FalcFans Forums

Koetter wants balance in Atlanta offense

By Pat Yasinskas
New offensive coordinator Dirk Koetter hasn’t started the job just yet, but he’s pledging to put a balance offense on the field next season.

“Balance is difficult to defend,’’ Koetter said in a conference call with the Atlanta media Wednesday morning. “When you have the weapons that Atlanta has in the run game and the pass game, you’d be foolish not to take advantage of everything that has to offer. There are various ways to get guys the ball. You have to get your play makers the ball in a place to make plays.’’

Getting big plays was an issue for the Falcons in a 2011 season that was marked by inconsistency on offense and a playoff loss to the New York Giants in a game in which the Atlanta offense did not score a point.

Koetter, who spent the last five years as offensive coordinator in Jacksonville, replaces Mike Mularkey, who became the head coach of the Jaguars. Owner Arthur Blank, coach Mike Smith and general manager Thomas Dimitroff each have said simply making the playoffs isn’t good enough. The Falcons have made the playoffs in three of Smith’s four seasons, but have yet to win a postseason game. Clearly, part of Koetter’s job will be to help the Falcons take the next step.

“There’s pressure everywhere and nobody puts more pressure on me than I put on myself,’’ Koetter said. “All I can say is I’ll be extremely dedicated to the task at hand and I understand the task at hand.’’

After a 2011 season in which Jacksonville wound up playing rookie quarterback Blaine Gabbert and a very ordinary group of wide receivers, Koetter is stepping into a situation in which he inherits quarterback Matt Ryan, receivers Roddy White and Julio Jones, tight end Tony Gonzalez and running back Michael Turner.

“Everybody can read the stats and know they have excellent skill players,’’ Koetter said. “How everything fits together, that will be stuff that we’ll be working on once we get up there.’’

Koetter said he expects to arrive in Atlanta and begin working later this week. He already met with Ryan while he was interviewing for the position.

“You can tell Matt’s a guy that really understands offensive football and that he’s got a great passion for not only playing, but for winning,’’ Koetter said. “I couldn’t be more excited to work with Matt as well as some of the other players they have in that offensive group.’’

Koetter said his offense in Atlanta will be a combination of the existing offense and some things he’s done in the past.

“I don’t know if anybody owns any offense out there,’’ Koetter said. “There’s a lot of good offense out there. I think it will be a combination of some of the things that I’ve done in the past and things that Atlanta has done well in the past. I think we’d be foolish to not build on some of the things Atlanta is already doing very well.’’

Koetter said he and Ryan discussed the no-huddle offense, something the Falcons have had success with in recent years. Koetter said Ryan made it clear he likes the no-huddle system and that’s something the Falcons will continue to use at times. But Koetter said he’s not ready to declare a percentage on how often the Falcons will go without a huddle.

Koetter said both the running game and vertical passing will be big parts of his offense. But he also said something that should come as welcome news to Atlanta fans, who often griped that Mularkey almost never used screen passes.

“I’m a big believer in the screen game,’’ Koetter said. “Coach Smith has mentioned to me that he would like us to be a better screen team and that’s definitely a part of what we’ll try to do there.’’

I'm willing to give the guy an chance, but I am just not excited about the hire. 3 yards and a cloud of dust, 6 yard hitch routes.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Well this is the 2nd time I've read (above and offsite) that Smith had put heavy emphasis on more screen game. Thats smart as it plays more to what made Ryan, Ryan in college, and makes for easier throws. Fade out Turner, fade in Quiz.

I heard at some point this year Ryan only had 24 plays to run in the no huddle that he could call himself. Anybody have perspective if this is a lot or little? Only reason I ask is during Stanford's bowl game they said Luck had the entire playbook in his head, and was free to call any play he chose. Just thought it was interesting for comparison's sake.

At first I hated the hire, being that it seemed we were destined to be the Atlanta Jaguars. Now after reading more....I"m more open to it being a good hire. His knowledge of the pass game seems to be more than what ever Mularky actually showed. Only problem is a qb like Garrard never really got better, but I don't suppose they ever had a legit #1 nfl wr since Jimmy Smith left town.

