Unconfirmed News - Kurt Warner to Chicago ???

[The Shadow]

It hasn't been 100% confirmed but according to Pro Football Central, Kurt Warner has been traded to the Chicago Bears !!!

http://www.profootballcentral.com/

[Franklinnoble]

I guess that makes sense. I didn't see that one coming, though.

[SFL Cat]

Have you heard as a starter or backup? Or will it be an open competition?

[GrantDawg]

My guess, back up.

[kcchief19]

All I need to know about the veracity this report is the compensation -- no way the Rams settle for a "late round" draft pick for Warner. They finangled a first round pick for Trent Green. Good grief -- they got a second round pick for Vermeil!

The Rams do not have a history of giving in like that on trades. I don't think they'd setle for anything less than a second round pick.

[Neuqua]

Weren't they just going to cut him though? Atleast they got some sort of compensation.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

All I need to know about the veracity this report is the compensation -- no way the Rams settle for a "late round" draft pick for Warner. They finangled a first round pick for Trent Green. Good grief -- they got a second round pick for Vermeil!

The Rams do not have a history of giving in like that on trades. I don't think they'd setle for anything less than a second round pick.

Then he'll be back next year. There is no way he is currently worth a 2nd. A second day pick at best.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Sorry but the way the market is these days, I doubt they get much for him. The reality is everyone knows he will be cut, so why give up much. Especially after they signed Chandler.

[Crapshoot]

What the hell ? what's the point with Grossman then ? Or is it a go for it this year kind of thing ?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Or is it a go for it this year kind of thing ?

Go for what? A .500 record?

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Go for what? A .500 record?

*rimshot*

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Go for what? A .500 record?

its the Bears- you gotta have lower standards..

[stevew]

I dont follow the Bears, but help://www.firejerryangelo.com/ is a funny ass site.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

All I need to know about the veracity this report is the compensation -- no way the Rams settle for a "late round" draft pick for Warner. They finangled a first round pick for Trent Green. Good grief -- they got a second round pick for Vermeil!

The Rams do not have a history of giving in like that on trades. I don't think they'd setle for anything less than a second round pick.

Dude, you are really deluded about Warner. At his peak, after winning his first MVP award, talent evaluators around the league did not think that much of Warner. He would have been worth a second round pick then, so he's not worth even close to that now. That's what makes the contract they gave him - now a huge albatross around his neck - so ridiculous. In locking him up for multiple years, they were bidding against themselves, and ended up giving him twice what he would have gotten had he made the free market.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Aadik

What the hell ? what's the point with Grossman then ? Or is it a go for it this year kind of thing ?

They're likely signing him as a veteran backup / mentor to Grossman, rather than the starting QB. He'll probably slip into a "Steve DeBerg" role from here on out.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Samdari

At his peak, after winning his first MVP award, talent evaluators around the league did not think that much of Warner.

We've covered this ground before, but I am still baffled by comments like this. While I agree that the Rams should not expect to get much value from a Warner trade now, at his peak Warner was an elite NFL quarterback.

This from Gary Horton (a former NFL scout and now a War Room analyst and writer), in Nov 1999:

Breaking down the Rams' Kurt Warner
You know the Kurt Warner story--undrafted out of Northern Iowa, three years in the Arena League, one season in NFL Europe, unprotected (and untaken) in the most recent expansion draft and now, amazingly, his lofty status as the league's top-rated passer. He has completed 72.8 percent of his passes for 1,531 yards, 18 touchdowns and only three interceptions, and the Rams are 6-0.

How has Warner managed to come from nowhere to take the league by storm? Let's examine his game and dissect the football qualifies that make him special.

* Physical skills. He has solid NFL quarterback size at 6-2, 220, a strong arm and the ability to make all types of passes. The toughest throw to complete in the NFL is the deep out, and he throws it extremely well. But his most impressive pass may be the deep ball. He has the uncanny ability to go over the top of the secondary and drop the ball in to the receiver. Few NFL quarterbacks can make this throw, and Warner does it with regularity. He also has outstanding accuracy. When his receivers come out of their breaks, the ball usually is there.

* Mental skills. Warner is a true student of the game. He studies a tremendous amount of film, and once he sees something on film or live, he rarely forgets it. He knows where every receiver should be on every play.

* Poise. Warner makes decisions quickly. He usually knows what he will do well before the ball is snapped. Although many people think the Rams call a lot of audibles, the truth is Warner has such a good feel for his offense and the opposing defense that he is able to make decisions on his way to the line of scrimmage. He won't change the play at the line; he will simply recognize that a particular option is most likely to work and will go for it.

One theory on why he makes such good decisions is that his Arena League experience has prepared him well. Arena football is a very quick game, and to be a successful quarterback in that league, you must see patterns develop in a hurry and respond correctly. Warner has a great command of pattern development and knows where his receivers are at all times. He rarely holds on to the ball too long and almost always throws the ball on time. As a result, he takes few sacks or unnecessary hits, and he gives defensive backs little time to see patterns develop and close on the ball.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Don't know much, but what I do know is that in that year 1999, he brought me my 1st fantasy football super bowl... almost single-handedly...

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

We've covered this ground before, but I am still baffled by comments like this. While I agree that the Rams should not expect to get much value from a Warner trade now, at his peak Warner was an elite NFL quarterback.

Good quarterback, not elite, who got put in the right system with the right surrounding cast. A product of Marshall Faulk.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Good quarterback, not elite, who got put in the right system with the right surrounding cast. A product of Marshall Faulk.

Comments like these are always made by people who didn't watch Warner play every game. As Coug stated we have been through this many times before. It's not just the eye poppong stats that made Warner great. It was the amazing things he did on the field.

Yes his supporting cast was excellent and they certainly helped, but he was doing things in 99 that Marc Bulger will never do. Right now Bulger puts up similar numbers to Warner, but what gets lost in the stat sheets is the fact that Bruce and Holt have to make 3 or 4 amazing catches on balls thrown behind them or over their head etc. In 99 Warner was just locked in more than any QB I have ever seen. Every ball was on the mark on a dead line down the field. He just did things no other QB could do.

People like to make similar arguments about Emmitt Smith and how without that great offensive line he wouldn't have been so great. It's very easy to just look at the stats and the great players around Warner and just write it off to the supporting cast. Especially if you didn't watch him every game. I have watched every snap he took in the NFL and he was something special.

[MIJB#19]

Finally.
A Kurt Warner thread without Primelord is FOFC unworthy...

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Samdari

That's what makes the contract they gave him - now a huge albatross around his neck - so ridiculous. In locking him up for multiple years, they were bidding against themselves, and ended up giving him twice what he would have gotten had he made the free market.

Or maybe they wanted to reward him for bringing Saint Louis and the Ram's franchise their first ever world championship in football.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

This from Gary Horton (a former NFL scout and now a War Room analyst and writer), in Nov 1999:

LOL, I would not trust anyone who went from being a scout to a writer. Probably means he was a bad scout.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by primelord

Comments like these are always made by people who didn't watch Warner play every game. As Coug stated we have been through this many times before. It's not just the eye poppong stats that made Warner great. It was the amazing things he did on the field.

I am making these comments and watched him all the time. I would often see him chuck up a wounded duck that was up for grabs. Tory Holt outran or outjumped the DB to get to the ball. Announcers raved about Warner's accuracy. I listened dumbfounded. The results of the play were completely a result of the players around him, yet the media hype machine piled praise on him because he made a nice story.

Learn to think for yourselves rather than regurgitate pablum from hypemeisters.

Anyway, the whole "GMs were never that high on him" does have some basis in reality. Right after the Rams signed him to the contract, Chris Mortenson published an article saying that he talked to GMs he was tight with and they were stunned at the contract, since it was so far above his market value, that he was still viewed around the league as marginally talented, etc. Don't bother looking, ESPN does not have any articles from 2000 or earlier, and I now wish I had saved a copy, but it did exist.

[JAG]

He was actually a very good scout. He was with Dallas during the building years between 1988-1991 before Jerry Jones fired him to piss Jimmy Johnson off and save money (not his finest moment). Horton probably got tired of the long thankless hours of scouting and decided to make more money (I would assume) by founding (I believe, or else just has a prominent role with) The War Room.

The negative comments on Warner are way off. He was one of the most accurate quarterbacks the league has ever seen along with very good arm strength (certainly robbed over the past few years) and a quick release. I can't recall another player where they went from nothing to an All-Pro for a few years and then back to a nothing again in such a yo-yo fashion as he did.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by JAG

very good arm strength

See, this I absolutely do not get. The NFL scours the country trying to find guys with strong arms. When Warner left college, young QB prospects were considered non-existent. If you had a huge arm, you got drafted, no questions asked.

