Franchise Player?

[55]

Re: Franchise Player?

I agree with you, but being a Bucs fan, I gotta point out that the Bucs D basically knew all the Raiders offensive calls thanks to Gruden and I'd also like to throw it out there that that was probably one of the best defenses of all-time. That defense did it all, and I believe that was the year that Derrick Brooks had like 5 defensive TDs (maybe 3, don't really remember).

Yes sir, I like to refer to the 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers defense as "The Crimson Wave Of Destruction" myself.

Some of my favorite stats from that Super Bowl were that the Bucs held the Raiders to 19 yards rushing and Brad Johnson had the same amount of rushing yards (10) that Charlie Garner had in that game.

Tampa Bay also won the Time of Possession battle by a margin of 37:14 to 22:46.

Tim Brown only had one reception in the entire game. It was a nine yard reception for a first down.

[lonewolf371]

Re: Franchise Player?

Warner did his job when the game was on the line in his two SB losses. He brought the Cards back only to watch Ben drive down the field and score with under a minute to go. The same thing happened in his game against the Pats; Warner leads dramatic fourth quarter drive and watches his defense piss the game away.

Well that really sucks for Warner, but if that's the case then the he should be expected to step it up in the rest of the game (like not throw that pick six). You can make an endless list of excuses for him, but in the end his team lost and the other team won, and he starts at the most important position on his team.

You're still not grasping the impact here.

(1) Big Ben's sack total is w/ a full 16-gm season, and equates to aout 3/gm
(2) Warner's sack total is from ONLY ten games, and equates to about 4.5/gm
(3) Big Ben is 27.
(4) In 2004 Warner was 33.

All rather important aspects and factors which make this comparison, or how impressive you believe Big Ben's toughness outweighs Warner's moot.

Any 33 yr old QB getting sacked nearly 4.5 times a game is going to break down REAL quickly. W/ a 5-4 record in '04 prior to Warner going down, 3 more wins would've netted NY a playoff berth. With losses to Cincy, Zona, Washington, and Chicago it's not off-base to assume a veteran QB under center could've lead a NY team to at least 3 more wins against those lesser opponents.

In addition, Eli is more mobile than Warner, but he was still sacked 13 times in 7 starts.

There were fundamental problems on that team, and Warner wasn't one of them.

There were fundamental problems on the Cards prior to Wisenhunt taking over, and w/ a Superbowl berth in 2008 obviously Warner wasn't a reason why that Zona team struggled in 05-06.

Boldin and Fitz are great recievers, but Warner deserves praise for some of THEIR success as well. It's not just all Fitz and Boldin making Warner look good. It's a mutual relationship.

It's not like Matt Lienart would've stepped in, and lead this Zona team to a Superbowl now is it?

-Or-

Had nearly the same success w/ the same weapons.

Three sacks or four sacks, it's still a lot of sacks. You're not actually suggesting that Ben had an offensive line last year that was good, are you?

I think that Zona might have struggled with some coaching issues, like you said, but the biggest reason for the change is the players just grew up. I don't think the Cardinals would have made the Super Bowl with Leinart at quarterback; Warner's pretty darn good. He's definitely a top 10 and if you're a stats junkie top 5 I suppose. But I also don't think that the Cardinals would have made the Super Bowl with the same players a few years younger.

I know you use the offensive line as an excuse for his fumbling issues, but he's had fumbling problems every year of his career, good offensive lines and bad. He's on the top 20 all-time fumble list, and that's only with about seven full years' worth of games. If you're wondering why his passer rating seems so jacked up all the time; that's part of it.

Lastly, you might think that Fitz and Boldin are made good by Warner, but when I've watched the Cardinals play I just feel it's the other way around. I watch Warner make a 7-10 yard pass and Fitzy catches it, takes off, splits the safeties, and sustains it for a 64-yard touchdown run. You may say it's timing, but there are still a lot of QBs in the NFL and the NCAA that can make that pass. It's the incredible pass that Ben made, through coverage to the back of the end zone that said "I'm not losing this game" after Holmes dropped the TD on the previous play that wins me over.

...Yea but w/ their vertical attack, Zona could torch any defense in the passing game. Factor in having HC Ken Wisenhunt (former Pitt O. Coord.), who know's how Pitt schemes on D, and you've got an ability to exploit that Pitt D.

Well you have to keep in mind how much film these guys watch. Rarely to these guys go into a game and have a play thrown at them that they haven't seen before. I mean, after Mangini went to the Jets, it didn't start some sort of New York dynasty now did it? There are also some examples of vertical passing attacks tanking in the Super Bowl (Patriots '07); whether that's because the Giants' defense is better is debatable, but don't take it for granted that Arizona's passing attack showed up. What they did do was a pretty major accomplishment.

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Re: Franchise Player?

Yes sir, I like to refer to the 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers defense as "The Crimson Wave Of Destruction" myself.

Some of my favorite stats from that Super Bowl were that the Bucs held the Raiders to 19 yards rushing and Brad Johnson had the same amount of rushing yards (10) that Charlie Garner had in that game.

Tampa Bay also won the Time of Possession battle by a margin of 37:14 to 22:46.

Tim Brown only had one reception in the entire game. It was a nine yard reception for a first down.

"Every play they've run, we've run in practice," Tampa Bay safety John Lynch said.

Favorite quote from that Super Bowl right there.
I also loved how Pittman quietly ran for 124 yards.