Well the book on Garrard was that his work ethic wasn't very good. The Jags moved on because he never really was the type of guy that was the first guy to show up to the building and the last guy to leave, and they were hoping that with Gabbert being plugged in, they would see a bit more "urgency" with him that would get more out of him in the short-term, and then allow them to give Gabbert the time he needed to develop. It didn't work out that way obviously.

Pudge, what do you think about this? Matty will be having to put his "learn something new" cap this offseason for the first time since being drafted.

Remember, the No Huddle was a Mularkey innovation. It sounds like Koetter will keep it around just because Ryan likes it, but I wouldn't expect to see it as much as when Mularkey was here.

Yeah, Mularkey was the guy that was the pseudo-disciple of Sam Wyche, who was one of the innovators of no-huddle. I don't think the Falcons will scrap it, but I would not expect an expansion of the scheme.

One positive is that the Jaguars under Koetter did throw a lot of out 3-Wide looks, so the notion that we'll spread the field a bit more when we pass the ball is looking up. But like Mularkey, Koetter does use a lot of FB and 2-TE looks as well, so it's not like we're going to be looking like the Patriots all of a sudden.

As for Luck, I'm not sure he had the entire playbook in his head. From what I understand, he had 50% of the playbook on a wristband on his arm (the center had the other 50%), and he had the freedom to check out of any play into any play, but I'm not sure he had that all in his head. Interestingly enough, Stanford HC David Shaw was the QB & WRs coach in Baltimore during Smitty's last season there in 2002.

Koetter wants balance in Atlanta offense.
********************************

Isn't that just code for he wants to run it till we get behind?

Based on what I've been reading, Koetter isn't Mularkey 2.0, even though it may seem like he is on the surface because of the cards that he has been dealt. This will be the first time in his career that he has actually had talent to work with. We will see if his previous, "lack of talent," was on him, or if it was actually a lack of talent.

Yes. And it's not fair to attribute that to Koetter. That's all Mike Smith.

Agree

Hey I didn't attribute it to anybody!! (even though the guy who says it owns it IMO)

I will say this, if you want to be a wide open coach; then then you should go where you can be wide open.....

Our last 4 seasons have been relative successful, AND I want Coach Smith to become a better coach as he gains
head coaching experience.....

As I was watching Eli and the beating he was taking, I was thinking of Ryan running; then throwing out of bounds.

A good screen pass is not only good; but the defense needs extra practice for it to be successful covering it....
The Offense must work their butts off, to execute without linemen being called for being down field......

I hope the screen is not our secret weapon (:

Cyril, I know you didn't attribute that to Koetter. Just saying in a more broad sense people tend to think that the OCs and DCs operate independently of the head coach, which is not the case.

Scheme, philosophy, identity, those things come directly from the head coach, and indirectly from the offensive coordinator. The offensive coordinator controls how that scheme/philosophy/identity are implemented such as play-calling, using 2 TEs instead of 3 WRs, etc.

If/when there is dysfunction between head coach and OC, it's very hard to hide (see Chicago), and the OC usually doesn't keep his job for so long, unless you have an owner that will side with the OC over the HC (see Dallas last year). And there are some fans out there that believe that Mularkey isn't currently coaching in Atlanta because some dysfunction might have developed this year, and that's crazy talk. Strain like that doesn't develop suddenly, especially in as functional an organization like ours is, and if there was any rift between Mike Smith and Mike Mularkey, we would have seen much stronger hints of it over the past 3 years, which we did not.

And I'm not accusing anybody specifically on this board, but basing much of this on unfiltered comments I constantly see on Twitter over the years, is that a lot of people have this false belief/hope that now that Koetter is here, all of the problems/issues/complaints that were formerly with the offense are going to go away, because they believed all of those things were the result of Mike Mularkey. That's not me saying I think Koetter is just a Mularkey clone, because I believe he can better implement some things that can improve in many of those areas. But I think a lot of the criticisms and complaints I see, a lot of people don't quite grasp that a signficant part of that falls on the shoulders of Mike Smith, not specifically his coordinators.

