KRC Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Cardinals coaching staff was on acid for deferring the kickoff. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Shaky performance:2nd most yards passing in SB history. 73% completion rate. 3 TDs. Against the #1 defense. Could he have done better? Sure. He could have had a 100% completion rate. But you try getting that completion percentage to 100% with Mike Gandy "guarding" your back and no running game. You should ban yourself for making such absurd statements. I've made waaaaayyyyy more absurd statements than that. And they were correct too. I just don't care about the numbers. I look at vision, decision-making, successfully putting your weapons in their best position to do damage, game management, etc. I thought Warner did a poor job keeping his eyes downfield, frequently bailing on the play to duck phantom pressure. I thought he did a poor job involving his best player in the game, not even considering him as an option if he was covered. I thought he did a poor job putting the ball where his receivers could advance it after the catch, frequently forcing them to make difficult catches on inaccurate throws that were a result of panic tosses off his back foot while bailing against non-existent pressure. And I thought he did a poor job of making good decisions that accurately reflected down and distance situations. Until they went no huddle in the middle of the 4th quarter Warner had done little but cost his team more points than he himself had created. And as a result he was one of the primary reasons that his team had to spend most of the game in the disadvantageous position of playing from behind. That's the reason I though he had a very average game and shouldn't even be considered in teh same breath as Roethlisberger, who I thought was fantastic and the hands down MVP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I've made waaaaayyyyy more absurd statements than that.And they were correct too. I just don't care about the numbers. I look at vision, decision-making, successfully putting your weapons in their best position to do damage, game management, etc. I thought Warner did a poor job keeping his eyes downfield, frequently bailing on the play to duck phantom pressure. I thought he did a poor job involving his best player in the game, not even considering him as an option if he was covered. I thought he did a poor job putting the ball where his receivers could advance it after the catch, frequently forcing them to make difficult catches on inaccurate throws that were a result of panic tosses off his back foot while bailing against non-existent pressure. And I thought he did a poor job of making good decisions that accurately reflected down and distance situations. Until they went no huddle in the middle of the 4th quarter Warner had done little but cost his team more points than he himself had created. And as a result he was one of the primary reasons that his team had to spend most of the game in the disadvantageous position of playing from behind. That's the reason I though he had a very average game and shouldn't even be considered in teh same breath as Roethlisberger, who I thought was fantastic and the hands down MVP. so how much money did you bet on the Cardinals to win? sounds like your observations came from a Bills game with JP at QB and not the Super Bowl where Warner put his team in position to win based on his performance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 so how much money did you bet on the Cardinals to win? sounds like your observations came from a Bills game with JP at QB and not the Super Bowl where Warner put his team in position to win based on his performance I had no rooting interest in the game that would matter to anybody else. And my observation came from a game where Warner played like crap for 50+ minutes. P'burgh had the ball at midfield up by two scores with about 10 minutes left; what was the Stillers record they showed in similar situations? Something like 142-1? The Cards were extremely lucky to have even gotten back into it. Warner's poor play put his team into a position to lose, not win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I had no rooting interest in the game that would matter to anybody else.And my observation came from a game where Warner played like crap for 50+ minutes. P'burgh had the ball at midfield up by two scores with about 10 minutes left; what was the Stillers record they showed in similar situations? Something like 142-1? The Cards were extremely lucky to have even gotten back into it. Warner's poor play put his team into a position to lose, not win. You sunk your own argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 You sunk your own argument. How did pointing out that Warner put the Cards in a near impossible situation sink my argument that his play wasn't all that great? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 How did pointing out that Warner put the Cards in a near impossible situation sink my argument that his play wasn't all that great? Warner played about as well as any Qb played all year against the Steelers. Just because the touchdowns weren't scored when Simon preferred them, doesn't mean they don't count. Take away Big Ben's fourth quarter stats while your at it and tell me what you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Kelly probably shouldn't be in Three pages and not one person has called you on the most idiotic statement in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 Three pages and not one person has called you on the most idiotic statement in this thread. Because it's not. Kelly got a timely call to the HOF. If he hadn't been up that particular year and had his JV-USFL stats included in his career, he might not have gotten in. Even with the USFL stats, his numbers are borderline (Behind Kerry Collins in yards--behind Bledsoe in almost all categories and Drew shouldn't get anywhere near the HOF). I love him--he is probably my second favorite Bills player of all time but he's close to the bottom of the HOF QBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 so how much money did you bet on the Cardinals to win? sounds like your observations came from a Bills game with JP at QB and not the Super Bowl where Warner put his team in position to win based on his performance For Simon, a "very average game" is the 2nd most yards in SB history and 3 TDs against the NFL'snumber 1 defense. I guess a good game is 500 yards and 7 TDs. He's sunk his own argument here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Because it's not. Kelly got a timely call to the HOF. If he hadn't been up that particular year and had his JV-USFL stats included in his career, he might not have gotten in. Even with the USFL stats, his numbers are borderline (Behind Kerry Collins in yards--behind Bledsoe in almost all categories and Drew shouldn't get anywhere near the HOF). I love him--he is probably my second favorite Bills player of all time but he's close to the bottom of the HOF QBs. 4 AFC Championships in a row, and the trigger man on one of the most consistently dynamic offensives of that era...and, one of the only QBs of his time to call the plays at the LOS. He was a shoe-in for HOF, in ANY year, or era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts