Kurt Warner retires

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Even though I'm not a Rams or Cardinals fan, I've admired him a lot...One of the strongest arms in the league since Dan Marino...wasn't afraid to stand in the pocket and take the big hit...

Congrats to Warner on a great career..

[IronHorseSooner]

Does that mean that there will be another team looking at Sam? I don't think that Arizona is that enamored with Leinart.

[rawlingsHOH]

4 best arms I've ever seen; Jamarcus, Elway, George and Favre.

[Eielson]

Michael Vick has the best arm I've ever seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HWLmETqwVs

[Sooner04]

Kurt Warner might be the most frighteningly accurate QB I've ever seen. He was a great one, and I think last year's trip to the Super Bowl has secured him a place in Canton.

[IronHorseSooner]

He's a class act. However, this is not to confuse him with his replacement who is an @$$ clown.

[SoonerProphet]

Just to be devil's advocate here cause the dude put up the numbers, but...

He has benefited from some talented recievers and a Marshall Faulk.

[Eielson]

Just to be devil's advocate here cause the dude put up the numbers, but...

He has benefited from some talented recievers and a Marshall Faulk.

Anquan Boldin, Larry Fitzgerald, Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, and Marshall Faulk. That could be five Hall of Famers that he was throwing to. Most of them established themselves as extremely talented players before they were ever with him. Holt did extremely well after Warner left. He's definitely above average, but there are a lot of people who could do things like that if they had that kind of talent surrounding them. Oh, and just for fun we can add that Warner had one of the best ever protecting his blindside with the Rams.

[soonerinabilene]

the guy is going down in the record books with 2 mvps, a super bowl title, 3 of the greatest super bowl performances of all time, turned around 2 completely hopeless teams, one of which turned back to crap as soon as he left, the other will too unless they trade for mcnabb soon, and is the ultimate model for never giving up on your dreams or faith. he is a first ballot hall of famer in my eyes, and will truly be missed by the nfl as a whole.

[kevpks]

He took the Rams and Cardinals to the Superbowl. The Rams and Cardinals. Bulger couldn't do squat with the same talent and we've all seen Leinart play. First ballot HOF, no question IMO.

[Eielson]

turned around 2 completely hopeless teams

Wait, we're talking about Marshall Faulk?


one of which turned back to crap as soon as he left

No, no, no. They turned to crap WHEN he was there. Some people like to look at the statistics and think that Warner lead the Rams to two super bowls, and when he missed most of the season due to injury, and eventually left, the Rams fell off because they didn't have him. I'm here today to tell you the TRUTH!

Let's go back to the day after the 2001-2002 season ended. The Rams had just blown the Super Bowl to the heavy underdog Patriots who shouldn't have even been in the Super Bowl. "Tuck rule," need I say more? Despite the depressed spirits in St. Louis, and to all Ram fans across the globe, all is well for the Rams. Many experts looked at this and said that while the Rams blew it yesterday, it will be alright. The Rams will be back in this game next year. As for the Patriots, this was just a fluke.

So now we move on to the first day of the next season. Very little has changed. However, today the Rams will eventually lose. This is a rarity, because recently not only have the Rams been winning their first game, they've been usually starting something like 6-0. It's alright, though, they'll go on to win the next week. However they didn't. The third week they didn't either, and this time Warner threw four interceptions. The fourth week, something good finally happened for the Rams. Kurt Warner got hurt! Once Jamie Martin went down, it opened up a spot for an unknown to most non-Ram fans. This man was named Marc Bulger.

Marc Bulger would take over the team, and believe it or not lead the 0-5 Rams to their first victory over the 4-0 Oakland Raiders. He continued this success and eventually lead his team all the way back to 5-5 before sustaining an injury. Then the Rams had to once again resort to using Kurt Warner, and of course lost the next two games. Jamie Martin came in and lost one just for fun, also. Bulger came back, and won once again. Unfortunately he got knocked out on the first play of the next game, and was credited with his only "loss" of the season. He was knocked out on the first play, but he still started, so that's how they credit it. We know better, though. He was 6-0 on that team. Warner on the other hand was 0-6. The team ended up 7-9, and missed the playoffs.