And yet Warner went undrafted. Its not like the NFL could not find him, people knew about him, he had tryouts, I believe he even went to a training camp. If he had a big arm, someone would have kept him around as a developmental QB. And yet, there was no interest. I do not expect those who worship him to come around completely, but can we at least dispense with this myth?

[primelord]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Learn to think for yourselves rather than regurgitate pablum from hypemeisters.

Again I have watched every snap he has taken and have formed my own opinion. It has nothing to do with what the announcers are saying. If you are trying to tell me that he was throwing lame ducks time and again in 99 then you were watching a different game. It just didn't happen.

Now after his 3 year run and his multiple hand injuries he was certainly floating up some bad passes. There is no question about that, but the argument was at his peak. And at his peak he was as good as it got in the entire league. I have watched Trent Green and Marc Bulger put up some similar numbers with same supporting cast I can understand why some people may think that was all it was. Again I will say that when you watch them closely Kurt Warner did things at his peak that Marc Bulger is completely incapable of doing and the only a few other guys in the league could.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by primelord

If you are trying to tell me that he was throwing lame ducks time and again in 99 then you were watching a different game. It just didn't happen.

I will bow out of this argument. Clearly I am incapable of remembering what I saw with my own eyes.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by Samdari

See, this I absolutely do not get. The NFL scours the country trying to find guys with strong arms. When Warner left college, young QB prospects were considered non-existent. If you had a huge arm, you got drafted, no questions asked.

And yet Warner went undrafted. Its not like the NFL could not find him, people knew about him, he had tryouts, I believe he even went to a training camp. If he had a big arm, someone would have kept him around as a developmental QB. And yet, there was no interest. I do not expect those who worship him to come around completely, but can we at least dispense with this myth?

I'll agree with you that Kurt Warner doesn't have a super strong arm and never really did. He used to throw a very good deep ball, but like Troy Aikman that was more about timing than pure arm strength.

Here is what bothers me about the arguments against Warner. If Joe Montana had been in that exact offense with those exact players the Rams had in 99 what kind of numbers do you think he would have put up? Probably 4000+ yards passing and 40+ TDs. Just like Warner did. Now is it possible that a lesser skilled QB than Montana could still put up those kind of numbers with all that skill around him and such a weak schedule? Absolutely. As a matter of fact I think Trent Green would have finished with very similar numbers had he never been hurt that year. So again I understand why some people want to just shove it off on the system.

However if you wacthed Warner play at his peak versus Green in the exact same offense there was a MASSIVE difference. Warner was always right on time, hitting guys in dead stride. Bruce and Holt had to constantly adjust to Greens throws. With Warner they just didn't have to do that. The same thing with Bulger. A great QB in the offense would put up great numbers. A good QB in that offense would probably do the same. So the only wat to distinguish between the two is to watch how they accomplished their job and watching Warner there was no question he was an elite QB.

[vtbub]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...len&id=1796358

Apparently the New York Elisha's have some interest.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by primelord

So the only wat to distinguish between the two is to watch how they accomplished their job and watching Warner there was no question he was an elite QB.

I agree with the first part of this sentence, but the second is a bit more nebulous. There is obviously no question in your mind he was elite. There is obviously question in my mind, as well as other observers of the league.

Originally Posted by primelord

Warner was always right on time.

I agree with this. His timing was impeccable. What struck me as unimpressive about Warner, even during 99, was that he needed conditions to be absolutely perfect in order to deliver the accurate, on time pass. Its just that during 99, the offensive line was so good, the receivers were so good, and the design was so far ahead of the offense, that conditions were perfect the majority of the time. But, even then, when anyone got near him, or his receivers did not get 2 yards of separation, or the timing of the first read was disrupted, he was not just "not as good" (which any QB would be) but terrible. I started thinking that if you always had enough time, and your receivers were always open any QB in the league would be successful, and that Warner had thus proven only to be "any QB". It was the fact that Warner was a good QB only under perfect conditions which led me to conclude that he was not an elite QB. I think his performance under less than perfect conditions bears that out.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I will bow out of this argument. Clearly I am incapable of remembering what I saw with my own eyes.