And I don't mean to turn this into a "anti-Mike Smith" post. Because despite my constant criticism of Mike Smith, I do think he's a good coach. And because I think so highly of him, I tend to be a bit harder on him than I am of others. I just think he might not be a great coach, and that coupled with this team's mediocre personnel decisions as of late, and conservative philosophy is not a great marriage. And while I guess I have to learn to lve with the not being a great coach, I do think he along with TD certainly should be able to change the latter two issues.

When we hired Smitty, I was very less than enthusiastic about the move. Probably not quite at a level where fun gus is with the Koetter hiring, but not that far to be honest. And it really took me the better part of 18 months before I really bought in and got on that bandwagon. It was probably not until we picked up Tony Gonzalez that I really thought things were headed in the right direction.

And one of the reasons why I was reluctant to buy in, is because I don't like conservative coaching. And while people like Bill Cowher and Tony Dungy are now considered coaching gods, I honeslty believe they were underachievers. I think in Carolina under John Fox the same thing happen. I think this is exactly what happened with Dan Reeves here in Atlanta. I think the hallmark of conservative coaches is that they don't deal well with adversity. Things have to go exactly right for them to win at the highest level. They just tend to be too conservative for their own good. And Cowher caught his break because he was given 15 years of stability to do it, and Dungy inherited arguably one of the 5 best QBs to ever play the game, and had the right mind to not mess that up. And it's not to say they aren't good coaches, but I just don't want to be in a position where I have to wait another 10 years before this team wins a Super Bowl, or basically have to wait 5 more years until this team decides to move on from Matt Ryan.

And I think everything you'll need to know about whether Mike Smith is too conservative or not will be summarized in his decision on Michael Turner. The guy that is too conservative for his own good will keep an obviously over the hill Turner. And the guy that is a bit more for lack of a better word aggressive, will be willing to move on from Turner.

I agree with most; and I do understand if the O-Coordinator or D-Coordinator is not on the same page with the Head Coach they should never be hired; and a bad hire is on the Head Coach..... A bad offense is on the Head Coach and a Bad Defense is on the Head Coach IMO.

I do think it kinda should be on a case by case basis..... I don't know that any other coach could go to two Super Bowls with the Panthers
besides John Fox... (didn't he do it twice ) and I thought he handled Denver as well as a coach can this year......

I also believed that Dan Reeves took teams like the Falcons to the Super Bowl who didn't have the best team.....but he stayed in the league too long without a break.....I know he had the young John Elway; but Elway seemed to respect Reeves as he invited him to the HOF induction.....but that's off the subject......

Yes, I was not as thrilled with Mike Smith this year. My whole thinking of him as a possible great coach was how he seemed to keep
a team together through adversity thus the lack of losing streaks......I've always thought this more important than the "game day adjustments" that coaches seem to take credit for when things work out.....


However this year with all the penalties, and poor playing stretches by about everybody, Ryan, Roddy, the O-line, and the whole team is all on Smith, and I of course liked him when I thought the team was playing up to its potential, I didn't think that this year....

I don't know if I would come to a complete decision on Smith whether he keeps Turner or not, did the Cowboys do better with the Offensive Coach this year??

I just think its harder than you do I think..... I mean if the Patroits win the Super Bowl Bill B. will start to be up with Lombardi.... These other coaches are considered "Gods" because it is so hard to get to a Super Bowl and then win it.....But the Giant Coach will NEVER
be considered great; and I don't know why if he wins another Super Bowl.....except he's conservative compared!!