The next season the job was once again Warner's to lose, and he did just that. The first game of the season he managed to fumble the ball six, yes SIX times. This would be the last start for Warner with the team, and would give him an 0-8 finish to his career as a Ram. Bulger would then take over to lead the Rams to victories in 12 of the next 14 games before losing a meaningless season finale to the 4-11 Lions. They received a first round bye, but lost in OT to the Carolina Panthers, who went on to lose by 3 in a great super bowl against the "fluke" Patriots.

Bulger would lead the Rams to the playoffs again the next season. However, due to the fall of Faulk and Pace, the Rams failed to return to the playoffs again. Bruce steadily declined, and even Torry Holt is no longer a force in the league, and so you now have the Rams you see today.

So next time you are asked if Warner leaving caused the Rams to fall apart, you can tell them no, because you now know the truth.

[Eielson]

Bulger couldn't do squat with the same talent

Actually, yes he could.

[StoopTroup]

But who really cares?

[Eielson]

But who really cares?

The truth will set you free.

[OU-HSV]

......

Bulger would lead the Rams to the playoffs again the next season. Due to the fall of Faulk and Pace, however, the Rams failed to return to the playoffs again. Bruce steadily declined, and now even Torry Holt is no longer a force in the league, and now you have the Rams you see today.

So next time you are asked if Warner leaving caused the Rams to fall apart, you can tell them no, because you now know the truth.
I don't know that Warner leaving caused the Rams to fall apart either....but we shouldn't ignore the fact that he put together some really good seasons at both Rams and Cards.

And for the other people trying to lighten what Warner did because he had good WRs at both SL and AZ...that excuse could work to lighten what any QB has done right?? I mean we could say that about a lot of good QBs couldn't we? They all seem to have WRs that they click with. To name a few: McNabb and T.O., Aikman and Irvin, Montana and Rice, Peyton Manning and Marvin, (well and Peyton Manning and anyone with 2 hands), and so on (you get my point).

And in regards to Bruce ( currently a 49er) and Holt (currently a Jag)...there's not much consistent solid quarterbacking at either of those places to help those two guys' stats. Plus they're both getting up there in age (relatively speaking per NFL ages). It's a shame that those guys don't have QBs like Warner throwing the rock their way anymore isn't it?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

tough to be a all pro WR without a great quarterback

[Collier11]

Kurt Warner is 1st ballot HOFer, Kurt Warner is/was the reason that the Rams/Cardinals were any good

[Collier11]

4 best arms I've ever seen; Jamarcus, Elway, George and Favre.

Watch this throw

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4787281&categoryid=2564308

[Sooner04]

Kurt Warner is 1st ballot HOFer, Kurt Warner is/was the reason that the Rams/Cardinals were any good
I don't think he's first ballot. I think he'll make the Hall for sure, but the pro voting is full of old curmudgeons who can come up with a myriad of reasons to make great players wait.

[Collier11]

True, all HOFs are like that

[stoops the eternal pimp]

its funny to me when people bring up things like...

the only reason he was a great qb because of the receivers
he was only a great receiver because of the quarterback

[Collier11]

you only got a hot wife because of your 3rd nipple

[stoops the eternal pimp]

and my extra long william wonka

[Eielson]

Kurt Warner is 1st ballot HOFer, Kurt Warner is/was the reason that the Rams/Cardinals were any good

If this were true, then why did did the Rams have success after he was no longer there? Yes, the Rams rose to success the first year Warner started playing, but that's also the same year that Marshall Faulk and Torry Holt came. They already had arguably the best left tackle and wide receiver in the game with Pace and Bruce. Of those five guys, Warner is the least sure HOFer.

Note: Trent Green started for 5 games in 2000 and threw for 2063 yards, 16 touchdowns, and 5 interceptions.

[Collier11]

What were the Rams before Warner, what were the Cardinals before Warner. Every great team has a few great players, that is a pointless statement.

Joe Montana had Jerry Rice, Peyton had Harrison and Wayne, etc... your statement doesnt even matter

[Eielson]

its funny to me when people bring up things like...

the only reason he was a great qb because of the receivers

Has there ever been a quarterback surrounded with more talent than Kurt Warner?