You're right. That is a ridiculous argument to make and I hate it when people try to tell me that I didn't see something that I know I did as well. I will say that it is on par with telling me that I am basing my opinion on what was being put out by the announcers rather than what I saw, but you are right it's not a good argument.

I will say this. I have a feeling I have seen Warner play more than you have. I don't know that for certain, but I think I probably have. And I have a feeling that his poor play in the past few years may be clouding your memory of what he was able to accomplish when he was at his peak. I am also willing to concede that being the huge Rams fan that I am that my memory of Warner may be slightly rose colored.

With all that being said I think Bulger is crap now. So I am clearly not just rooting for the home town guy. I have watched a lot of football over the years and all I can tell you is that I watched Warner do things week in and week out in his prime that I have only ever see a few other QBs do. From the time you watched him you took something else away from it. I can respect that. I still just think you are wrong.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by primelord

I will say this. I have a feeling I have seen Warner play more than you have. I don't know that for certain, but I think I probably have. And I have a feeling that his poor play in the past few years may be clouding your memory of what he was able to accomplish when he was at his peak. I am also willing to concede that being the huge Rams fan that I am that my memory of Warner may be slightly rose colored.

See above. My opinion of Warner was formed in 99, when I watched most of the Rams games (LOL, cannot remember which ones I missed) on ST due to having both Faulk and Warner on my fantasy team (thank goodness that my 2nd round pick Vinny got hurt in game one, and that Warner was the only unclaimed NFL starter). I only wish that I had been a member of FOFC then, so I could point to posts claiming that dated then. I would put you in touch with the friends who were Warner fans who I have had this argument with ad infinitum since then, but the restraining order may also apply to me giving their number out.

I was going to point out the fan colored glasses perhaps clouding your perception, but I figured you already knew.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

Don't know much, but what I do know is that in that year 1999, he brought me my 1st fantasy football super bowl... almost single-handedly...

I was gonna see if Warner was going to have another good game after his breakout performance in the first game of the year, but by that time it was much too late to pick him up...

[albionmoonlight]

Watching the Saints play the Rams when Warner was still physically at his peak, I can contribute some observation to the discussion.

Trent Green--while a very good quarterback--was no Kurt Warner. When Warner went out with injury and Green had to come in, Green was just a hair slower than Warner, and a hair less accurate, and that's all that mattered. It threw the whole "swiss watch" aspect of the offense out of kilter.

Warner had the best quick decision / split second timing of any QB that I have personally watched play, save Dan Marino. Vermeil was a level headed coach that demanded respect and knew how to get a team ready to win. Martz was a chalkboard genius who could draw up an offense that played exactly to Warner's strengths.

The three of them together complimented each other perfectly (and, of course, having a healthy Faulk was a boon, too). I don't think that it is a big suprise that that none of them has had the same success since they left each other.

For two years, I think that Warner really was that damn good. He's not anymore, and he may never be again--and he would not have been with Marty Shottenheimer as his coach--but at that time, in a system that allowed him to maximize his strengths, he was simply amazing.

[MizzouRah]

Good quarterback, not elite, who got put in the right system with the right surrounding cast. A product of Marshall Faulk.

Pure BS. Say what you will, but look at the record books where you'll find Warner's name many times. He did have a good OL, a great RB, and three good WR's... not to mention an up and coming OC who knew how to call offensive plays.. BUT this is still the NFL and Warner had uncanny accuracy and great instincts. I really think Martz is the one to blame for the Warner demise.


Todd

[PunkyQB]

For whatever it is worth (and that need not be considered to be much) ... I was living with a Rams fan during the Rams Super Bowl season and did watch (in fact, even attended one of) Warner's performances. I do believe reasonable minds can differ on just where the line should be drawn between Warner's intrinsic quality as a QB and Warner's circumstantial good fortune to have his particular strengths and weaknesses meet the perfect system ... but my impression leans heavily towards the latter. Of course, my Rams fan friend disagrees with me and makes a credible case ... and another friend who followed the team that year considers Warner more of a fraud than I do. But among us, there was plenty of scrutiny of specific throws, reads, decisions and the like from the games as he was playing them. It is not impossible nor irresponsible for people who know football to evaluate Warner as being more the beneficiary of good circumstances than a man of a historically elite and complete QB talent.

