- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Seek;134454 wrote:I just don’t see it. On paper he is a good Qb, but on the field. I just don’t see it.
Where did I mention anything about Peyton Manning? Well other than the astronomical amount of TD’s that he he throws, and watching him read a defense call and audible and then pick the defense apart would be something, I haven’t seen Warner do.
I personall don’t care for Peyton, but he is a dang good QB. Just watching him, he looks like he levels above Warner.
I have seen Brett Farve single handely take a team that was struggling and took it upon himself to get the job done by running the ball, and getting first downs or a TD, knowing that he is going to be hit hard. It energized the whole team and they started playing better. And when you guys make excuses for Warner having bad years because of an injury. Farve still played on and stil put up good numbers. He also holds the record for most interceptions.
You think you see something in the way that Warner plays that outstrips his two MVPs,three SBs, winning records, and terrific stats. My bringing up more facts is obviously not going to change your opinion.
kcallin;134481 wrote:How many SB did Marino go to?:sign0161:It isn’t about Superbowls. That is my point. Football is a team sport. Just watching the QB’s play and how they play is what I am basing my opinion from.
Yes Kurt Warner is a good QB, but the talent around him is making him better.
Take Kurt Warner put him on a average offense like the Giants and he looks average. If you put Kurt Warner on the Miami Dolphins teams instead of Marino and do you think we have this discussion.
jmlamerson;134482 wrote:You think you see something in the way that Warner plays that outstrips his two MVPs,three SBs, winning records, and terrific stats. My bringing up more facts is obviously not going to change your opinion.Yes, I see Pro-bowlers making the pro bowl, for other reasons than their play. It does become a popularity contest. If you don’t think that Kurt Warner gets any edge up on another player for an MVP vote because of his cinderella story and being an over all oustanding guy. Then you need to open your eyes. I call it the Boomer syndrom. Boomer Grigsby was an instant fovorite and people judged him a stud/winner before even seeing him on the field and stuck with him even after he continued to fail.
Now I am not saying Warner failed, but there is distinct favortism towards him because he was stocking groceries in the off season.
Facts on paper don’t show all variables. If you put Warner on the Lions team the last 10 years, I bet those facts don’t look as good.
Seek;134543 wrote:Yes, I see Pro-bowlers making the pro bowl, for other reasons than their play. It does become a popularity contest.I didn’t mention Pro Bowls, specifically for that reason. I mentioned Super Bowls and MVPs.
Seek;134543 wrote:If you don’t think that Kurt Warner gets any edge up on another player for an MVP vote because of his cinderella story and being an over all oustanding guy. Then you need to open your eyes. I call it the Boomer syndrom. Boomer Grigsby was an instant fovorite and people judged him a stud/winner before even seeing him on the field and stuck with him even after he continued to fail.This is where you’re going wrong. Fans don’t vote for MVPs. Writers do. Warner’s popularity with the fans and his Cinderella story had nothing to do with them. His massive passive passing and TD numbers did.
Seek;134543 wrote:Now I am not saying Warner failed, but there is distinct favortism towards him because he was stocking groceries in the off season.Again, with fans there are. Not with AP writers. And certainly not with the other teams Warner beat to get to the Super Bowl three separate years.
Seek;134543 wrote:Facts on paper don’t show all variables. If you put Warner on the Lions team the last 10 years, I bet those facts don’t look as good.Put Montana, Elway, Marino, or Favre on those teams and I bet they don’t look as good either. Every Super Bowl QB is at least partly a product of his supporting cast.
Again, I understand that facts are probably not going to overcome your opinions, but you have to know that your opinions are not based on any facts.
jmlamerson;134547 wrote:Again, I understand that facts are probably not going to overcome your opinions, but you have to know that your opinions are not based on any facts.Of course it is based on facts.
The fact that Warner looks great in great passing offenses and bad in lesser offenses.
While I don’t agree with Seek’s opinion on Warner, I do recognize what facts he has presented as the basis of his opinion.
jmlamerson;134547 wrote:Fans don’t vote for MVPs. Writers do. Warner’s popularity with the fans and his Cinderella story had nothing to do with them. His massive passive passing and TD numbers did.While fan bias may not be a major factor in the votes of writers, writers’ bias does.
But again, I agree that his stat line was too impressive to not win it.
I agree that Warner is a shoe-in for the HOF. And may be a first ballot guy. But I certainly understand skepticism.
chief31;134890 wrote:Of course it is based on facts.The fact that Warner looks great in great passing offenses and bad in lesser offenses.