So bottom line for me is I wouldn't care if Coach Smith was fired tomorrow if we had a much better team, that seemed to outplay the other teams.....But PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, don't fire a playoff coach then have us go 3-13..... The Mike Smith hire and Dan Reeves hire are the only two coaching changes this organization has made that didn't blow up in about two years!! (Perhaps Leeman
Bennett) who makes Coach Smith look like a wild man (:

That's just been my experience..... Perhaps it usually takes a long time like it did for Cowher, and Dungey?? Frisco's Coach made such an improvement, but often those great first years are followed by not making the playoffs..... I want what you want; but just think "when in office coaching these supposedly men" that their people; and some years they just don't have it ...... I don't know...... I'm afraid your
expectations seem in line, but the execution is just not usually carried out that quickly by any Head Coaches.....


I mean almost none of them get the job done as quickly as you'd like; except back when you could buy a team......Joe Gibbs, Bill Walsh,
Jimmy Johnson; just can't count for me because their owners bought teams...... Can you think of three Coaches that have done what you wish in the era of the salary cap??

Pudge, so you believe every conservative coach who has won the Super Bowl is an underachiever? Have you noticed how many of these "underachievers" there are out there?

Conservative coaches are often unpopular for the simple reason that every fan would rather watch a risk taking offense. But the goal is to win, and conservative football still does that quite well, especially for teams with great QBs.

No, I don't think every conservative coach that has won a Super Bowl is an underachiever. I think those specific guys I named were underachievers.

Winning a Super Bowl is a very hard task, and I'm not trying to suggest that it's easy to do. And in order to get your team to one, and/or win it shows that you are a pretty good coach. And I think people have the tendency to see this coach (or player) has been to or won a Super Bowl, and it causes them to over look like 5 years where they were just kind of puttered along. I think Kurt Warner's career is an excellent example of this, in that he had 3 really good to great seasons, but 7 ones where he was mostly bad or mediocre, and because of those 3 great seasons he had, it causes people to overlook the fact that for 70% of his career, Kurt Warner was a largely mediocre QB. And it's the reason why I don't think Warner belongs in the HOF because he will be the first and only QB that for the majority of his career was an irrelevant player. But I've ranted several times about Warner on these forums, so I won't here.

But John Fox is a very good example as far as coaches go. And for the record Cyril, he only went to the Super Bowl once in 2003. They made it to the NFC Championship game again in '05, where they got smacked around by the Seahawks.

And in the 5 seasons after that, the Panthers only made the playoffs once, in '08 where they were 12-4 and division winners and it was the infamous Jake Delhomme game where he had 6 turnovers against the Cardinals.

Again, I'll reiterate that I think John Fox is a good coach. HIs overall success in Carolina plus what he did this past year with Tebow in Denver are all good indicators that the dude can coach. But I just think his 1 Super Bowl appearance has a tendency to absolve all the underachieving he's done over the years.

In Carolina, they were a team that when they could run the ball really well, and Steve Smith was healthy and making big plays, and they had a formidable front 4 with their defense, they were a very good team, as evidence in 2003, '05, and '08. But what about the other 6 years he was there? Three 7-9 seasons, Two 8-8 seasons, and the one 2-14 season.

They had a very basic formula for success, which I mentioned before. But if Steve Smith got hurt, or the running game was mediocre (such as the DeShaun Foster years), or their defense was middling, they struggled to move the ball and they really struggled to win a lot of football games.

Now it's a testament to Fox that except for 2010, they never had a bad defense under him. And frankly, I think last year, their defense was actually pretty good just looked so bad statistically because their offense was absolutely terrible.

Those 5 seasons out of the 9 where they were finishing 7-9 and 8-8, IMHO they were underachieving. And I think those disappointing years was because he had a very basic formula, that he was unable to deviate from and adapt to the changing of the NFL. And that's what I mean from being "too conservative for his own good."

I think Reeves went through the exact same thing here in Atlanta.

And I think it's a hallmark of these conservative coaches that they come in and bring in discipline, toughness, a bit of swagger, etc. and you often see very quick turnovers with these teams in Years 1 or 2. But then once Year 4, 5, 6, and beyond start to come into play, they start to level out and now you're seeing a team that plays more like an 8-8 team than that 12-4 team they looked like they were at the outset.

