Kurt Warner could follow Mike Martz to Detroit - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Kurt Warner could follow Mike Martz to Detroit

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:57 am

You really are missing the point.

I never pretended or claimed to not be biased. I cannot stand Mrs. Warner's Husband - he's a douche. Is that an opinion? Can any opinion not be biased?

However - you want to build your case on numbers that dont mean what you think they mean - and that's a problem. You havent listed one statistic that is a good measure of ability or talent - do you realize that?

What does completion % measure?
What does QB rating measure?
Yds/gm?
Tds/gm?
INTs/gm?

None of these things accurately measure talent or skill.

So go ahead and trot out your hillarious new smiley faces and try and tell me again how skilled and accurate Kurt Warner is because he put up better statistics that really dont measure accuracy or skill.

Im gonna go ahead and stick with my OPINION though.
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5924
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby louisianacajunsam » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:11 am

i havent read any of the past posts on the last two pages or so on this topic but referring to the last one about kurt warners qb rating, pass completion percentage, td/int, etc, etc, etc....

i live in louisiana so i follow the saints..aaron brooks may be an idiot but he has lots of talent...

there isnt a thing in the world i wouldn't have done for some untalented quarterback that just happened to complete over 60% of his passes, threw a 2/1 ratio of td to int, and had around an 85/90 quarterback rating instead of some very talented quarterback that couldnt pick his own ass
louisianacajunsam
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator


Posts: 883
Joined: 8 Nov 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:30 am

louisianacajunsam wrote:there isnt a thing in the world i wouldn't have done for some untalented quarterback that just happened to complete over 60% of his passes, threw a 2/1 ratio of td to int, and had around an 85/90 quarterback rating instead of some very talented quarterback that couldnt pick his own ass


I agree with you about wanting a QB who puts up those kind of numbers - but the catch is I understand that if DET's, ARI's, or NO's QB put up those kind of numbers it doesnt say much at all about the QB - whether he is talented or not. All those do is measure what happened given the situation he was in. So do I want a QB that has statistics that suggests the offense he is on is successful - absolutely - but Im certainly not going to use those statistics to prove how good a QB he is. Thats the big difference.
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5924
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby louisianacajunsam » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:41 am

yea i just think you're disecting a little too much but thats up to you..

football is a team sport so its all about the situation you are in..

in other words, was kliff kingsbury a great college quarterback? my answer = yes....was terrell davis a great running back in the nfl? my answer = yes...

however, maybe terrell davis was a good running back that played in a good system with a good offensive line..after all, he wasnt great at georgia...therefore, there has been lots of great players that have never gotten a chance to succeed due to the system they are in, and the players around them...

so arguing that kurt warner isnt good because its just the system...i dont know how you can judge that..its your opinion is all..but due to his numbers, he is in fact a very good quarterback, even with some GREAT years
louisianacajunsam
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator


Posts: 883
Joined: 8 Nov 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:01 pm

louisianacajunsam wrote:so arguing that kurt warner isnt good because its just the system...i dont know how you can judge that..its your opinion is all..but due to his numbers, he is in fact a very good quarterback, even with some GREAT years


You could be right about me nitpicking - but it is just a big pet peeve of mine when people cross statistics to prove talent absent of situation - they simply do not measure talent exclusively.

Take what you wrote above - I would completely agree with everything you wrote - except for the last part. How do we judge if Warner is good, bad or great? I dont really have a good answer since I dont believe statistics measure ability all that well at all.

But let me rewrite your last sentence to the way I see things:

but due to his numbers, he is in fact a very successful QB with some extremely successful years.

The difference is that "good" implies talent while "successful" implies the relationship between talent and situation.

The reason it is a pet peeve of mine is because the implications begin to translate into myths. My favorite example is Culpepper - to some, he is absolutely a top 5 QB in this league based on his talent. How did people come to this conclusion about his talent? By looking at his statistics. To me, I say the situation he was in played perfectly to his strengths (talent), and when that situation changes to a scheme that plays to his weaknesses - accuracy and reading defenses - then his statistics will reflect that and eventually people will stop thinking he is a top 5 talent because his statistics arent as good as they used to be. But what really happened? Did his talent and ability change? Not really.