[Collier11]

Peyton once had James, Harrison, and Wayne

Aikman had Smith, Irvin, and Novacek

Kelly had Thomas, Reed, and Lofton

I can go on and on and on

[Eielson]

What were the Rams before Warner, what were the Cardinals before Warner. Every great team has a few great players, that is a pointless statement.

The real question is "what were the Rams before Faulk?"


Joe Montana had Jerry Rice, Peyton had Harrison and Wayne, etc... your statement doesnt even matter

Joe Montana had Jerry Rice. Kurt Warner had Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, Marshall Faulk, Larry Fitzgerald, and Anquan Boldin. See the difference?

[Collier11]

Montana had Craig, Taylor, and Rice

[Collier11]

The real question is "what were the Rams before Faulk?"


No wonder LL so easily owned you

[Eielson]

No wonder LL so easily owned you

What you're saying is that you can't answer this, so you're trying to dodge the question, right?

[Collier11]

Ive already answered it numerous times, STEP has answered it, im not going to waste my time trying to explain it to someone who just doesnt get it

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Want take a guess on how many rushing yards Faulk had in the Superbowl the year they won it?

[JLEW1818]

Phil, Soonerfans is back working for Firefox, or at least it is for me now

[Collier11]

17 to be exact, in the meantime Warner has the 3 biggest passing days in Super Bowl History and in all 3 he drove his team down for the game winning score, only to have the D give it up twice

[JLEW1818]

yah, Kurt Warner sucks, he only has been to 3 super bowls, with 2 different teams, and has a ring.

and he really sucks b/c he lost to that Tom Brady guy, who only played b/c some vet got injured

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I'll answer it...10 carries 17 yards longest rush 4 yards...over 400 yards passing for Warner in that game

[Collier11]

As a matter of fact, the 3 teams that Warner led to the Super Bowl combined for 162 rushing yards in 3 games

[Collier11]

I'll answer it...10 carries 17 yards longest rush 4 yards...over 400 yards passing for Warner in that game

I already answered it, pay tention :texan:

[JLEW1818]

ESPN CLASSIC NOW

[Collier11]

Dont have it

[Eielson]

Want take a guess on how many rushing yards Faulk had in the Superbowl the year they won it?

15 touches, 107 yards.

[Eielson]

yah, Kurt Warner sucks, he only has been to 3 super bowls, with 2 different teams, and has a ring.

and he really sucks b/c he lost to that Tom Brady guy, who only played b/c some vet got injured

Nobody said Warner sucked. Try and keep up.

[Collier11]

10 carries and 17 yards

[OU-HSV]

its funny to me when people bring up things like...

the only reason he was a great qb because of the receivers
he was only a great receiver because of the quarterback

Exactly my point on page one. I agree

[stoops the eternal pimp]

right 5 catches for 90 yards...next question...

did he throw it to himself?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I understrand Marshall Faulk was a stud runningback..good group of receivers...

but every quarterback has had great players play around him....probably the greatest quarterback with the least amount of talent around him was Dan Marino

[Eielson]

Super Bowl History and in all 3 he drove his team down for the game winning score, only to have the D give it up twice

In Super Bowl 34 (the only one that he won), Warner didn't drive his team down for the game winning score. It was a 73 yard pass. It wasn't a good pass, either. It was well underthrown. Bruce just made a great play on it.

As for Super Bowl 36, it wouldn't have been a game-winner. It only tied the game. You're out of your mind if you think it was the D that blew that game. Sure, Warner threw for a lot of yards, but he threw more interceptions than touchdowns, and threw as many touchdowns to the other team as he did his own (1). New England only scored 20 points, and that's even with New England's defense scoring one of the two touchdowns. Warner had a bad game.

[Eielson]

right 5 catches for 90 yards...next question...

did he throw it to himself?

Marshall Faulk averaged more YAC than YPC several years. I'm willing to bet most of those yards came after the catch.

[OU-HSV]

In Super Bowl 34 (the only one that he won), Warner didn't drive his team down for the game winning score. It was a 73 yard pass. It wasn't a good pass, either. It was well underthrown. Bruce just made a great play on it.