And I'm afraid this is happening in Atlanta. It doesn't mean we're doomed to being 4-12 this year or next year or whenever. But now I might have to start expecting to see more 8-8 and 9-7 seasons, where we're one of many teams competing for a wildcard spot, as opposed to the 11-5 or 12-4 seasons where we're a team in the driver's seat and considered one of 2-3 top contenders for the conference title.

And that's why I base it on Michael Turner's future here in Atlanta. If Mike Smith has a very basic, "one-note" formula to success which is having a workhorse RB carry the rock 30 times a game, then he'll keep Turner, and I'm not going to have high hopes for the future of this team. If he is able to adapt and mix up things and be able to improvise would be to get rid of Turner.

The funny thing about this is with John Fox and how he handled the Tim Tebow situation IMO was something he NEVER showed with the Panthers, showing that flexibility I think you need to eb able to navigate NFL seasons. Coughlin was the same way in Jacksonville as the very conservative, rigid guy, that has seemingly lightened up in New York, and it's netted them positive results.

I'm hoping Mike Smith doesn't have to get fired here in Atlanta before he figures it out too.

I think the perfect way to describe good conservative coaches is that on a weekly basis you get very good consistency. With exception of maybe 1 or 2 games, you're not going to really see them lay down or not show up. But in order to be successful in January, you have to sort of take that to a brand new level. And I think what they struggle to do is so much of it is playing consistent, that they lack that flexibility to take it to another level. And you have this sort of rigid structure of doing what you do, and then you get to the playoffs and you're facing a team that has already figured you out, and unlike most of the teams you see in the regular season, have the talent to match. And so what ends up happening is that you can't simply out-execute them because the talent is an even match, and you're not going to out-scheme them, because you don't have any wrinkles or particularly dynamic options to throw at them.

And so when it comes down to winning 2 or 3 games to win a Super Bowl, it becomes very hard to do. And it often simply comes down to you having better football players than the other team in order to make it work, and that's why you need a good to great GM. And I think that's why it's worked in Pittsburgh and Baltimore more so than any other place, because their personnel departments have been so rock-solid.

Pudge that's really good stuff!! I suppose like with Eli this year you just have to have your good Qb play big in the biggest games, and
that's mostly not making mistakes, and taking advantage of what your given.....It just seems in this era of a salary cap, the hottest Qb has
the best chance; unless others bungle it away!!

It seems that in year 4,5,or 6 or whenever; it might be the Qb who levels out; like Chandler (because of age), or a youger Qb who doesn't live up to expectations, or just an unstable guy who gets into drugs or personal issues we never really figure out!!

The best teams seem to have consistent Qbs who play good-to great year in and year out.....Brady, Breeze, Payton Manning, Big Ben,
and their ability seems to let them be coached in a more wide open way..... Yet for all their years; winning one Super Bowl is a huge thing, and winning two puts them in a very elite class....

In football I think one is measured during their greatness; not during their struggles; or to say " their
body of work is not judged; but their body of greatness is; whether this be right or wrong!!

I also feel the same way about Kurt Warner as you do,
but I looked him up for fun, and they do forget the bad, and fighting that is a losing battle in today's football press.



I'm not debating this, just showing the Press can make anyone sound good in football; as I was reading this I thought I wish he'd been here for 12 years and done all this.......We struggled anyway with the Qbs we've had and had the lousy years too; without the Super Bowl win, or no NFL MVP?

I once again say anyone can pick any franchise in the salary cap era; and have a good chance to NEVER enjoy a Super Bowl win in their
lifetime. Its just 40 years harder than the average fan thinks!!

I certainly get where you guys are coming from on Warner, and I respect it. That said, I think that he will get in for the following reasons:
1. He has the jewelry... 2 NFC, 1 AFC, and 1 Superbowl ring.
2. The greatest show on turf... It has been over 10 years since that offense took the field, and we still refer to it. Larger than life, that's what the hall is all about.
3. Warner had 3 outstanding years, and 3 really good years. The outstanding years are hall of fame worthy. Very few of the guys in the hall had years like those three.
4. 65.5 career completion percentage. Only twice in his career did he complete less than 60%. The first time was his rookie year, when he threw 11 passes. 2nd time was his last year in St Louis, when he threw 65 passes.