Its all about judging players - if you cannot seperate skill and ability from the situation, then you begin to make bad decisions regarding that player's ability. Using common statistic to begin an assesment of a player's talent level already starts you off on the wrong foot and creates myths. Do you understand what I am saying?
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5924
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby louisianacajunsam » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:52 pm

agreed...

i still think kurt warner is a good quarterback..he may not be able to run and he may not see the defensive end coming around the corner sometimes, but he does in fact have an accurate arm and can pick apart a defense...

by talent i dont know exactly what you mean..

is matt leinart talented in your mind?
is drew bledsoe talented in your mind?

is the talent you're talking about pertain to how they run..

b/c as far a quarterback goes, talent is typically assessed by accuracy and arm strength..he basically has those qualities
louisianacajunsam
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator


Posts: 883
Joined: 8 Nov 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby onnestabe » Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:32 pm

Cornbread Maxwell wrote:
louisianacajunsam wrote:so arguing that kurt warner isnt good because its just the system...i dont know how you can judge that..its your opinion is all..but due to his numbers, he is in fact a very good quarterback, even with some GREAT years


You could be right about me nitpicking - but it is just a big pet peeve of mine when people cross statistics to prove talent absent of situation - they simply do not measure talent exclusively.

Take what you wrote above - I would completely agree with everything you wrote - except for the last part. How do we judge if Warner is good, bad or great? I dont really have a good answer since I dont believe statistics measure ability all that well at all.

But let me rewrite your last sentence to the way I see things:

but due to his numbers, he is in fact a very successful QB with some extremely successful years.

The difference is that "good" implies talent while "successful" implies the relationship between talent and situation.

The reason it is a pet peeve of mine is because the implications begin to translate into myths. My favorite example is Culpepper - to some, he is absolutely a top 5 QB in this league based on his talent. How did people come to this conclusion about his talent? By looking at his statistics. To me, I say the situation he was in played perfectly to his strengths (talent), and when that situation changes to a scheme that plays to his weaknesses - accuracy and reading defenses - then his statistics will reflect that and eventually people will stop thinking he is a top 5 talent because his statistics arent as good as they used to be. But what really happened? Did his talent and ability change? Not really.

Its all about judging players - if you cannot seperate skill and ability from the situation, then you begin to make bad decisions regarding that player's ability. Using common statistic to begin an assesment of a player's talent level already starts you off on the wrong foot and creates myths. Do you understand what I am saying?


Right there with ya', CBM ;-D

But I am going to take the easier route with regard to fantasy production, and judge players more on the basis of situations than talent. What's the point of knowing who the most talented back is if they are in a bad situation? I would rather have the guy with less talent that is in a good situation (see Mushy Muhammy in 2004) than the talented guy that is mired in a poor organization (see Andre Johnson in 2005).
onnestabe
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerEagle Eye
Posts: 4074
Joined: 6 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Cincinnati - West Price Hill

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:34 pm

I hear ya. And the truth is you are probably right that he has good accuracy and a good ability to read defenses. Those are absolutely what I'm talking about when I say talent. But the thing is, the statistics dont really say that to me. Due to his injury history and severe changes in situation the last few years, it's tough to get much of a read from those numbers. I know that a quick glance shows his completion % the last 2 years were lower than they've been since he has been in the NFL. All that implies to me is that there are indication that either his situational opportunity changed from place to place or his injuries hindered him - most likely both. Therefore, I cannot use those statistics to really judge his talent level.

Judging talent is largly based on actually watching a player play and undertanding the nuances of the situation he is in - or setting players in a controlled environment in excersizes designed specifically to measure a certain skill set, like the NFL combine comming up. You will notice that NFL scouts, people who are paid to judge talent and skill, almost never dwell on the statistics a player put up in college, but rather eye witness nonmeasurables and combine measurables in their analysis of a player.

To that end - I would have to agree that from the STL games I saw Warner is accurate and can definitely read defenses. The problem is, I havent watched him much in NY or ARI - neither of those teams got much coverage up here, so I dont know about the 35 yo, post injury history Warner. Again - we cannot use the common statistics to judge since that's not what they measure. If someone who watched Warner play last yr gave their opinion, I would place much more weight on their opinion as long as I thought they were being as objectionable as possible - every QB has his weaknesses.
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5924
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:40 pm

onnestabe wrote:But I am going to take the easier route with regard to fantasy production, and judge players more on the basis of situations than talent. What's the point of knowing who the most talented back is if they are in a bad situation? I would rather have the guy with less talent that is in a good situation (see Mushy Muhammy in 2004) than the talented guy that is mired in a poor organization (see Andre Johnson in 2005).


Thats been my philosophy for a while now. I think there are maybe 3 or so players in the NFL who's talent will usually trump the situation they are in - and even that theory is a bit generous to those players. Heading into this season, I thought Randy Moss and Terrell Owens were two of those guys, and now I have to rethink that - the other is Tomlinson.
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5924
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Kensat30 » Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:44 pm

Can we all agree that Warner would have been better than Harrington at least?
Kensat30
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Writer
Posts: 6427
Joined: 2 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 7:49 hours
(and 42 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact