Is Kurt Warner done? (1 Viewer)

[Tau837]

1999 was the turnaround year, and I think it is very reasonable to give Warner more credit for it than anyone else.Perhaps you read a bit more into my statement than it was intended to convey.

More? Maybe. I guess I implied you as saying he was the key factor in the turnaround, and I certainly don't see that as the case. Those Rams were incredibly stacked, with arguably four HOFs at the key offensive positions: LT, RB, WR, WR. They also had a great scheme. As much as I can't stand the guy, Tom Brady's job turning around the Patriots was much more of a real "turnaround." Warner, while great, was really a case of perfect timing. If, for example, Green had played in '99 and the Rams were awesome, and then got hurt in '00 and Warner came in and won the SB once and appeared in another within three years, that wouldn't change my opinion of Warner at all. Would it change your opinion of him?I guess that's my main point -- the "turning around a crappy franchise" thing isn't really accurate or a part of why Warner's great. At least for me.

This is just Chase being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.We might as well say Montana wasn't the most important element to the 49ers success either because they had a great scheme. Or Babe Ruth was only good because he had great protection in the lineup and a small ballpark. Or Gretzky was not really that important because he had the likes of Messier, Kurri, Coffey, and Anderson [among many others]. Put the stats away. It's clear to anyone following football.. or watching football.. that Warner energized this team, brought tremendous leadership, and guided them to greatness. Sure he didn't do it all on his own.. but he was the central and critical piece to the puzzle.Sometimes it's okay to buy into the popular storyline. Not everything is a conspiracy.

I guess it's not clear to people who don't think the QB is the only person on the field.

That's a cheap shot. So you're basically saying that those who disagree with you on this issue think the QB is the only person on the field... basically insulting their football knowledge.

 

[CravenM]

As for HOF consideration (off topic):Has Kurt Warner had a more impressive career than Brett Favre? Ignoring the starting games streak by Favre which is phenomenal, the passer rating, Super Bowl activity, MVP seasons, overall dominance, etc are pretty comparable.In 11 seasons, Warner has only played in 109 regular season games. Favre in 18 seasons has been in 273.I'm not sure where to find their teams' winning record when starting but I'd bet Warner may have the edge.

Not even close. I think Warner will make it, and probably on first ballot, since almost every HOF QB has been first ballot... but IMO he is not close to Favre, who holds most career records, the consecutive starts streak, and 3 MVPs.

I hear you. But the similar comparison could be between Cal Ripken and any number of Shortstops throughout history that had a few great seasons and coincidentally had some World Series rings.I'm not really arguing either way - just think it'll be an interesting debate in the future year.Others that fall into that mold are Peyton Manning, Kenny Stabler, Roger Staubach, Troy Aikman, Big Ben, etc.The NFL HOF seems to be much more accommodating to various levels of players than baseball so I'd guess Warner would make it first ballot.

 

[Eminence]

Warner has only started all 16 games, three times. In those three seasons he has:

4,588 Yards / 36 TDS / 16 INTS / 10 Fumbles / 5 Lost

Brought his team to the Super Bowl all 3 Times.

2 NFL MVPS

1 Superbowl MVP

36 - 14

-

Take into account the obscurity the guy even played. Joining the league at age 27. Anything less than a first ballot is a joke.

 

[Tau837]

As for HOF consideration (off topic):Has Kurt Warner had a more impressive career than Brett Favre? Ignoring the starting games streak by Favre which is phenomenal, the passer rating, Super Bowl activity, MVP seasons, overall dominance, etc are pretty comparable.In 11 seasons, Warner has only played in 109 regular season games. Favre in 18 seasons has been in 273.I'm not sure where to find their teams' winning record when starting but I'd bet Warner may have the edge.

Not even close. I think Warner will make it, and probably on first ballot, since almost every HOF QB has been first ballot... but IMO he is not close to Favre, who holds most career records, the consecutive starts streak, and 3 MVPs.

I hear you. But the similar comparison could be between Cal Ripken and any number of Shortstops throughout history that had a few great seasons and coincidentally had some World Series rings.I'm not really arguing either way - just think it'll be an interesting debate in the future year.Others that fall into that mold are Peyton Manning, Kenny Stabler, Roger Staubach, Troy Aikman, Big Ben, etc.The NFL HOF seems to be much more accommodating to various levels of players than baseball so I'd guess Warner would make it first ballot.

By the way, you can find QB records as starters at pro-football-reference.com. Favre is 169-100-0 (0.628), and Warner is 57-44-0 (.564). Consider:Favre has started 269 regular season games, been a strong contributor to a 0.628 winning percentage in those games plus one championship, performed at 85.4 QB rating level and was always in the lineupWarner has started 101 regular season games, been a strong contributor to a 0.564 winning percentage in those games plus one championship, performed at 93.8 QB rating level and has been in and out of the lineup a number of times due to injuries, ineffectiveness, or preference for a younger "QB of the future"As good as Warner has been, there is a huge gap there in Favre's favor.