As for Super Bowl 36, it wouldn't have been a game-winner. It only tied the game. You're out of your mind if you think it was the D that blew that game. Sure, Warner threw for a lot of yards, but he threw more interceptions than touchdowns, and threw as many touchdowns to the other team as he did his own (1). New England only scored 20 points, and that's even with New England's defense scoring one of the two touchdowns. Warner had a bad game.

Did Warner kill your kittens or something? :D ;)

[Eielson]

I understrand Marshall Faulk was a stud runningback..good group of receivers...

but every quarterback has had great players play around him....probably the greatest quarterback with the least amount of talent around him was Dan Marino

All I've ever really said is that:

1) Warner was surrounded by a ton of talent
2) More than just Warner arrived the year the Rams turned it around
3) The Rams had success without him
4) Faulk had more to do with the Rams being "The Greatest Show on Turf" than Warner

I don't question that he was a good player.

[Eielson]

Did Warner kill your kittens or something? :D ;)

If Warner killed cats that would only make me like him more.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Yeah I'll have to totally disagree on this one with him...because by that standard Joe Montana wasn't that great either

Roger Craig was a 1000/1000 back..Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Brent Jones,

[OU-HSV]

If Warner killed cats that would only make me like him more.

I agree with your point here

[stoops the eternal pimp]

All I've ever really said is that:

1) Warner was surrounded by a ton of talent
2) More than just Warner arrived the year the Rams turned it around
3) The Rams had success without him
4) Faulk had more to do with the Rams being "The Greatest Show on Turf" than Warner

I don't question that he was a good player.

yeah those are all valid, but it doesn't take away from anything he did..

[JLEW1818]

is this your same argument with Tebow? surrounded with talent?

Sam Bradford is overrated too, his Oline was too good ... wr too good

[OU-HSV]

is this your same argument with Tebow? surrounded with talent?

Sam Bradford is overrated too, his Oline was too good ... wr too good

Tight End too good...RBs too good
Oh and QB coach too good;)

[JLEW1818]

Tight End too good...RBs too good

Oh and QB coach too good

yep

[OU-HSV]

yeah those are all valid, but it doesn't take away from anything he did..

Exactly. That's all my opinion is as well. Damn near every great QB is or was surrounded by great talent. That's how it works. They all compliment each other

[JLEW1818]

yah thats the funny thing, people always saying

"If this person had that"

idc about IF. I'll take what is proven.

"if" is just a fantasy

[Eielson]

yeah those are all valid, but it doesn't take away from anything he did..

I'm not saying he wasn't a good player. I'm just saying that the Rams were more than just one player. Some people try to make the success of the Rams out to be all Warner's doing, and that's garbage. They completely overlook that Holt and Faulk came in that same year. This is coming from a Ram's fan. I'm arguing for the Rams, and not so much against Warner. You wouldn't say Montana was the only reason the 49ers were successful, would you?

[Collier11]

Every team is more than one player, you are missing the point. The point being that niether the Rams or the Cardinals ever accomplished anything before Warner at QB

[Eielson]

is this your same argument with Tebow? surrounded with talent?

Sam Bradford is overrated too, his Oline was too good ... wr too good

I'll argue with you when you learn to think for yourself. I'd rather think for myself and be wrong than be a pawn for the media and popular opinion.

[Eielson]

Every team is more than one player, you are missing the point. The point being that niether the Rams or the Cardinals ever accomplished anything before Warner at QB

You're missing the point. The Rams weren't winning before they got Faulk or Holt either. The Rams won after Warner left. They haven't won since Faulk left. They haven't won since Bruce left. They haven't won since Pace left. They haven't won since Holt left.

[Collier11]

If you believe all the crap you are saying then whatev

[Collier11]

To expand on this, Warner led them to two Super Bowls in 3 years, when he left Bulger lost in the divisional round at home, lost in the 2nd rd the next year, so Warner was 5-2 in the playoffs with two SB appearances with the Rams, 4-2 with a SB appearance with the Cardinals.

Bulger was 1-2 in the playoffs and never made it past the 2nd round, the Rams have since fallen apart.

