Warner Vs Bradford

[HometownBoy]

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.

It also proved that Warner is no God and needs help, remember before he was good he was being benched for Josh McCown of the Journeymen McCowns and posted several 5-11 seasons.

 

[Loyal]

It also proved that Warner is no God and needs help, remember before he was good he was being benched for Josh McCown of the Journeymen McCowns and posted several 5-11 seasons.

until a bright boy trainer said "Kurt, put on these throwing gloves"

 

[LesBaker]

It also proved that Warner is no God and needs help, remember before he was good he was being benched for Josh McCown of the Journeymen McCowns and posted several 5-11 seasons.

Even if "several" meant one you'd be wrong lol.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WarnKu00.htm

 

[HometownBoy]

Even if "several" meant one you'd be wrong lol.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WarnKu00.htm

I was just counting season totals, but I forgot he also got benched for Matty L after a subpar 2006.

 

[AZRamsFan93]

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.

Warner is also a celebrated player for a reason. He was a 2 time NFL MVP for a reason. He was a Super Bowl MVP for a reason.

It wasn't just about the team around him.

 

[HometownBoy]

Warner is also a celebrated player for a reason. He was a 2 time NFL MVP for a reason. He was a Super Bowl MVP for a reason.

It wasn't just about the team around him.

They're all celebrated players with accolades around them for a reason, they were all necessary and made the GSOT what it was, without all of their combined effort, there is no GSOT.

While Warner is a great QB and deserves accolade, like one poster said, lets not get crazy. He didn't come through the mist as the champion a garbage team with nothing to offer needed and did everything by himself and needs no help at all.

As Arizona proved, Warner needs help and when he's not receiving it he can't do much. To say he would have won the SB in 2010 with the Rams is going a bit wild.

 

[thirteen28]

If Sam had landed in a situation like Kurt did in 1999, there would be little if any debate about whether he as one of the best QB's in the league. With multiple HOF-worthy players around him, including at the skill positions and a brilliant offensive mind who specialized in coaching WR's and QB's and was creative at play design and exploiting mismatches, and propensity to take risks (and coach his players to do the same) it's hard to imagine someone with Sam's natural talent doing anything other than thriving.

Just he same, it's hard to imagine Kurt being anything more than incrementally better on the 2010 Rams, running Shurmur's Prevent Offense and having a diminutive slot receiver as your only reliable target.

It's all hypothetical, but Kurt landed in one of the best situations imaginable, while Sam landed in one of the worst imaginable.

 

[LesBaker]

I was just counting season totals, but I forgot he also got benched for Matty L after a subpar 2006.

yup and the Cardinals got even worse with ML playing..... That decision cost Denny Green his job

your memories of what happened don't really line up well with what actually did happenbut at this point who really cares right

 

[HometownBoy]

yup and the Cardinals got even worse with ML playing..... That decision cost Denny Green his job

your memories of what happened don't really line up well with what actually did happenbut at this point who really cares right

Nobody's arguing about if Matty L was better, what we're saying is that Kurt Warner was not a deity whenever he felt like it, which is still true no matter what happened to the guys who failed after him.

 

[AZRamsFan93]

We need football to start, as this debate is silly.

Anywhere but in a Rams fan forum the only thing that Sam and Kurt have in common is that they both played for the Rams.

There is a reason Sam is still a question mark and the only question about Kurt is will he go into Canton on the first vote.

I just hope Sam can stay healthy and lead us to a winning season this year. Wondering about how he would compare to Kurt in similar situations is very similar to wondering how Zack Stacy would do in Marshall Faulk's situation.

 

[-X-]

yup and the Cardinals got even worse with ML playing..... That decision cost Denny Green his job

your memories of what happened don't really line up well with what actually did happenbut at this point who really cares right

I don't think either of them did very well, and that's not a condemnation of Warner at all. The team itself just wasn't very good.

Warner is also a celebrated player for a reason. He was a 2 time NFL MVP for a reason. He was a Super Bowl MVP for a reason.

It wasn't just about the team around him.

That's a red herring. Nobody said it was *just* about the team around him. But let's be realistic here too. Isaac Bruce caught 119 balls for almost 1800 yards with Tony Banks throwing to him. Torry Holt was about the best rookie to come out in a very, very long time. Marshall Faulk had 2227 total yards and 12 total TDs the year BEFORE he came to the Rams. Ricky Proehl went from 60 receptions in 1998 to 33 in 1999 (because he was pushed that far down the depth chart). So while it wasn't *just* about the team around him, it's disingenuous to disregard them totally too.

 

[SierraRam]

We need football to start, as this debate is silly.

 

[LesBaker]

I don't think either of them did very well, and that's not a condemnation of Warner at all. The team itself just wasn't very good.

That's a red herring. Nobody said it was *just* about the team around him. But let's be realistic here too. Isaac Bruce caught 119 balls for almost 1800 yards with Tony Banks throwing to him. Torry Holt was about the best rookie to come out in a very, very long time. Marshall Faulk had 2227 total yards and 12 total TDs the year BEFORE he came to the Rams. Ricky Proehl went from 60 receptions in 1998 to 33 in 1999 (because he was pushed that far down the depth chart). So while it wasn't *just* about the team around him, it's disingenuous to disregard them totally too.

