ESPN: WARNER STILL MAGIC
ROSENBLOOMS VENGENCE
Forum User
Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Posts: 143
Post subject: ESPN: WARNER STILL MAGIC
Posted: 09 Nov 2009 01:44 am
Ram49
Forum User
Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 19
Post subject: Re: ESPN: WARNER STILL MAGIC
Posted: 09 Nov 2009 01:53 am
zn2003
Forum User
Joined: 25 May 2003
Posts: 3055
Post subject: Re: ESPN: WARNER STILL MAGIC
Posted: 09 Nov 2009 07:09 am
...
I suppose to have a memory you have to have a brain.
Starters: what Faulk said. Around the time of the superbowl.
Quote
But what if Warner had stayed and kept playing in St. Louis? "Personally, I don't think that would have been good for Kurt's career," Faulk said, pointing to what Bulger has gone through over the last couple of seasons. From 2002 through 2006, Warner started 31 of a possible 80 games for three teams, and Faulk believes there was a benefit to the down time. "The time off, and not being in there all of the time, helped him recover," Faulk said. "If Kurt had kept playing and getting hit all of the time, it would have been bad for his career. The physical issues he had were only going to get worse. But he was able to heal up. He started wearing a glove on his right hand, and he told me that it really helped his grip .Everything came back together for him. And now he's back. Amazing."
Okay. So. Warner's play slipped for 4 years. 2002-2005, at least, any probably even 2006.
And yeah he played poorly for 4 years. All you have to do to determine that is looking at his performances each year in the games before he was benched. In every instance his performance declines. That's with the Rams, with the Giants, and twice with the Cards. Really. The gamelogs are there and they don't lie. Look at the games before he gets benched.
Part of it was the OL. In 2000, his sack percentage was 5.4%; in 2002, it was 8.7%. But then in NY it was 12.3%. In ARz in 2006 it was 7.7%. The avg. from 99-2001 was 5.8% (and progressive worse each year as the OL slowly fell apart). IIn ARz from 2007-2009, it has been 4.4%. That's a difference but it is not dramatic to explain everything, I don't think. So part of the isse was the fact that the Zygmunt/Martz regime was that Martz could not handle personnel, which caused the OL to collapse. Zygmunt ran a franchise which let a first-time coach handle personnel (and could do nothing about it in terms of oversight one way or another because he knew nothing and so could do nothing about it). The 2002 OL was starting the likes of St. Clair, Heath Irwin, Andy King, Grant Williams...etc. He did not play well at least in part cause he got banged up. And among others that Marshall Faulk's view too.
Still, he did not leave ONLY because he was playing poorly, though he was playing poorly and was not going to accept being on the bench. His leaving coincided with a lot of things (including money and contract issues) and was caused by a lot of things (including the fact that things went public and got ugly. Sticking with him for 4 years was never an option.
That might be because of Zygmunt (who does not take kindlly to issues going public), that might be because of Martz, that might be because of Kurt, that might be because (as they said at the time) a lot of the team turned on him (largely because of Brenda-gate or so we were told at the time), that might be because of the injuries Warner did not cope with till Whisenhut demanded it (and that is Marshall Faulk's view as I said). It might be for all of those reasons.
Look at one factor in isolation. The glove. I don't know if anyone said the ONE difference was a glove. Seems to me it was a lot of things, like recovering his confidence and other factors. But still the 2002 hand injury WAS a factor. So was the glove. As I understand it he started wearing it during the 2006 season. That would make 2007 the first whole season played wearing a glove. So, in terms of fumbling....best years in blue--->
St. Louis 99-2001: 23 in games 43 games (avg 0.5 per game)
St. Louis 2002: 8 in 7 games (avg. 1.1 per game)
NY: 12 in 10 games (avg. 1.2 per game)
ARZ 2005-2006: 19 in 17 games (avg. 1.1 per game)
ARZ: 2007-2009: 27 in 39 games (avg. 0.7 per game)
Those numbers correlate very strongly with a narative that would include , 1. pre-2002 hand injury, 2. 2002 hand injury plus lingering aftermath, and 3, the glove years.
Now what do the no-memory/no logic/no sense types do?
