Warner Vs Bradford
- Thread starter RamInferno
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
alm:
AON.
It bothers you when I run circles around you with my logic doesn't it.
He did well with no blocking, these are numbers that a lot of guys in the NFL couldn't do with a good OL and running game. 05-08 wern't "bad", and in 08 they went to the SB remember.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WarnKu00.htm
Yeah, I didn't mean to put 08. That was a typo. I posted his 05-07 numbers earlier in this thread, so that's what I get for having snausages as fingers. I'm not disputing *at all* how great Warner was. The only thing I'm doing is talking about how it helps to have more than Mardy Gilyiard and Keith Toston.
His line in AZ was terrible and the stats you put up for those years were better than Sam's best year.
It is more than stats for me. Kurt is a hall of fame QB IMHO. Sam is still an unknown. The comparison ends there. I hope in a few years we can have a rigorous debate on who is the better QB.
Good lord, man. It's. Not. About. Who. The. Better. Q. B. Is.
Please re-read the OP and see what this is all about.
nighttrain
Legend
nighttrain
Legend
99 OL was awesome and KW (I love him as a QB) had Faulk, Bruce, Holt, AZ, and Phroel. Bradford has had zip til last season, then the friggin injury while going out of bounds. Huge difference in experience and supporting cast. Faulk, Bruce, and Holt would have been starters and stars on any team
train
Could be. I have no idea if it was simply a hand accessory that kept his numbers down, or the fact that the dropoff in his support dwindled greatly. Could have been both for all I know. But back to the original point. I think Warner (glove or no) would have had a rough go of it if he had Gibson and an oft-injured Amendola as his primary threats. Conversely, I think Bradford might have done considerably well in a timing offense with Holt, Bruce, Faulk, Proehl, and that O-line.
Warner credits Martz for breaking him down, building him back up, teaching him how to play the game and making him the QB he became.
Bradford has never had the opportunity to be groomed by a QB guru and in fact has been saddled most of his career with Shurmur and Schottenheimer. And he's always played for defensive minded head coaches. So i feel like we don't know what Bradford's potential is, but there's a good chance it's being wasted...
Bradford has never had the opportunity to be groomed by a QB guru and in fact has been saddled most of his career with Shurmur and Schottenheimer. And he's always played for defensive minded head coaches. So i feel like we don't know what Bradford's potential is, but there's a good chance it's being wasted...
HE WITH HORNS
Hall of Fame
Did he make Bruce and Holt and Fitzgerald into great receivers? No, they were already great. A QB can only do so much.
HometownBoy
Hall of Fame
Kurt Warner in Sam's situation would be a dead man, he was a gambler and needed crisp lines to stand up or at least good receivers that could beat guys off the bat like Fitzgerald, with a rat awful line and his best option being Amendola on the bench with a car crash tier injury Warner would be a dead man, remember what happened to him in the early goings of Arizona? Yeah.
Sam in Warner's position wouldn't be AS successful, since he's not the same tier as Warner, but he would definitely be quite successful and we'd probably still have the same total we have right now. He's a good enough QB where I think with a stellar cast like that he'd look good. He's no Tony Banks after all.
Sam in Warner's position wouldn't be AS successful, since he's not the same tier as Warner, but he would definitely be quite successful and we'd probably still have the same total we have right now. He's a good enough QB where I think with a stellar cast like that he'd look good. He's no Tony Banks after all.
That's true but look at those players when any other QB was throwing them the ball. Warner was a difference maker.
I can't say I agree with this. I don't think any one player in any position in 2010 would have even got us in sniffing range of the SB. This is kind of my earlier point about how people have forgotten all the special players that help get us the SB. Now, people just look back as if Kurt walked out of the fog, lifted us up on his shoulders, and carried a team with no SB hope to victory. Fact is, he had the softest landing of any new QB in football history. Never has anyone started his first year surrounded with the talent he had. And he made the most of it. He's a HOF QB, but still a mortal.
HometownBoy
Hall of Fame
Just the nature of the land, QBs get all the praise and all the blame, even if it isn't necessarily all to do with them. He was the missing piece from the GSOT, but people seem to forget that he wasn't ALL the GSOT.
Faulk, Bruce and Holt are the celebrated players they are for a reason.
Rams and Gators
Legend
I think the biggest thing that would hold Warner back would be the coaching, I doubt either Spags/Shurmer or Fisher/Schottenheimer let Kurt be Kurt and Spags/McDaniels would have been no less ugly, he could still be very successful but I doubt he's GSOT successful under either...that and the talent of those around him.
As for who the leaders were in 1999..YES, Faulk and Bruce were leaders...But so was Kurt, was all that I said in an earlier post...His time with the Cards proves that, removing the Faulk, Bruce, Holt, variables...JMO.
HE WITH HORNS
Hall of Fame
Bruce had his best year BEFORE Warner came around, and Fitz put up 1300 receiving yards with bad QBs the next year after Warner retired. Holt had his best years with Bulger at QB, so it's not like he made them into great receivers. They were already great.