Kurt Warner announces retirement after 12 seasons

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Give the guy credit. If you protect him he delivers and plays at a very high level. Warner was one of the most gifted pure passers of our time. His completion % and stats speak for themselves. He threw 100+ td's for two teams. Not many if anyone has done that. Did Bruce, Holt and Hakim have the same succes they did when Kurt was there? I'm not saying he's a HOF'er but he was damn good.

Holt and Bruce thrived in that offense (in their prime) no matter who was QB'ing it. Trent Green, Mark Bulger, or Kurt Warner.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Angry

Holt and Bruce thrived in that offense (in their prime) no matter who was QB'ing it. Trent Green, Mark Bulger, or Kurt Warner.

but who took them to and won the superbowl ?

[Zerohero]

Originally Posted by Angry

I was never sold on the guy. Give me Bruce, Holt, Faulk, and Hakim, to pair with any QB and I will make him great. I will trade him to a less talented team and he will struggle. I will then pair him with Boldin, Fitzgerald, Breaston, and Arrington and watch him revive his career.

Warner was good at getting the ball out of his hands before he got hit, luckily he had some talent on the other end to do something with it. That the way I see it and you cannot change it.

So his 2 years in Giants negate the good years? What do you not like about him, other then he was able to play with good players. Watch Leinart next year and you will see what Warner brought to the team.

[BleedBurgundy]

Kurt Warner is a first ballot HOF'er. No argument.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Big C

Why has Matt Leinart sucked so much then? He has the same talent to work with there.

Matt Leinart has only played in 12 games since losing his starting job to Warner because of injury. Most of them were brief spells for an injured Warner or mop up duty. He had a terrible outing in his 1 start, I agree, but he was playing well in the final 2 minutes against the Saints. I wouldn't exactly say that the guy sucks. More like he hasn't been given a shot to redeem himself in Warners shawdow.

His rookie year (Denny Greene's last) he played in 12 games, starting 11 of them and while it was not always perfect he was showing flashes. When Wisenhunt took over the following year he was still the starter except for the 2 minute drill, then he got hurt and it was all downhill from there. It was no secret though that Wisenhunt didn't like Leinart and vice versa. Rothlisberger didn't like Wisenhunt either for what it's worth.

I would like to see him (Leinart) play a full season under center before I stick a fork in him. If he succeeds though, it will mostly be to because of the talent around him also. Then and only then we will see how truly great Warner was. I honestly believe that Leinart can do just as well if not a little better.

[MTK]

Green and Bulger were both pretty good QBs in their own right.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Zerohero

So his 2 years in Giants negate the good years? What do you not like about him, other then he was able to play with good players. Watch Leinart next year and you will see what Warner brought to the team.

It just supports my theory that he can not thrive without good recievers around him. Players like Brady, Manning, Brees, and Favre are capable of making recievers look great. Players Like Palmer, Warner, Bulger, and others need a strong supporting cast.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Green and Bulger were both pretty good QBs in their own right.

Green had that window where he was doing some pretty good things without good recievers all around in KC, I admit, but he did have Holmes and Gonzales, but as far as deep threat...none so I will give you that.

Bulger was only great when he had the aforementioned Holt and Bruce in his arsenal. He has not been nearly the same without them or blocking for that matter.

[Zerohero]

You can't use circular logic here.

edit: You can't use circular logic anywhere.

[SolidSnake84]

Who could thrive without good receivers? Seriously...as a QB all you can do is throw the ball and trust your receivers to catch....if they can't do that, you are pretty much screwed. No QB is going to be successful on a team without good receivers.

[CultBrennan59]

One of the good guys is retiring today. I think he is no doubt a HOF but I don't know if he is a first ballot HOF.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

Who could thrive without good receivers? Seriously...as a QB all you can do is throw the ball and trust your receivers to catch....if they can't do that, you are pretty much screwed. No QB is going to be successful on a team without good receivers.

Originally Posted by Angry

It just supports my theory that he can not thrive without good recievers around him. Players like Brady, Manning, Brees, and Favre are capable of making recievers look great. Players Like Palmer, Warner, Bulger, and others need a strong supporting cast.

Read! The bolded gentlemen are more than capable without great wide recievers and have proven it time and time again. Try looking at the list of guys who were nobody's until these QB's got their hands on them.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Zerohero

You can't use circular logic here.

edit: You can't use circular logic anywhere.

It's not circular logic, its called a "control" according to the scientific method.

Warner + Great WR's= Good Warner

Warner + OK WR's = Bad Warner (Control)

Warner + Great WR's= Good Warner

Hypothesis

Leinart + Great WR's = Good Leinart

Leinart + OK Wr's = Bad Leinart

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Angry

Read! The bolded gentlemen are more than capable without great wide recievers and have proven it time and time again. Try looking at the list of guys who were nobody's until these QB's got their hands on them.

You also have to look at who was throwing the ball to those WR's before the QB's you listed.

[Mc2guy]

I don't like Kurt Warner as a religious prosthelytizer, but I love him as a quarterback.

He may be one of the last great throwing statues we see in this league, a guy who would stay in the pocket as long as it took for someone to get open, then release the ball in a flash, Dan Marino style. What made him so great is the guy could hit people in stride like non-other. If you look at his success, it has been with good receivers, yes, but he could place the ball where it would allow his receivers to get significant yards after the catch. Very few passes from Warner were off their mark.

If you recall, his off years in New York coincided with a serious thumb injury that kept him from gripping the ball well. It lead to his use of a glove on his throwing hand later in his career. I don't think those years should tarnish the career of a great passer. I think he is definitely HOF worthy. Will the voters put him in on the first ballot? Not sure, I guess it will depend on who he's up against (could be up against Favre, Jr. Seau, and Ed Reed if they really retire this year)