That aside saying that he was benched for Leinert implies that he was being outplayed, and that is just not true.

Same with the implication he was benched for MCCown.

It's akin to saying that he was being outplayed by two career backups and we all know that's just horseshit.

It just bothers me when people make things up or tell half truths or use exaggerations to make a point that just isn't true.

 

[-X-]

That aside saying that he was benched for Leinert implies that he was being outplayed, and that is just not true.

Same with the implication he was benched for MCCown.

It's akin to saying that he was being outplayed by two career backups and we all know that's just horseshit.

It just bothers me when people make things up or tell half truths or use exaggerations to make a point that just isn't true.

I really don't remember, personally, how that went down. But it seems like a familiar situation where the team sucks so bad, that it doesn't matter who the QB is. There's nothing they can do to make it better by themselves. And that's really the only point I was trying to make relative to the OP's hypothetical question.

 

[moklerman]

That aside saying that he was benched for Leinert implies that he was being outplayed, and that is just not true.

Same with the implication he was benched for MCCown.

It's akin to saying that he was being outplayed by two career backups and we all know that's just horseshit.

It just bothers me when people make things up or tell half truths or use exaggerations to make a point that just isn't true.

I'm not sure what you remember but Warner did get benched for Leinart. He didn't get benched for McCown but it was McCown's job to lose after Warner got hurt. Warner got benched for Bulger, then Manning then Leinart before he donned the gloves at the end of '06 and started to resemble his old self again.

 

[HometownBoy]

I'm not sure what you remember but Warner did get benched for Leinart. He didn't get benched for McCown but it was McCown's job to lose after Warner got hurt. Warner got benched for Bulger, then Manning then Leinart before he donned the gloves at the end of '06 and started to resemble his old self again.

Yeah, he's also making out benching to be indicative of a player being better than another, when so much more goes into benching than just this player is better.

Lets be honest here, Warner got benched by Leinart for potential and having to see a commitment through only.

 

[blue4]

We need football to start, as this debate is silly.

Anywhere but in a Rams fan forum the only thing that Sam and Kurt have in common is that they both played for the Rams.

There is a reason Sam is still a question mark and the only question about Kurt is will he go into Canton on the first vote.

I just hope Sam can stay healthy and lead us to a winning season this year. Wondering about how he would compare to Kurt in similar situations is very similar to wondering how Zack Stacy would do in Marshall Faulk's situation.

I don't think you'll ever get away from these discussions, as people have trouble letting go. That's why Montana's name is brought up all the time even though he played in a different era. Plus, it's fun to speculate. Also, Bradford Warner scenarios work because Sam is just as physically talented as Warner. The fun is in wondering if the talent develops. Stacy is nowhere near Faulk in talent.

 

[moklerman]

Yeah, he's also making out benching to be indicative of a player being better than another, when so much more goes into benching than just this player is better.

Lets be honest here, Warner got benched by Leinart for potential and having to see a commitment through only.

For the Rams, Giants and Cardinals, Warner earned his benchings. Bulger, Eli and Leinart may not have been "better" overall, but Warner couldn't hang onto the ball. Regardless of how well he could still read a defense and pass the ball, he just couldn't hang onto it and it was costing each of those teams games. In each case, the future movement was started prematurely because each team had no choice. Warner was at a point where he would fumble pretty much every time he was hit and worse, sometimes when he wasn't. On top of that, it affected his confidence throwing the ball and his decision making.

Warner was very much through in 2006. The Cardinals gave him his last chance and he fumbled it away. Now, that's not to say that he gave up. Circumstance(God?) gave him one last chance and since he had hit rock bottom, he decided to swallow his pride and wear the gloves. Once he did, he could hang onto the ball enough that he wasn't a complete liability to his team and he regained his form and swagger. But he still had to outgrow some bad habits that he had developed. Some of what worked during the GSOT wasn't applicable 5 years later.

 

[Rmfnlt]

The thing about Warner that always impressed me was his confidence.

The thing about Bradford has not impressed me with - consistently - is his confidence.

Why did Warner have confidence? Why doesn't Bradford have confidence?

That's what the disucssion seems to center on, as best I can tell.

Some say it was the coaching (Martz)... some say it was the supporting cast.

Probably both, I guess.

I'm not interested in Warner anymore... I don't mean that in a bad way.

I'm interested in Bradford... and those questions are here for us today:
Can he be confident with the plays called by Schottenheimer?
Can he be confident in his supporting cast?

That confidence really needs to be there in 2014 for the Rams to make a push toward the playoffs.

 

[DCH]

I think Bradford could have won a SB with the 1999 roster. That said, I doubt he could have done as well as Kurt did - Warner did things nobody else had done before and few have done since.

It's a similar question to "If Green hadn't gotten hurt would we still have won?"