While I don’t agree with Seek’s opinion on Warner, I do recognize what facts he has presented as the basis of his opinion.
That isn’t a fact. Warner did great with both bad and good supporting casts.
A fact would be a statline, a record, something like that. And every stat, record, etc. disproves that
point.chief31;134890 wrote:While fan bias may not be a major factor in the votes of writers, writers’ bias does.But again, I agree that his stat line was too impressive to not win it.
I agree that Warner is a shoe-in for the HOF. And may be a first ballot guy. But I certainly understand skepticism.
Seek wasn’t talking about writers’ bias. He was obviously confusing how MVPs and Pro Bowlers were chosen.
While I could understand someone thinking Warner is a large product of his schemes and supporting casts, anyone who thinks Trent Green had as good of a career as Warner is nuts.
jmlamerson;134936 wrote:That isn’t a fact. Warner did great with both bad and good supporting casts.A fact would be a statline, a record, something like that. And every stat, record, etc. disproves that
point.Seek wasn’t talking about writers’ bias. He was obviously confusing how MVPs and Pro Bowlers were chosen.
While I could understand someone thinking Warner is a large product of his schemes and supporting casts, anyone who thinks Trent Green had as good of a career as Warner is nuts.
Ok, stats then…
Between 2004 and 2005 (between The Giants and his first season with The cards) He had his two lowest QB ratings of his career as well as his lowest average gain per pass average. (Given at least 7 starts)
In 2004 (with The Giants) he had his only season throwing fewer TDs than games started. (Again, with at least seven starts)
Despite starting only 9 games in 2004, his career high in fumbles is 12, in 2004.
You want to say that he was playing injured? Fine. But there are facts that support the theory that he plays great with great circumstances, and average with average circumstances.
chief31;135060 wrote:Ok, stats then…Between 2004 and 2005 (between The Giants and his first season with The cards) He had his two lowest QB ratings of his career as well as his lowest average gain per pass average. (Given at least 7 starts)
In 2004 (with The Giants) he had his only season throwing fewer TDs than games started. (Again, with at least seven starts)
Despite starting only 9 games in 2004, his career high in fumbles is 12, in 2004.
You want to say that he was playing injured? Fine. But there are facts that support the theory that he plays great with great circumstances, and average with average circumstances.
Yeah, Warner’s worst years were in 2004 and 2005. His first years in his respective systems. But you are confusing his worst year with a bad year. Warner did better in his one year with the Giants than Eli Manning has ever done. His first year with the Cards wasn’t great, but its certainly better than Elway’s, Marino’s, Montana’s, or Favre’s worst years.
He didn’t do average. He was below his MVP highs. There’s a difference.
Your comparing Warner to himself to prove he’s been below average of other QBs. That’s foolish.
jmlamerson;135097 wrote:Yeah, Warner’s worst years were in 2004 and 2005. His first years in his respective systems. But you are confusing his worst year with a bad year. Warner did better in his one year with the Giants than Eli Manning has ever done. His first year with the Cards wasn’t great, but its certainly better than Elway’s, Marino’s, Montana’s, or Favre’s worst years.He didn’t do average. He was below his MVP highs. There’s a difference.
Your comparing Warner to himself to prove he’s been below average of other QBs. That’s foolish.
No need for the back-handed insults.
I am making an argument that I don’t agree with, to show that it is arguable. And the fact that you keep arguing is proof-positive of that.
So, make all of the excuses you want to. But his numbers in ’04 and ’05 were unimpressive. Not bad. But unimpressive.
His QB Rating in ’04 and in ’05 ranked him at 14th. (Link not working.) That is very average, by comparison to the rest of the league’s QBs. And that excludes the case of fumblitis he had for that stretch. Which was the inferred reason for his getting pulled.
chief31 wrote:there are facts that support the theory that he plays great with great circumstances, and average with average circumstances.So, he’s better than Eli Manning, Cade Mcnown and Matt Lienart. So is Damon Huard. That isn’t saying alot.
Now, I want to re-reiterate that I think he is very good QB, who does belong in the HOF. No matter how good the talent and scheme that you are playing with, I think it takes an excellent player to perform at the level that he has.
I’m simply showing that there is evidence that he doesn’t play well without talent and system. Despite how small and arguable the sample may be.
chief31;135121 wrote:No need for the back-handed insults.I am making an argument that I don’t agree with, to show that it is arguable. And the fact that you keep arguing is proof-positive of that.