 

[Chase Stuart]

1999 was the turnaround year, and I think it is very reasonable to give Warner more credit for it than anyone else.Perhaps you read a bit more into my statement than it was intended to convey.

More? Maybe. I guess I implied you as saying he was the key factor in the turnaround, and I certainly don't see that as the case. Those Rams were incredibly stacked, with arguably four HOFs at the key offensive positions: LT, RB, WR, WR. They also had a great scheme. As much as I can't stand the guy, Tom Brady's job turning around the Patriots was much more of a real "turnaround." Warner, while great, was really a case of perfect timing. If, for example, Green had played in '99 and the Rams were awesome, and then got hurt in '00 and Warner came in and won the SB once and appeared in another within three years, that wouldn't change my opinion of Warner at all. Would it change your opinion of him?I guess that's my main point -- the "turning around a crappy franchise" thing isn't really accurate or a part of why Warner's great. At least for me.

I do think Warner was the key factor in the turnaround. It's nothing but speculation, but my opinion is that if Green had not gotten hurt, the Rams would not have been a Super Bowl team... and I don't think Green would have thrown for 4353/41 and won MVP... or thrown for 1063/8 in the postseason and won Super Bowl MVP. I think Warner's skill set was perfect for the scheme. Apparently you disagree, so I'll just agree to disagree with you on that. Do you take a similar view that saying Warner led the Cardinals to the Super Bowl is either inaccurate or not a part of why he is great or both?Regardless of how you feel about it, I think what I stated will be a popular perception when Warner becomes eligible for consideration, and thus it will be a factor in his favor IMO.

It's not about "leading the team to a SB." It's the crappy franchise part that I think doesn't make much sense. I think it's overstating what the guy or team did. If the Detroit Lions signed Albert Haynesworth, traded for Adrian Peterson, signed Ray Lewis and drafted a stud OT in the second round of the draft this year -- and made the Super Bowl -- would it be fair to say that Matt Stafford was awesome because he turned around a crappy franchise? My point is that the '99 Rams minus Warner bear little to no resemblance to the '90 to '98 Rams. They had four other HOF caliber players on offense. That's not a crappy team. My point was, let's say Green started in '99, and the Rams went 10-6 or whatever and didn't make the SB. Then Warner came in and did everything he actually did, just a year later. Would that change your opinion of Warner?

 

[Chase Stuart]

1999 was the turnaround year, and I think it is very reasonable to give Warner more credit for it than anyone else.Perhaps you read a bit more into my statement than it was intended to convey.

More? Maybe. I guess I implied you as saying he was the key factor in the turnaround, and I certainly don't see that as the case. Those Rams were incredibly stacked, with arguably four HOFs at the key offensive positions: LT, RB, WR, WR. They also had a great scheme. As much as I can't stand the guy, Tom Brady's job turning around the Patriots was much more of a real "turnaround." Warner, while great, was really a case of perfect timing. If, for example, Green had played in '99 and the Rams were awesome, and then got hurt in '00 and Warner came in and won the SB once and appeared in another within three years, that wouldn't change my opinion of Warner at all. Would it change your opinion of him?I guess that's my main point -- the "turning around a crappy franchise" thing isn't really accurate or a part of why Warner's great. At least for me.

This is just Chase being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.We might as well say Montana wasn't the most important element to the 49ers success either because they had a great scheme. Or Babe Ruth was only good because he had great protection in the lineup and a small ballpark. Or Gretzky was not really that important because he had the likes of Messier, Kurri, Coffey, and Anderson [among many others]. Put the stats away. It's clear to anyone following football.. or watching football.. that Warner energized this team, brought tremendous leadership, and guided them to greatness. Sure he didn't do it all on his own.. but he was the central and critical piece to the puzzle.Sometimes it's okay to buy into the popular storyline. Not everything is a conspiracy.

I guess it's not clear to people who don't think the QB is the only person on the field.

That's a cheap shot. So you're basically saying that those who disagree with you on this issue think the QB is the only person on the field... basically insulting their football knowledge.

You're right.It's a pet peeve of mine. Whenever someone says something is "clear to anyone watching football", it usually means the exact opposite of that. If it was clear, you wouldn't need to write that. So when people say stuff like that, I try to not write some smart-*** response and just ignore the post. I don't always succeed, though.

 

[ookook]

I am not SURE Warner makes the Hall right now. Good chance, mostly due to timing.

But this season will be dispositive. If AZ gets to the championship game with Warner at the helm, I think it becomes much clser to a lock. SB and he makes it.