He is not the only athlete in history to have been elevated to elite status under one set of circumstances, with some thoughtful possibility that his talents would not have been sufficient to achieve that status under other circumstances (I won't name anyone, because any example I cite will prompt a debate all its own ). So, in one respect ... I'm almost inclined to say it doesn't matter very much for history's sake if he was a universally elite QB or just a very effective opportunist in circumstances that really suited the skills he did offer, and hid his weaknesses for a few seasons. But, for whatever it may be worth, I do believe that Kurt Warner's weaknesses were always substantial enough to move him out of the "elite" QB talent tier ... at least in my mind.

That said … there was no shortage of dreadful QB performances around the league that season (even on the top teams), and Warner was out there translating his circumstances into offense where other QBs were, generally, pretty poor all around the league. In that respect, Warner’s effectiveness (whatever the reason) deserves quite a bit of credit (I just don’t think his talent was ever at a historically elite level).

[Arles]

When Warner was in GB's camp as an undrafted FA in the 90s (I think it was 94), he was pretty bad.

I found a story in one of GB's paper about his stay:

http://www.packersnews.com/archives/..._2023995.shtml

"Warner didn’t do much to distinguish himself. With the team loaded at quarterback — they had Favre, Mark Brunell and Ty Detmer — Warner didn’t get many reps during practice and didn’t play in any of the preseason games. When Steve Mariucci (the quarterbacks coach at the time) told Warner to run a play during a scrimmage, Warner refused to go in."

When Warner burst on to the scene, I talked with a few friends (one is a reporter) from GB that followed him during that camp. The reporter went to every GB minicamp and watched many of the practices. I remember his line on Warner - "He had a bad arm, was slow to read plays, had bad mechanics and didn't seem to show much desire to even play. He never played a snap in preseason and you got the impression that was fine with him."

Not exactly the type of guy that gets a GM excited.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Arles

When Warner was in GB's camp as an undrafted FA in the 90s (I think it was 94), he was pretty bad.

I found a story in one of GB's paper about his stay:

http://www.packersnews.com/archives/..._2023995.shtml

"Warner didn’t do much to distinguish himself. With the team loaded at quarterback — they had Favre, Mark Brunell and Ty Detmer — Warner didn’t get many reps during practice and didn’t play in any of the preseason games. When Steve Mariucci (the quarterbacks coach at the time) told Warner to run a play during a scrimmage, Warner refused to go in."

I talked with a few friends (one is a reporter) from GB that followed him during that camp when Warner burst on to the scene. The reporter went to every GB minicamp and watched many of the practices. I remember his line on Warner - "He had a bad arm, was slow to read plays, had bad mechanics and didn't seem to show much desire to even play. He never played a snap in preseason and you got the impression that was fine with him."

Not exactly the type of guy that gets a GM excited.

That sort of fits with him telling Martz he should leave Bulger as the starter last year.

[Easy Mac]

COnfirmed News: I still don't care about Kurt Warner

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

COnfirmed News: I still don't care about Kurt Warner

Mike? Is that you?

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Dude, you are really deluded about Warner. At his peak, after winning his first MVP award, talent evaluators around the league did not think that much of Warner. He would have been worth a second round pick then, so he's not worth even close to that now. That's what makes the contract they gave him - now a huge albatross around his neck - so ridiculous. In locking him up for multiple years, they were bidding against themselves, and ended up giving him twice what he would have gotten had he made the free market.

I'm not the dude who is deluded about Warner -- I'm saying the Rams are. No way they trade him now and take the huge cap hit for a measely "late round" pick. That's not the way they do things. They are much more likely to wait til June 1 and cut him so they can split the cap hit, but I think they would trade him for a first or a second round pick. I'm not saying that's how I would do it -- I'm saying that's how the Rams do it.

That being said, I wouldn't trade Warner for a second-day pick either. If that's all that was being offered, I'd hold on to him. He's a two-time league MVP -- you don't trade those for a 6th-round draft pick straight up. Does Warner still have life in him? I don't know. But I'm not going to trade a with Warner's history and prestige for a late round draft pick.

[The Shadow]

Kurt Warner trade to Chicago is still unconfirmed, so I would now consider this to be a rumor.

Interesting discussion on how good Kurt Warner is - since I'm a huge Rams fan, I have to give my 2 cents.