Lets see how the Cardinals do next year, I bet it isnt very well compared to with Warner at QB

[Eielson]

If you believe all the crap you are saying then whatev

Once again you have no answer. This is what most of your arguing is. You make a claim, and if somebody doesn't agree you claim that they just don't get it or something along those lines. You don't usually even try to justify your claim. Everything that I said in that post was a fact. I mean, technically they did win a few games, but they weren't at all successful.

[JLEW1818]

I'll argue with you when you learn to think for yourself. I'd rather think for myself and be wrong than be a pawn for the media and popular opinion.

but i don't think I'm wrong.... I simply said that Tim Tebow is the best college football player of the decade... you had him i think 7th on your list behind 6 other qbs this decade..

Warner, i think he is a great qb, a hall of fame type for sure...


i don't see how I'm not thinking for myself

i think your take on Lebron is 100% accurate. and Wilt .. .just not on tebow/warner

:D

[JLEW1818]

Once again you have no answer. This is what most of your arguing is. You make a claim, and if somebody doesn't agree you claim that they just don't get it or something along those lines. You don't usually even try to justify your claim. Everything that I said in that post was a fact. I mean, technically they did win a few games, but they weren't at all successful.

okay, so your claim is, Warner was surrounded with talent?

i can agree with that. He had a great offense in St Louis, and a great offense in Arizona

is it fair to say, how many times those teams went to the Super Bowl without him?

[Collier11]

Once again you have no answer. This is what most of your arguing is. You make a claim, and if somebody doesn't agree you claim that they just don't get it or something along those lines. You don't usually even try to justify your claim. Everything that I said in that post was a fact. I mean, technically they did win a few games, but they weren't at all successful.

Are you blind? I have posted legitimate facts to every single one of your statements, so have several other people, you are the only one that doesnt get it.

[Curly Bill]

I haven't even read this thread but I think all you dumases are wrong! :D

[Collier11]

What were the Rams before Warner, what were the Cardinals before Warner. Every great team has a few great players, that is a pointless statement.

Joe Montana had Jerry Rice, Peyton had Harrison and Wayne, etc... your statement doesnt even matter


Peyton once had James, Harrison, and Wayne

Aikman had Smith, Irvin, and Novacek

Kelly had Thomas, Reed, and Lofton

I can go on and on and on


Montana had Craig, Taylor, and Rice


17 to be exact, in the meantime Warner has the 3 biggest passing days in Super Bowl History and in all 3 he drove his team down for the game winning score, only to have the D give it up twice


As a matter of fact, the 3 teams that Warner led to the Super Bowl combined for 162 rushing yards in 3 games


10 carries and 17 yards


Every team is more than one player, you are missing the point. The point being that niether the Rams or the Cardinals ever accomplished anything before Warner at QB


To expand on this, Warner led them to two Super Bowls in 3 years, when he left Bulger lost in the divisional round at home, lost in the 2nd rd the next year, so Warner was 5-2 in the playoffs with two SB appearances with the Rams, 4-2 with a SB appearance with the Cardinals.

Bulger was 1-2 in the playoffs and never made it past the 2nd round, the Rams have since fallen apart.

Lets see how the Cardinals do next year, I bet it isnt very well compared to with Warner at QB


Are you blind? I have posted legitimate facts to every single one of your statements, so have several other people, you are the only one that doesnt get it.

Here since you seem to have missed it

[JLEW1818]

I haven't even read this thread but I think all you dumases are wrong! :D

lol i hate Kurt Waner, but the dude has game. One of the best all time.

I'm just curious. I would like some stat guy to name the QBs to start in 3 super bowls ....

Peyton Manning just now going to his second.

[Eielson]

but i don't think I'm wrong.... I simply said that Tim Tebow is the best college football player of the decade... you had him i think 7th on your list behind 6 other qbs this decade..

Warner, i think he is a great qb, a hall of fame type for sure...


i don't see how I'm not thinking for myself

i think your take on Lebron is 100% accurate. and Wilt .. .just not on tebow/warner

:D

It's not about you agreeing or disagreeing with me. If you always agreed with me that wouldn't be thinking for yourself. From what I've seen, it appears that you generally go along with what the media tells you, or what the popular opinion on this site is. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

[Collier11]

Brady, Bradshaw, Montana...

[Collier11]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Well if you could think for yourself you would know this answer :D

[JLEW1818]

I think Lebron James has accomplished absolutely nothing in terms of NBA greatness

the media sucks his dong

[Curly Bill]

I don't like Warner either, but yeah -- he's got game.

[Eielson]

okay, so your claim is, Warner was surrounded with talent?

i can agree with that. He had a great offense in St Louis, and a great offense in Arizona

is it fair to say, how many times those teams went to the Super Bowl without him?

Bulger got his first playing time in Faulk's 9th season. That's pretty late into a running back's career. He was still okay in that season, but he wasn't the force he had been previously in his career (including his time with Warner). His yards per carry had dropped to 4.5 (5.3 was his previous low with the Rams). His yards per catch had dropped to 6.7 (previous low with team was 9.2). However, Bulger still managed to go 6-0 that season. The next year his stats dropped even more, however Bulger still managed to go 12-3 (0-1 with Warner) with the team, and lost to the NFC Champs in overtime, who went on to lose the Super Bowl by just 3 points to the Patriots.

The team as a whole was wearing down when Bulger took over. Bulger, while not as old as his teammates, had a body that was old beyond it's years because the beating he was taking in Martz's system. It seems that America as a whole always wants to blame everything on a single thing. The team underachieving is all the coach's fault, the economy is all the president's fault. television causes childhood obesity, etc. There were so many things that contributed to the Ram's success and downfall. It's not just one thing or one person.

[Collier11]

Bulger has had Steven Jackson

[Eielson]

I don't like Warner either, but yeah -- he's got game.

Just like his teammates. He didn't single-handedly win super bowls.

[Collier11]

and again, NO ONE HAS SAID it was all Warner, we have all said that he has led them to greatness which he has, he has done things with StL and AZ that no other QB has done

[Curly Bill]

Just like his teammates. He didn't single-handedly win super bowls.

I would never argue that one single player is responsible for getting a team to the highest levels.

It could be argued though that an NFL QB has as much to do with whatever success his team has than any other position in sports.

[Eielson]

Bulger has had Steven Jackson

Yeah. But...

A) He's not Marshall Faulk
B) By the time he got going, Bruce started his decline
C) Pace started his decline (injuries)

[Collier11]

yeah. But...

A) You continue to ignore the basic facts that Warner is such a great QB that he led both teams to places they have never been, no matter the talent, before or after him

[Eielson]

and again, NO ONE HAS SAID it was all Warner


Kurt Warner is 1st ballot HOFer, Kurt Warner is/was the reason that the Rams/Cardinals were any good

It sucks when people can quote you, doesn't it? You can't change your argument very easily.

[Collier11]

I never said it was all Warner, of course he had a team with good talent around him but that should go without saying cus if you make it to the SB you obviously have a good team, I think my quote is backed up by everything else ive said in this thread.

How good was Zona before Warner? 1 playoff win ever I think?

How good were the Rams before Warner? How good have they been since him? 1 playoff win compared to 2 Super Bowl appearances, this isnt hard

[JLEW1818]

Warner was the biggest factor on all 3 teams = fact

i mean lets play Eislons retard game, lets just go ahead and say Bulger is better than Warner

[Collier11]

= Huge fact

[Eielson]

i mean lets play Eislons retard game, lets just go ahead and say Bulger is better than Warner

I've never said that.

[Eielson]

Warner was the biggest factor on all 3 teams = fact

That's not a fact. Even if I agreed with that, it's still an opinion.

[Collier11]

you are acting like Bulger continued what Warner accomplished and he didnt

[JLEW1818]

so your basically saying, Warner was good, but had a bunch of talent around him, and their are many other qbs, that could do what Warner did, if they had that talent?

[Collier11]

That's not a fact. Even if I agreed with that, it's still an opinion.

Its about as close to a fact as any opinion has ever been

[Collier11]

look at Warners stats in SBs, that says it all compared to Faulk. And before you freak out, I think Faulk is a top 5 RB of all time but he didnt do much rushing the ball in the SBs, 27 carries for 93 yards combined

[StoopTroup]

I heard Kurt put 4 really rad Goodyear All-terrains on his Hummer and this was all misreported.

[Eielson]

Its about as close to a fact as any opinion has ever been

That's another opinion. An opinion that is close to fact is always an opinion. It's like saying you almost won. That means you lost.

[Collier11]

no thats not like saying that, not even close. Anyone who knows jack about Football would tell you that Warner was the biggest reason that those Rams and Cards teams were as good as they were, even with Faulk.

[Collier11]

Leroy owned you and now you argue like him, good jorb

[Curly Bill]

Leroy owned you and now you argue like him, good jorb

Dude, now you're playing dirty.

[Eielson]

so your basically saying, Warner was good, but had a bunch of talent around him, and their are many other qbs, that could do what Warner did, if they had that talent?

I'm not saying many would have won a super bowl, but there were some that could. A ton of quarterbacks could have had success and lead this team to the playoffs. I'm saying that a quarterback of Warner's caliber is easier to find than a RB like Faulk, a left tackle like Pace, or two receivers like Bruce and Holt.

[JLEW1818]

all good facts. and i agree, Faulk, Pace, Bruce and Holt are all Hall of Fame

but it is what it is

[Collier11]

Saying that finding a franchise QB is easier than finding a franchise RB is crazy talk

[Curly Bill]

A good, scratch that, a real good NFL QB is very difficult to find. RB's not as much, WR's not so much, now you might have a point with the left tackle thing.

[Collier11]

^^^^

[JLEW1818]

an NFL QB is the most important position in all of sports

sure their are slim expectations. like the year the Ravens won it


but really, just take away Tom Brady and Peyton Manning this decade....

[Eielson]

Anyone who knows jack about Football would tell you that Warner was the biggest reason that those Rams and Cards teams were as good as they were, even with Faulk.


Leroy owned you and now you argue like him, good jorb

Using "everyone knows" and ad hominems. That's when you know your argument is bad.

[Collier11]

Well so far 5 other people have chimed in and all 5 agree that Warner was the biggest reason, that usually shows how bad your argument is when you are the only one spouting silliness like a Franchise QB is easier to find

[Eielson]

Well so far 5 other people have chimed in and all 5 agree that Warner was the biggest reason, that usually shows how bad your argument is when you are the only one spouting silliness like a Franchise QB is easier to find

Everybody has actually agreed with me outside of you. Read this thread however you would like, though. You've had long enough to say your part. I'm calling this nice little discussion between you and I to an end now.

[Collier11]

Delusional much? This must be embarrassing for you, tough week

[JLEW1818]

bull ****

THE CARDS WERE 9 AND ****ING 7

WOULD THEY HAVE MADE THE PLAYOFFS WITHOUT WARNER AND MATT LEIN **** AT QB??? NO ****ING WAY

[Collier11]

There you go agreeing with Eilson again...wait?

[Eielson]

A good, scratch that, a real good NFL QB is very difficult to find. RB's not as much, WR's not so much, now you might have a point with the left tackle thing.

As far as positions go, I agree. However, Faulk isn't just a great RB. Faulk is extremely rare even for a great RB. I think Faulk was one of only two RB's to ever to rush for 1,000 yards and have 1,000 yards receiving in the same season. Most franchises will never know what it's like to have a runningback like Faulk.

As for a single WR, I agree with that. WR's aren't that hard to find, but I said them together. Those were probably two of the league's top five receivers and unlike the others (Randy Moss, TO) they didn't cause problems. It's not that rare to find ONE receiver like that, but it is hard to find TWO.

[soonerinabilene]

the cowboys run in the 90s was because they had amazing talent at all skill positions, and had aikman pulling the trigger. take away aikman, and irvin, novacek and harper arent nearly as productive, and teams would have shut smith down. aikman was the reason they were ALL dominate. that is the closest level of talent that compares to what st louis had, and what the cards have. you can try to put it off on other players making warner better, but when the big games came, meaning playoffs and super bowl, warner stepped up more than any other player ever has. the top 3 super bowl performances of all time puts him in the hall of fame. warner has been the derek jeter of the nfl when it comes to postseason play.

[Eielson]

the top 3 super bowl performances of all time puts him in the hall of fame.

They weren't the top 3. They were top 3 yardage-wise, but not performance-wise.

