Giants QB Change

[JamesCraven]

It's official. Tom Coughlin, the NFL's answer to Harold Ballard, has yanked Kurt Warner this week for Eli Manning against the Atlanta Falcons this Sunday (11/21). That "Mmmmmmmmm, fresh meat!" you heard was the Falcons' defense.

[See Red]

I doubt the Falcons are celebrating the fact that they get to play a rookie after seeing what Roethlisberger has done in Pittsburgh. It was really only a matter of time before Kurt Warner got benched.

[STL FANATIC]

Chances are things will only get worse for the GMen. Warner while maybe not incredibly agile is very poised under pressure. My guess is a rookie won't handle it nearly as well, and he will recieve lots of it.

Here's hoping Martz is fired, Bulger is traded/released, and Warner comes back to St. Louis after being cut by the Giants. There's still that small chance.

[See Red]

I don't think things will get worse for the Giants. They're not playing good football at all right now and it's not as though Warner made any sort of huge difference for the Giants. All Kurt Warner really did was go in there and 'not make mistakes' for the most part. Kurt Warner didn't win any games for the Giants, he just didn't lose them. I think Eli will atleast come in and put the ball in the endzone more than Warner did.

And Martz won't be fired -- despite what you think, he's been a pretty good coach.

**edit - i don't think he's been a brilliant coach, he's had some questionable decisions but that happens. He hasn't been horrible.

[Phil]

And Martz won't be fired -- despite what you think, he's been a good coach.

A "good coach" takes a team struggling to make the playoffs and makes them Super Bowl Champions, not vice versa.

Warner didn't put up huge numbers, but I don't see how Eli will.

[See Red]

In the salary cap era, a "good coach" is one that has his teams in the playoffs just about every year. Just because a team doesn't win the Super Bowl or get there doesn't mean their team is poorly coached or there's 30 or so teams that need to change coaches every year.

[STL FANATIC]

A "good coach" takes a team struggling to make the playoffs and makes them Super Bowl Champions, not vice versa.

Exactly. Martz walked into a Super Bowl Champion team. In fact, I would say he walked into a dynasty. Year by year he has dragged these team down and not won another Super Bowl with them. Martz's time should be up.

(Saying he walked into the team is not meant to discredit his achievements as the offensive coordinator. He was a huge part of the teams success in that role. As head coach he has been terrible though.)

[STL FANATIC]

By the way, good coaches don't hold grudges and not give the QB with the best passer rating in the history of ever at least a chance at the starting QB job in favor of an unproven to proven not so good QB.

It's all ready been proven with what Warner did in NY that Martz screwed up. Bulger is playing in an offense with 12 times as much talent as the Giants and they records are the same. Plus, Martz believed (or pretended to believe) that Warner had lost his ability. His ability is clearly still there. Warner in the Rams offense would be amazing. I admit it wouldn't probably be as good as the Super years, because our O-line is in pretty bad shape, and while Warner is poised in the pocket, he does need to have his time, but he would still be putting up great numbers, much better than Bulger is managing.

[Phil]

In the salary cap era, a "good coach" is one that has his teams in the playoffs just about every year. Just because a team doesn't win the Super Bowl or get there doesn't mean their team is poorly coached or there's 30 or so teams that need to change coaches every year.

I'm not saying that... it's just he's slowly deteriorated a dominant team...

37-11 in 1999-2001 with 1569 PF, 986 PA - Vermeil to Martz Transition

24-17 in 2002-2004 with 921 PF, 862 PA - Martz Era

[See Red]

WIn the Super Bowl once and you're a dynasty? I think 'the St. Louis Rams were a dynasty' is something ONLY a Rams fan could say. Consider the fact that Martz had gotten the Rams to another Super Bowl. Just because they're the Rams and they're YOUR favorite team does not make them immune to the problems the salary cap and free agency gives teams sometimes.

So you're telling me that Kurt Warner would be above the 3rd highest passer QB rating in the league right now if he was with the Rams? I'm not buying that. That said -- Kurt Warner has one of the best RB's in the league on his team, Marshall Faulk is just a shell of his former self. And between Toomer/Hilliard and Bruce/Holt, the Rams don't have THAT much of an advantage.

You're saying Kurt Warner didn't have a chance at his starting job? How about those How about those 6 games he started in 2002 where he had 3 TD's and 11 INT's? He showed a TON of poise in those games, did he not?

You're letting the fact that Kurt Warner is your favorite player blind you from the fact that Mike Martz has actually been a pretty good head coach and Marc Bulger is a better player than Kurt Warner. Sorry, but that's the truth.

[Roger Clemente]

Tom Coughlin, the NFL's answer to Harold Ballard

1. Harold Ballard was never a coach.

2. Tom Coughlin seems to have a pretty respectable coaching record considering he's only been around for 10 years, and most of those were for a brand new organization that he actually brought to the AFC Championship game in their second season.

3. Harold Ballard was actually quite a sick man, in regards to that Maple Leaf Gardens sexual abuse scandal. To actually compare someone to him would be like accusing them of pedophilia, and that is NOT COOL!