I've watched almost every Rams game that Kurt Warner has played and if I was a scout I would have the following analysis from 1999-2001 :

Release - quick release, not as quick as Marino, but definitely top 10% ever.
Accuracy - excellent accuracy, perhaps best ever, especially on short (0-10 yds) to medium (10-25 yds) passes. Hits receivers in stride, hits amazingly small targets.
Decision making - makes good decision most of the time, but when the team is behind, tends to force some balls. Also doesn't throw ball away when he should, especially when the team is losing.
Field Vision - excellent, makes good progressions and hits the right receiver.
Timing - excellent timing, perhaps best ever. Hits receivers in stride at the right time to maximize YAC.
Avoiding Rush - can make small moves in the pocket to make people miss and buy some more time.
Scrambling - bottom 20% of league. Definitely not his strength.
Throwing on the run - bottom 50% of league.
Arm strength - strong enough to make all the throws without having to use his body. Top 20% of league.
Tightness of spiral - doesn't throw a tight spiral all of the time, sometimes limiting effectiveness of his long passes.

Now after having dissected Kurt Warner's abilities, if I was to summarize Kurt Warner, I would have to say he was one of the best QB's ever in 1999-2001. After 2001, concussions and hand injuries have limited his abilities, but for those 3 years, his performance was unmatched in the history of the NFL.

Some people say that the reason for Warner's success is the rest of the team. Sure, he would not have been able to post such amazing stats if he didn't have Faulk, Bruce, Holt, Pace and company. However, think about how many other QB's in the history of the NFL had similar opportunities - Marino, Aikman, Kelly, Moon, Montana, Young, the list goes on and on. Any yet, Warner performed better than all of those QB's in that 3 year span.

So I would have to say that based on a 3 year performance only, Warner was the best QB ever.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by The Shadow

However, think about how many other QB's in the history of the NFL had similar opportunities - Marino, Aikman, Kelly, Moon, Montana, Young, the list goes on and on.

OMG, you are kidding, right? Comparing the cast around Marino and Warner is laughable. Holt, Bruce and Faulk were incredible, and would have succeeded on any team. Marino had an average offensive line, and took average talent wideouts* in Duper and Clayton and made them seem like stars. There was also never any running game to be considered in Miami, while in St. Louis, they had some guy named Faulk who was pretty good.


*average by NFL standards

[The Shadow]

OK, Samdari, you might have a point there, but my point was that there were other QB's with strong teams. But they were not able to match Warner's 3 year run. Agree?

[Franklinnoble]

Thursday, May 6, 2004

Adblock

By Len Pasquarelli
ESPN.com

In a situation fraught with potential irony, the team that exposed Kurt Warner last season as a quarterback in decline could be the team that helps resurrect his career.

	Warner

The Giants remain in the market for a veteran QB and part-time tutor for Eli Manning, and Warner -- the former St. Louis Rams starter and two-time NFL MVP -- could be an intriguing option.

During an appearance on The Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio on Thursday, Giants general manager Ernie Accorsi confirmed that the Giants are interested in Warner and that the team has received permission from the Rams to contact him.

In fact, Warner may now head a list of candidates that grew all the shorter when Neil O'Donnell opted to remain retired rather than come aboard as the human safety net for Manning.

If the Giants do sign Warner, he would return to the scene of a game that not only marked his most recent regular-season start, but one that sent his career spiraling. In last season's opener at Giants Stadium, Warner was sacked six times and played miserably in an ugly 23-13 St. Louis loss. Afterward, Marc Bulger was promoted to the No. 1 job by coach Mike Martz, and Warner appeared in only one game the rest of the season.

The Rams last month gave Warner, 32, and his agent, Mark Bartelstein, permission to talk to other teams about a job in 2004, the inference being that the veteran will be released after June 1, when the impact against St. Louis' salary cap can be somewhat ameliorated. The likelihood of Warner's release increased Tuesday when the Rams signed Bulger to a three-year contract extension worth $17.25 million.

It is believed that the Chicago Bears, who will enter the season with second-year pro Rex Grossman as their starting quarterback, might also be interesting in Warner.

Warner's best scenario might be to sign a one-year contract with another team, and go into the free agent market at the outset of the signing period next spring when there might be the potential to gain a starting job. At present, there are no openings for a starter, as former Giants starter Kerry Collins is discovering.

"That's the reality right now," Bartelstein said. "So you've got to look around and find the best situation."