[Collier11]

They were way up there

[westcoast_sooner]

I've never been much of a Kurt Warner fan. Having said that, what the guy has accomplished, and coming from his humble background, he's been an amazing player on the NFL stage for awhile. I wish him luck in his future.

[tulsaoilerfan]

Eielson and Leroy must be the same person :)

[tulsaoilerfan]

And i'm very disappointed that in 6 pages of this there has only been 1 mention of Brenda Warner and absolutely no pics of her

[rawlingsHOH]

Peyton once had James, Harrison, and Wayne

Aikman had Smith, Irvin, and Novacek

Kelly had Thomas, Reed, and Lofton

I can go on and on and on

Favre had Sterling Sharpe (his first couple years) and a whole bunch of assclowns he turned into millionaires. Bill Schroeder a 1,000-yard receiver. LOL!

Amazing, with the exception of Elway, how all these all-time great QBs were surrounded by HOF position players.

[Leroy Lizard]

Eielson and Leroy must be the same person

Then I would have more issues than previously thought.

[Leroy Lizard]

http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Walter+Payton+Man+of+the+Year+KHe4kJmaHX9l.jpg

[Leroy Lizard]

http://www.topnews.in/files/images/Brenda%20Warner.jpg

[Collier11]

Terrell Davis wouldve been had he been able to continue playing

[rawlingsHOH]

http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Walter+Payton+Man+of+the+Year+KHe4kJmaHX9l.jpg

i liked her better with the old gray butch cut!

[Collier11]

you mean the time not long after she had cancer and her hair hadnt grown back all the way, nice dude

[Leroy Lizard]

i liked her better with the old gray butch cut!

Then you should hang out in the Feminist Studies lounge more often.

[rawlingsHOH]

you mean the time not long after she had cancer and her hair hadnt grown back all the way, nice dude

You might have your HOF QBs confused.

[Crucifax Autumn]

So how about instead of being a wiseass (which I actually appreciate in a person) you share the real story?

[swardboy]

Geez Loueez ...Kurt Warner has a great story...never give up. Can't we just celebrate the man for what he added to the great game we all love?

My folks live very close to the camp for handicapped children that the Warners brought their child to. They graced it with generous contributions. There is so much more to these people than the general public will ever know..

[sooner ngintunr]

Doesn't he single handily hold the top 3 passing performances in SB history?
oh wait, that was because of his receivers talent not his talent. riiiight.

Sorry if its already been said.

The argument for him not being in the HOF does not hold water. Oh, he shouldn't be there because he was surrounded by HOFers...riight.

[Eielson]

Doesn't he single handily hold the top 3 passing performances in SB history?
oh wait, that was because of his receivers talent not his talent. riiiight.

Sorry if its already been said.

The argument for him not being in the HOF does not hold water. Oh, he shouldn't be there because he was surrounded by HOFers...riight.

Nobody argued against him being in the HOF.

[StoopTroup]

Then I would have more issues than previously thought.

I don't really think that would be possible.

[Clever Trevor]

Marshall Faulk averaged more YAC than YPC several years. I'm willing to bet most of those yards came after the catch.

You kind of sound like a whorn arguing against Jason White back in the day. "Yeah, but Clayton got all of those yards after the catch". No receiver is getting diddly after the catch if the ball isn't where he can catch it and make a move and Warner, when he was on (which was a lot), was friggin accurate.
And yes, I would say that the niners would not have won three super bowls without Montana, let alone, get to the super bowl.
You need a leader to get you there.

[Clever Trevor]

:D

[JLEW1818]

You kind of sound like a whorn arguing against Jason White back in the day. "Yeah, but Clayton got all of those yards after the catch". No receiver is getting diddly after the catch if the ball isn't where he can catch it and make a move and Warner, when he was on (which was a lot), was friggin accurate.
And yes, I would say that the niners would not have won three super bowls without Montana, let alone, get to the super bowl.
You need a leader to get you there.

EXACTLY

[fossil]

Matters little to me whether you would consider him a great or adequate quarterback. What matters more than anything is that he was a good character guy, someone who never trumpted his Christian beliefs, but also didn't hide them. He was just a good guy and I admire him most for that. The other tuff is secondary.