come up with some evidence, because obviously the coaches in St. Louis didn't think so and neither will the Hall of Fame voters.

No I don't. That's what's so fun about having abou having these conversations. Because no two players will ever take the exact same career track. I believe that had he not torn his ACL, Trent Green goes on to duplicate what Warner accomplished in St. Louis. But we'll never know. I also believe that, had any number of players had the supporting cast of Warner during his career, they would have matched his stats. And trying to prove/disprove something as subjective as talent is a fool's errand.

Ehhh, I dont know. I think it is hard to assume that another QB could walk in and put up those kind of numbers just because the starter tore it up with a very talented group of skill players. Yeah, Warner had a lot of help, but I do not think you can put Green in the same breath as him, or even say that he could have put up similar numbers. I think saying "had any number of players had the supporting cast of Warner during his career, they would have matched his stats" is pretty dry. Warner has proven himself to be a top QB in the league for a number of years. Theres no way a number of guys in the league would have won a few superbowls and mvp's, regardless of the talent around him.

 

[switz]

No I don't. That's what's so fun about having abou having these conversations. Because no two players will ever take the exact same career track. I believe that had he not torn his ACL, Trent Green goes on to duplicate what Warner accomplished in St. Louis. But we'll never know. I also believe that, had any number of players had the supporting cast of Warner during his career, they would have matched his stats.

Trent Green had some success in KC, under Vermeil, and when he played for StL, he had decent stats. What gets overlooked is that Warner made StL a winning team, not just a statistical powerhouse. It's hard to argue Trent could have led them to the two Super Bowls, when the drop off in wins was so drastic between the two of them.And you can't really blame the ACL for the W-L record in 2000, because Green was putting up really good numbers. He just wasn't turning them into wins. That's the difference between good QBs and great QBs. Great QBs are winners.Green in his career is 56-57-0, just under .495 with 5 seasons as a full season starterWarner is 57-44-0 .564 with only three seasons as a full season starterYou have to wonder how good Warner's numbers and W-L record would be if he hadn't gotten injured or played custodian for a few teams. Just look what he did for Arizona when they finally let him be the full time starter. Think about how the Giants would have fared, with their great defense and running game, if Warner hadn't given way to Eli midway through '04.The problem with your argument that Warner was a plug in player, is that there is evidence to contradict that, but no evidence to support it.In StL, Bulger and Green, decent QBs, were unable to duplicate Warner's success with the same cast of players.In AZ, Leinart, a first round pick supposedly having all the talent in the world, unable to duplicate what Warner has done.In NY, when Manning took over for Warner, they were 5-4 and ended the season 6-10. Granted Eli was a rookie, but that team fell apart under him his rookie season. One win in 9 games Manning played. Warner was 5-3 in his starts.Warner was definitely not a replaceable player, in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

MAYBE with Warner you'll want to draft your backup earlier than with Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Rivers, or Brady, but even with those guys you run the risk of destroying your season if you don't have a backup plan.

And just to further your point all of those QB except for Manning have missed games to injury - Rodgers couldn't even make it through practice the next week after finally getting a chance when Favre left the Dallas game and he finished it up.

Rivers has never missed a game due to injury.

That's right I apologize. He gutted out his ACL tear and played the next week. He did get injured though and if it was the regular season probably would have missed some time. The point though is even the "durable" QBs can get injured.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Think about how the Giants would have fared, with their great defense and running game, if Warner hadn't given way to Eli midway through '04.

Perhaps they may have made the playoffs for multiple years and even won a SuperBowl. Seriously in the Giants defense, Warner looked pretty bad when he was starting in New York. I watched all the games and at that time I thought his career was toast. It was likely due to his thumb injury (?) that he suffered in St. Louis, but he had real trouble throwing a spiral or putting any zip on the ball. He seemed shell shocked in the pocket and threw many floaters. His smarts got him by well enough, but he looked like a shell of his glory years.I'm glad he recovered and resurrected his career in Arizona because he trul is a great QB and a great person.This thread has taught me a lot as I went into it was one who didn't think he could make it through the full season, but now I'm leaning towards him being able to do so.

 

[FantasyTrader]

No I don't. That's what's so fun about having abou having these conversations. Because no two players will ever take the exact same career track. I believe that had he not torn his ACL, Trent Green goes on to duplicate what Warner accomplished in St. Louis. But we'll never know. I also believe that, had any number of players had the supporting cast of Warner during his career, they would have matched his stats.

Trent Green had some success in KC, under Vermeil, and when he played for StL, he had decent stats. What gets overlooked is that Warner made StL a winning team, not just a statistical powerhouse. It's hard to argue Trent could have led them to the two Super Bowls, when the drop off in wins was so drastic between the two of them.And you can't really blame the ACL for the W-L record in 2000, because Green was putting up really good numbers. He just wasn't turning them into wins. That's the difference between good QBs and great QBs. Great QBs are winners.

Green in his career is 56-57-0, just under .495 with 5 seasons as a full season starter

Warner is 57-44-0 .564 with only three seasons as a full season starter

You have to wonder how good Warner's numbers and W-L record would be if he hadn't gotten injured or played custodian for a few teams. Just look what he did for Arizona when they finally let him be the full time starter. Think about how the Giants would have fared, with their great defense and running game, if Warner hadn't given way to Eli midway through '04.

The problem with your argument that Warner was a plug in player, is that there is evidence to contradict that, but no evidence to support it.

In StL, Bulger and Green, decent QBs, were unable to duplicate Warner's success with the same cast of players.

In AZ, Leinart, a first round pick supposedly having all the talent in the world, unable to duplicate what Warner has done.

In NY, when Manning took over for Warner, they were 5-4 and ended the season 6-10. Granted Eli was a rookie, but that team fell apart under him his rookie season. One win in 9 games Manning played. Warner was 5-3 in his starts.

Warner was definitely not a replaceable player, in any way, shape, or form.

To clarify, I'm not talking about NFL quarterbacking. I'm talking pure FF and stats here. So the win percentages, SB rings, etc etc. I completely agree. Warner is a very good QB and has always possessed that "it" factor all winners have. I am not saying Warner is replaceable as a leader and a performer in clutch situations. In that capacity, Trent Green couldn't hold Warner's jock. I'm only looking at FP scored. I still believe any number of very good QB's would match his numbers if you give them the same career path.