That could be in New York. Accorsi and Giants coach Tom Coughlin figure to immediately give Manning the starter's job, but still want a veteran presence to help guide the first overall choice in the 2004 draft and perhaps get a few starts if the former Ole Miss star falters. Certainly it would represent an attractive opportunity for Warner to begin rehabilitating his career.

New York probably won't pay much for a veteran backup, with $1 million the likely high end for a one-year contract, but it beats being unemployed.

Accorsi termed the journeyman O'Donnell "ideal" for the job, in part because he possesses the kind of mentality it takes to help foster a younger player. But Warner has demonstrated a team-first type of mindset, dealt well with Bulger and supported him even as he was snatching away his job. Warner even recommended to Martz during a slump last season that he stick with the younger player.

Now that O'Donnell has rejected their overtures, the Giants appear in no hurry to fill the spot behind Manning; Accorsi has hinted he will remain patient and see what other veteran QBs become available. The Giants signed free agent Kevin Thompson, who has played sparingly in three seasons, to help get them through the three-day minicamp that begins Friday morning.

Len Pasquarelli is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by The Shadow

OK, Samdari, you might have a point there, but my point was that there were other QB's with strong teams. But they were not able to match Warner's 3 year run. Agree?

Since I attribute stats to team play, I would say no passing attack was the equal in a three year period than the Rams. To say that Kurt Warner was a better QB during that period than anyone has played QB in history depends on how much of that success you attribute to him. I have long maintained that any average ability QB would have produced those numbers in that attack (in fact, I think one did).

[WSUCougar]

Would you therefore agree that any average ability quarterback could have produced the way Joe Montana did, since that 49'ers team is generally considered one of the most potent in NFL history? Or Bradshaw with Harris/Swann/Stallworth?

[WSUCougar]

If the Giants do sign Warner, he would return to the scene of a game that not only marked his most recent regular-season start, but one that sent his career spiraling. In last season's opener at Giants Stadium, Warner was sacked six times and played miserably in an ugly 23-13 St. Louis loss. Afterward, Marc Bulger was promoted to the No. 1 job by coach Mike Martz, and Warner appeared in only one game the rest of the season.

This is something which is often misrepresented or overblown. He was under assault due to a terrible offensive line performance, and got seriously knocked around. Yes, he looked dazed at times due to the concussion, and yes, he fumbled far too often. He was definitely off his game.

His stats for the game? 34/54, 342 yards, 1 INT, 1 TD

[The Shadow]

Samdari, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on Kurt Warner.

But what you said here brought up an interesting point.

Originally Posted by Samdari

Since I attribute stats to team play

So then how would you ever be able to distinguish between a good QB and a bad QB? What criteria would you (Samdari) use to distinguish between say, Marino or Montana or Elway, and Cliff Stoudt or Dieter Brock?

Also, on this quote,

Originally Posted by Samdari

I have long maintained that any average ability QB would have produced those numbers in that attack (in fact, I think one did).

Do you consider Trent Green to be an average ability QB? Because he played with the same "attack" in 2000, when Warner was injured. His stats were good, but not anywhere near Warner's.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by The Shadow

So then how would you ever be able to distinguish between a good QB and a bad QB? What criteria would you (Samdari) use to distinguish between say, Marino or Montana or Elway, and Cliff Stoudt or Dieter Brock?

Well, certainly not by stats. A completed pass requires 11 guys, not 1. When Kurt Warner throws a 2 yard pass to Faulk, and then Faulk runs through/over/around 17 guys (note: this includes making some miss twice) I am not particularly impressed by what Warner did. But, statistically, it is very impressive. This is not to say that all of Warner's TD passes, but that not all TD passes are identical, indeed not all 15 yd completions are, and statistics treats them like they are. I would distinguish by watching them, and seeing what they could do, and compare it to abilities that other QBs display. This does make the conversation subjective, but I far prefer that to being married to stats.

Originally Posted by The Shadow

Do you consider Trent Green to be an average ability QB? Because he played with the same "attack" in 2000, when Warner was injured. His stats were good, but not anywhere near Warner's.

Perhaps you missed the first 75 iterations of this conversation that have occurred on this board in the last couple years, but we have covered this point, and the Green's stats from 2000 are indeed eerily similar to Warner's from that year. In any case, it would be difficult to compare the 5 games Green started with the 43 Warner started.