Act like he played well from 2002-2006. As if him staying were an option in 2004.
So they lie to themselves and start stupid threads every time Kurt wins a game.
I think Kurt deserves better fans, frankly.
...
RamFan4Life
Forum User
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 4747
Post subject: Re: ESPN: WARNER STILL MAGIC
Posted: 09 Nov 2009 07:19 am
zn2003 wrote
...
I suppose to have a memory you have to have a brain.
Starters: what Faulk said. Around the time of the superbowl.
Quote
But what if Warner had stayed and kept playing in St. Louis? "Personally, I don't think that would have been good for Kurt's career," Faulk said, pointing to what Bulger has gone through over the last couple of seasons. From 2002 through 2006, Warner started 31 of a possible 80 games for three teams, and Faulk believes there was a benefit to the down time. "The time off, and not being in there all of the time, helped him recover," Faulk said. "If Kurt had kept playing and getting hit all of the time, it would have been bad for his career. The physical issues he had were only going to get worse. But he was able to heal up. He started wearing a glove on his right hand, and he told me that it really helped his grip .Everything came back together for him. And now he's back. Amazing."
[color=darkred]Okay. So. Warner's play slipped for 4 years. 2002-2005, at least, any probably even 2006.
And yeah he played poorly for 4 years.
...
You're a troll and you know it. In 2003, he started 1 game. I know you would love to pretend he play poorly the entire year... but what you want and reality are often two different things. In 2004 and 2005, Warner's QB average was better than your little honey's career average. So please... if Warner played poorly during those years... I'll take that as a confession that your boyfriend has played poorly his entire career.
Norman Paperman
Forum User
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 174
Post subject: Re: ESPN: WARNER STILL MAGIC
Posted: 09 Nov 2009 07:33 am
feet
Forum User
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 1059
Location: Quebec of the St. Louis area
Location: Quebec of the St. Louis area
Post subject: Re: ESPN: WARNER STILL MAGIC
Posted: 09 Nov 2009 07:58 am
RamFan4Life wrote
zn2003 wrote
...
I suppose to have a memory you have to have a brain.
Starters: what Faulk said. Around the time of the superbowl.
Quote
But what if Warner had stayed and kept playing in St. Louis? "Personally, I don't think that would have been good for Kurt's career," Faulk said, pointing to what Bulger has gone through over the last couple of seasons. From 2002 through 2006, Warner started 31 of a possible 80 games for three teams, and Faulk believes there was a benefit to the down time. "The time off, and not being in there all of the time, helped him recover," Faulk said. "If Kurt had kept playing and getting hit all of the time, it would have been bad for his career. The physical issues he had were only going to get worse. But he was able to heal up. He started wearing a glove on his right hand, and he told me that it really helped his grip .Everything came back together for him. And now he's back. Amazing."
[color=darkred]Okay. So. Warner's play slipped for 4 years. 2002-2005, at least, any probably even 2006.
And yeah he played poorly for 4 years.
...
You're a troll and you know it. In 2003, he started 1 game. I know you would love to pretend he play poorly the entire year... but what you want and reality are often two different things. In 2004 and 2005, Warner's QB average was better than your little honey's career average. So please... if Warner played poorly during those years... I'll take that as a confession that your boyfriend has played poorly his entire career.
Just cause he has a different opinion than you doesn't make Zen a troll.
I also think it's hypocritical that REVENGE only post when Warner has a good game. Where was he when Warner had 6 turnovers and lead his Cards to a lost to the lowly Panthers last week in Zona?
_________________
Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
ROSENBLOOMS VENGENCE
Forum User
Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Posts: 143
Post subject: Re: ESPN: WARNER STILL MAGIC
Posted: 10 Nov 2009 00:33 am
RAMSJL
Forum User
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 1165
Post subject: Re: ESPN: WARNER STILL MAGIC
Posted: 10 Nov 2009 06:24 am
feet
Forum User
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 1059
Location: Quebec of the St. Louis area
Location: Quebec of the St. Louis area
Post subject: Re: ESPN: WARNER STILL MAGIC
Posted: 10 Nov 2009 07:31 am
All times are CST (CST6CDT)
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
log in now
forum tools
recent forum posts
buy tickets