If you were arguing that Brodie Croyle were a better QB than Brett Favre because Favre set the INT record, I’d probably have to take exception to that as well. You’re arguing something you know is false because you want to argue. Not because the issue has two sides to it.
chief31;135121 wrote:So, make all of the excuses you want to. But his numbers in ’04 and ’05 were unimpressive. Not bad. But unimpressive.His QB Rating in ’04 and in ’05 ranked him at 14th. (Link not working.) That is very average, by comparison to the rest of the league’s QBs. And that excludes the case of fumblitis he had for that stretch. Which was the inferred reason for his getting pulled.
With below average supporting casts, Warner was still in the top half of the league as a QB. The 16th and 17th ranked QBs are average. The 14th ranked QB in the NFL is above average. Again, there is not a HOF QB that didn’t have worse years than Warner’s worst.
chief31;135121 wrote:So, he’s better than Eli Manning, Cade Mcnown and Matt Lienart. So is Damon Huard. That isn’t saying alot.1. Damon Huard was not and is not a better QB than Manning. In any way, shape, or form.
2. Warner’s a lot better than the two dud QBs you named, and hundreds more. But your missing the point: his worst years are better than most QBs best years.
chief31;135121 wrote:Now, I want to re-reiterate that I think he is very good QB, who does belong in the HOF. No matter how good the talent and scheme that you are playing with, I think it takes an excellent player to perform at the level that he has.I’m simply showing that there is evidence that he doesn’t play well without talent and system. Despite how small and arguable the sample may be.
1. No QB plays well without talent or system. There is not an exception to that rule.
2. Being in the top half of QBs in your worst years isn’t evidence that you don’t play well. There is no way to stretch it as such.
Again, there is no argument that can be made to support this position that you know is false. To argue that Warner wasn’t one of the top-5 QBs of the past decade requires a person’s prejudices to outweigh facts.
jmlamerson;135189 wrote:If you were arguing that Brodie Croyle were a better QB than Brett Favre because Favre set the INT record, I’d probably have to take exception to that as well. You’re arguing something you know is false because you want to argue. Not because the issue has two sides to it.With below average supporting casts, Warner was still in the top half of the league as a QB. The 16th and 17th ranked QBs are average. The 14th ranked QB in the NFL is above average. Again, there is not a HOF QB that didn’t have worse years than Warner’s worst.
1. Damon Huard was not and is not a better QB than Manning. In any way, shape, or form.
2. Warner’s a lot better than the two dud QBs you named, and hundreds more. But your missing the point: his worst years are better than most QBs best years.
1. No QB plays well without talent or system. There is not an exception to that rule.
Dan Marino. It’s not a rule, unless there is an exception.
2. Being in the top half of QBs in your worst years isn’t evidence that you don’t play well. There is no way to stretch it as such.
Again, there is no argument that can be made to support this position that you know is false. To argue that Warner wasn’t one of the top-5 QBs of the past decade requires a person’s prejudices to outweigh facts.
The opinion of Warner being a product of great offenses, rather than a cause, is valid, if only because it is an oinion.
I have no idea why you would try and argue 14th out of the realm of average.
Let me use one of your back-handed insults… I don’t think that you know the meaning of the word.
But you did argue it. And, as opposed to breaking out the dictionary for ya, is the word mediocre a better fit for you?
14th is in the top half. (The bottom of the top half) But it is both average and mediocre.
If one believes that Warner was merely a result, instead of a cause, then that would justify the opinion that he wasn’t one of the best QBs, just in the best offenses.
Same as I believe that Emmitt Smith was not such a great HB, but lucky to have played with the team he did, when he did.
Also, you keep going back to the thumb injury that team doctors couldn’t find, but that his wife diagnosed. Really?
Along with the average err.. mediocre passing numbers, he had severe fumblitis.
Ignore that all you want. But that, along with the average/mediocre passing numbers are the facts that can base an opinion.
Put Eli’s best season against the only season Huard has to show, and Huard is better. And that was with Jordan Black covering his blind side. Or you could just compare career numbers…
Name – Comp.% – QB Rat – TD/INT ratio
Huard – 60.7% – 80.6 – 1.27 (33 TDs, 26 INTs)
Eli – 55.9% – 76.1 – 1.32 (98 TDs, 74 INTs)
Eli sucks.
I am making the Warner argument because, while I may not agree, I can see how one would be able to form that opinion.
But then, I guess telling someone that there are no facts behind their opinion is easier than actually trying to see things from someone else’s perspective.
I agree that Warner is an excellent QB. But that doesn’t mean that there are no facts behind an opposing opinion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.