All you did was take a completely pointless cheapshot at the Giants by comparing their coach to a man that can't be compared to him in any way whatsoever. It was pointless, tasteless, made no sense and had nothing to do with anything.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[See Red]

In the salary cap era, a "good coach" is one that has his teams in the playoffs just about every year. Just because a team doesn't win the Super Bowl or get there doesn't mean their team is poorly coached or there's 30 or so teams that need to change coaches every year.

I'm not saying that... it's just he's slowly deteriorated a dominant team...

37-11 in 1999-2001 with 1569 PF, 986 PA - Vermeil to Martz Transition

24-17 in 2002-2004 with 921 PF, 862 PA - Martz Era

That 2002-2004 record might be a little better had Kurt Warner not started, and lost all but one of 7 games in that time span, no?

Coincidence that in 2002, once Marc Bulger gets the nod the Rams pulled off a 4 or 5 game winning straight to get to .500, or not?

[rockchalk]

STL, you're right about the dynasty part, but completely wrong about Warner. Warner will only be a decent quarterback in the NFL for the next 5 years or so in a system like the Giants have now. Before he hurt his thumb, he was best suited in a fast-paced timing route based offensive scheme that the Rams had, but if the play breaks down, he can't hang on to the ball with the same force he did, so when he throws on the run he can't get as much on the ball, accounting for all of the interceptions and fumbles.

[Phil]

In the salary cap era, a "good coach" is one that has his teams in the playoffs just about every year. Just because a team doesn't win the Super Bowl or get there doesn't mean their team is poorly coached or there's 30 or so teams that need to change coaches every year.

I'm not saying that... it's just he's slowly deteriorated a dominant team...

37-11 in 1999-2001 with 1569 PF, 986 PA - Vermeil to Martz Transition

24-17 in 2002-2004 with 921 PF, 862 PA - Martz Era

That 2002-2004 record might be a little better had Kurt Warner not started, and lost all but one of 7 games in that time span, no?

Coincidence that in 2002, once Marc Bulger gets the nod the Rams pulled off a 4 or 5 game winning straight to get to .500, or not?

One man a team does not make...

That 2002-2004 record might also be better if the Rams had run the ball like they did in even the year before, when they were first in average yds per carry and TDs (and in 2002 dropped to 20th and 22nd respectively)... the 2002-2004 record might also be better had Martz not required Kurt to come back before he was healthy a couple of times...

Interesting to note... the Rams opened 2002 with 5 losses to teams who ended with a combined record of 46-34. Marc Bulger salvaged the season with 5 wins against teams with combined records of 35-45. That's a significant drop in quality of opponents.

A teams record over a period of years is more a reflection of a coach than any other single factor. I'm not saying Kurt himself pulled off the 1999-2001 record.

I am saying Martz is not a good coach. Passably good on game-day in-game situations (although the fact that he abandoned an MVP running back is more than a little strange), but team management is something Martz has no clue about.

[JamesCraven]

"All you did was take a completely pointless cheapshot at the Giants by comparing their coach to a man that can't be compared to him in any way whatsoever.  It was pointless, tasteless, made no sense and had nothing to do with anything."

For the record, the Giants are in the same division as the Eagles, and I couldn't think of anyone else at the time of the post. Think personality, something Harold Ballard was, abrasive, egotistical, much like Steinbrenner, Davis, or a coach like Coughlin. BTW, everybody agrees that DALLAS SUCKS! Especially those in DC, NYC and the Illadelph.

[NJTank]

Eli is the Giants future and its only a matter of time any way Warner has not played well the last few weeks though, and maybe they hope this will provide a spark. I think it wont and teh Giants are gonna have a tough time winning another game, but hey Peyton was 3-13 his first season so you never know.

[JQK]

Chances are things will only get worse for the GMen. Warner while maybe not incredibly agile is very poised under pressure.

???

Please tell me you're joking.

Warner has ANY pressure on him, he folds. He did it in St. Louis, he's done it in NY.

[See Red]

Chances are things will only get worse for the GMen. Warner while maybe not incredibly agile is very poised under pressure.

???

Please tell me you're joking.

Warner has ANY pressure on him, he folds. He did it in St. Louis, he's done it in NY.

24 sacks and 8 fumbles in 4 games says a little something about how Kurt Warner holds onto the ball too long -- and then let's go of it in an untimely matter. Warner is awful under pressure, as JQK noted. 6 TD's in 8 games (or 9?) is not very good at all. Like I said, Warner didn't win any games for the Giants, he just didn't lose them.

And STL, if you want to compare Bulger and Warner and say who's offense is more talented, then quit refusing to believe that Kurt Warner had more offensive talent surrounding him than any QB has EVER had.

And Rockchalk, I don't see how you can agree that the Rams were a dynasty. One Super Bowl and they're a dynasty? The NFL's had a ton of dynasty's then, like the Ravens and the Buccaneers, eh?

[-kj]

Here's hoping Martz is fired, Bulger is traded/released, and Warner comes back to St. Louis after being cut by the Giants. There's still that small chance.

Ahh, I was waiting for the trip into STL's world of denial...

[rockchalk]

Okay, let me rephrase myself. I think the Rams could have been a dynasty. If Vermeil had stayed and held in the reigns of the Mad Scientist (Martz), they would have at least played Baltimore in the Super Bowl the next season, but I think they definitely would have beat the Pats in New Orleans. However, due to Martz's bad coaching (admit it STL, he is a horrible strategist) they didn't.