 

[Tau837]

It's not about "leading the team to a SB." It's the crappy franchise part that I think doesn't make much sense. I think it's overstating what the guy or team did. If the Detroit Lions signed Albert Haynesworth, traded for Adrian Peterson, signed Ray Lewis and drafted a stud OT in the second round of the draft this year -- and made the Super Bowl -- would it be fair to say that Matt Stafford was awesome because he turned around a crappy franchise? My point is that the '99 Rams minus Warner bear little to no resemblance to the '90 to '98 Rams. They had four other HOF caliber players on offense. That's not a crappy team.

I think there is some merit to your stance in that Faulk was obviously elite at that point and was a new addition and because the cumulative effect of Bruce's healthy return, Holt's rookie season, and Faulk's addition obviously made a huge impact on the offense. But I think you are overstating it. You are citing Bruce, who was on the Rams since 1994, and Pace, who was on the team since 1997, as if they were new additions in 1999. You are citing Holt, who, while a likely HOF player, only had 52/788/6 receiving in 1999... Hakim had as much or more of an impact with 36/677/8 (and was on the team in 1998). Even though there was an infusion of talent in Faulk and Holt, it was Warner who played the best of all of those key players in 1999. He was the MVP and deservedly so. Before the overall talent infusion, the franchise had been poor for a long time. After the talent infusion, it was a Super Bowl team twice in three seasons. That is a franchise turnaround.So while perhaps the overall group of new and maturing talent lifted the franchise, Warner deserves and will get a lot of credit for it, as the best player in the 1999 season, the season that marked the franchise turnaround. It also doesn't hurt his legacy in this area that he started 16 games in 1999 and the Rams went to the Super Bowl... he started only 11 games in 2000, going 8-3, but Green's 2-3 record in relief meant they had to go on the road in the playoffs, where they lost in the first round... then in 2001 he started 16 games and they went to the Super Bowl again. Those circumstances certainly seem to emphasize that Warner was a key to that stretch for St. Louis.

My point was, let's say Green started in '99, and the Rams went 10-6 or whatever and didn't make the SB. Then Warner came in and did everything he actually did, just a year later. Would that change your opinion of Warner?

Yes, it would change my opinion a bit. As I have said, I think Warner was a perfect fit that elevated that talented offense to a place it could not have achieved without him... which is why I think he deserves a lot of credit for the turnaround despite the other new talent. If Green presided over a turnaround a season earlier, some of that effect would be gone.

 

[Chase Stuart]

My point was, let's say Green started in '99, and the Rams went 10-6 or whatever and didn't make the SB. Then Warner came in and did everything he actually did, just a year later. Would that change your opinion of Warner?

Yes, it would change my opinion a bit. As I have said, I think Warner was a perfect fit that elevated that talented offense to a place it could not have achieved without him... which is why I think he deserves a lot of credit for the turnaround despite the other new talent. If Green presided over a turnaround a season earlier, some of that effect would be gone.

Fair enough. I disagree here, as it wouldn't change my opinion of Warner at all. But at least now I understand where you're coming from.

 

[Tanner9919]

one thing working in Warner's favor is that the Cards will run the ball quite a bit more this season, which should limit the amount of players who can stack the line to rush the passer..

if you select Warner and back him up with Leinart, you'll be just fine!

 

[RenegadeGM]

Quick straegy question:

You got sniped on QBs in the draft and ended up with two QBs in the 10-15 range... guys that are average starters, not with amazing upside, but safe in regards to the starting jobs for their NFL teams. You'd like to add a 3rd QB to increase the chances of one panning out, but there's nothing of interest on the wire: Bulger, Russell, Leftwich, etc.

Is Leinart worth adding as a "swing for the fences" #3 QB, knowing if he does get a chance to play he's stepping into a great situation? has he matured/improved enough that he'd be a viable guy to play matchups with?

Or would it be better to just keep the two safe but unspectacular QBs and not waste time on Leinart?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Quick straegy question:You got sniped on QBs in the draft and ended up with two QBs in the 10-15 range... guys that are average starters, not with amazing upside, but safe in regards to the starting jobs for their NFL teams. You'd like to add a 3rd QB to increase the chances of one panning out, but there's nothing of interest on the wire: Bulger, Russell, Leftwich, etc. Is Leinart worth adding as a "swing for the fences" #3 QB, knowing if he does get a chance to play he's stepping into a great situation? has he matured/improved enough that he'd be a viable guy to play matchups with?Or would it be better to just keep the two safe but unspectacular QBs and not waste time on Leinart?

I think Russell's a swing for the fences guy.

 

[CrossEyed]

Doesn't look like he's done.

 

[valhallan]

Chase, look up 24/26 and tell us what you find.