This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Especially when you make up breakpoints so you can sensationalize the data.Now I see that is was the origianl poster, not FO that used the "curse" terminology. It was right up their alley, though.
his ADP is dropping. i got him at 6.04 (pick 64) on Sunday
And he went 36th in my draft Sunday.At some point, he represents value. And I dunno where that is, but I wouldn't consider him before the 6th.
Agree 100%. Then again, I think almost all statistical comparisons on this site are largely misleading, unfounded, or plain silly.
Yes, after many, many, many on these boards said he was "done" following 2006.
Which handcuffs are expensive?QB handcuffs mean little to me. If you take Warner, and he goes down, you will be starting the backup you drafted, not Warner's backup. At least, you hope not.
I do. It's what this entire discussion is about - the liklihood of him doing it again and/or performance relative to those being drafted before/after him .
Sproles in the 8th? Bradshaw in the 9th? Taylor in the 11th? That is expensive, thank you very much.I may or may not start my 2nd QB drafted over Leinhart. Leini vs. Flacco? Pennington? I take Leini as he could put up top 8 #s on a PPG basis, but they won't.
Those guys all have value even if they don't start, not even close to the same thing as an NFL backup QB.ETA: Oh, I also like Flacco this year.
Well, that's swell, but RB handcuffs aren't quite the same as QB handcuffs are they? And actually, for a QB handcuff, Leinart is expensive. And I am not in the habit of rostering backup QBs.
I wouldn't go that far. His age is definitely something to think about - he will be more brittle than a guy in his 20's and he'll have a much longer recovery time, even for the nagging little injuries. That said I think his current rankings already account for that.
You could be right where Warner is concerned. The "38 thing" isn't silly though. If it were, more QB's would be playing, starting and flourishing at that age.
Agreed, 38 is 38, and Warner appears to have the body of/moves around like a 48 year old. He is very close to the end(I think he plays two more years, unless he suffers another concussion or an ACL/PCL/MCL teal, then he probably calls it quits). Guy may have the arm to play 5 more years, but that is one body I absolutely do not see holding up, not a chance really, imo...Enjoy him while you can, if you own him in a keeper/dynasty, make sure you have Leinart.
nope, 493.
Yes, there's an argument. Find the most extreme example of a QB still putting up numbers and throw that out there. If Warner was showing signs of actual decline I'd be apt to think about "38" a little more. ~Now that's a valid point. I disagree, but it's valid....or, you look at Warren Moon who was firing lasers to Galloway in Seattle at age 42.
If Warner was showing signs of actual decline I'd be apt to think about "38" a little more.
...but all I saw last year was the true league MVP making defenses look bad.
True, not many QBs flourish at 38 or even last this long, but maybe that very point underscores just how good Warner is.
Don't talk "curse" until you have a reason to curse. Warner is money.
Age is age. Rich Gannon didn't get a shot till he was....25, then sat around from the age of 28 to 34. He didn't play till he was 45. In fact, he fell apart at the age of............38.Aardvarks said:
Wow, I think he is definitely approaching HOF status. His career stats are outstanding.
How many other two time MVP's haven't made the HOF?
BRETT FAVRE AND PEYTON MANNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Marshall FaulkBRETT FAVRE AND PEYTON MANNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IMO he sealed a HOF induction by taking the Cardinals to the Super Bowl last year. He has 2 MVPs and a Super Bowl MVP, and he has taken two previously awful franchises to the Super Bowl a total of 3 times, winning once. He holds a number of postseason passing records, like the top 3 passing yardage performances in Super Bowl history, and he ranks very high on a few of the rate statistics lists, like QB rating, completion percentage, passing yards per game, etc. On top of all that, he has the grocery store bag boy to Super Bowl QB storyline.And it's only going to help that he is going to become eligible after a lengthy dead period for QBs. The last QB inducted was in 2006 (Aikman and Moon), and presumably Peyton Manning and Brady will play at least a few years beyond Favre and Warner... and I don't see another HOF QB making it between now and when the first of that group (Favre, Warner, Peyton, Brady) becomes eligible unless the veteran's committee nominates a QB. If Warner and Favre retire after 2010, they'd become eligible for the class of 2016... that's a 10 year drought for QBs. Has that ever happened?
The Rams were hardly an awful franchise. They had some unbelievable offenses in the '50s and some incredible defenses in the '70s. They made the playoffs 7 times in the '80s.Sure, they stunk before 1999, but that's not really relevant when they added Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce, three arguably HOFers. Faulk came over to STL in '99, Holt was drafted that year, and Bruce had been injured in '98. To imply that Warner took a crap team to stardom is highly misleading, IMO, and you don't need to exaggerate a guy's case when it's already very good. We saw how the Rams were with Bulger and Green, and they were hardly an awful franchise.
There are two parts to the statement you seem to be taking issue with:1. The Rams were a previously awful franchise. They were 45-99 in the 9 seasons prior to Warner taking over as starting QB in 1999; they had no winning records over that span; and obviously they didn't make the playoffs over that span. I think calling them awful prior to 1999 is perfectly reasonable. I wasn't talking about the 50s or 70s... I was talking about the previous decade.
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.
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.
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.
Really? What if it clicks for Leinart? What if Leinart starts hucking and chucking it like he did at USC? He went in the 1st round for a reason. He does have talent.I don't think it's a bad move at all if you can get Warner in the 6th (Somebody stated they got him 64th) and then Leinart as your last pick.
.