I disagree.

He had two very good years (both SB years) surrounded by some good ones. In both years, he was in pass-first offenses with guys who are (Faulk) or will be (Fitzgerald) in the Hall.

Even the two years that you refer to as "outstanding" aren't anything like the stats we're seeing put up now, and those will be taken into consideration (right or wrong) as folks consider his candidacy.

60% is hardly a benchmark for the HoF.

Crappy dome teams that lose 24-2 in fantastic weather outdoors might refer to "The greatest show on turf," but that's about it.

He simply doesn't have the gravitas that a pure "winner" like Montana or Bradshaw had and he certainly doesn't have the hardware to compete. What is the "AFC" you refer to? Arena?

All of this HoF hoopla, IMO, has a lot more to do with how awful AZ's next QB was, and little to do with Warner. This is called "foiling," and Shakespeare used it like he was making sandwiches for the entire school year. Is Mark Bulger HoF-worthy? When the Rams team was still largely intact, he posted similar #s.

For the record, I'm fairly confident that Warner will at some point get into the Hall of Fame. It's going to be hard for the cmmittee to keep out a guy that won 2 MVPs. But I do think along with Jim Kelly and Warren Moon, if/when Warner gets in, he'll have the weakest resume of at least the modern QBs. I think Warner is in that Esiason/Ken Anderson/Donovan McNabb range of QBs that were good, but not great and right on the cusp.


I agree. But I do think people have this tendency to think that these QBs playing well just sort of spring out of nowhere. And in the case of Eli in 2007, you could probably say that his solid to good play in January sort of appeared from nothing. But that was not the case this year.

Evidenced by the uptick in production we've seen from Eli in the past 3-4 years vs. the first 4 years of his career: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... nnEl00.htm

But I think those teams that get their QBs hot down the stretch and playing well in January, it's not something that magically comes from the aether. It's those teams putting the pieces around those QBs so that they have the best chance to succeed. It's a platform for success as Trent Dilfer likes to refer to it.

I think you see evidence of this is that when teams try to take out Victor Cruz, it means Hakeem Nicks and/or Mario Manningham step up and make plays. And the same works vice versa. It's rare to see that in Atlanta, where if one of our guys is contained, the other guys step up and make the plays necessary. And I don't think that falls on Matt Ryan's shoulders, I think that is a very strong indicator of the very basic/vanilla-ness of the offense, that it has good pieces on their own, but the coaching staff didn't really quite know how to put them together that they all complemented each other.

And that's something I see when I watch those teams with those better QBs like the Giants, Patriots, Packers, or Saints. And it's definitely to varying levels, but it's something I rarely see when I watch the Falcons.

And that's my beef with Mike Smith and Mike Mularkey, is that I don't think they've put a system/platform for success around Ryan that will really allow him to blossom and have the potential to take his game to the next level like we've seen Eli do on occasion.

And my hope is that with Koetter now in the mix, and their plans to install a more vertical offense (which did not work last year because of Ryan's inability to throw the deep ball), they aren't going to hold back. And I want to see them commit to that system. I don't want to see them settle for a Harry Douglas/Kerry Meier as the backup WRs that don't fit that scheme. Go out and try to get Mario Manningham/RObert meachem, or try the the next versions of them in the draft. They do fit that scheme.

Stop playing scared with Matt Ryan. Teach him how to throw the deep ball, and INTs be damned. If Ryan has a season where he throws 30 TDs and 20 INTs, then that's perfectly fine. Because it's not the 20 INTs that matter, it's the 30 TDs. There's so much focus on limiting your mistakes, that I think too often this team plays not to lose as opposed to playing to win. And I think that's been their problem more often than not in the bigger games against the better teams, with a few exceptions.

This team jumped from #32 in terms of big plays passing last year (20+ Yard Completions per attempt) to #18 this year. Now I want to see this team strive to jump 14 more spots to #4.

And I don't think this team can be that team with Michael Turner is their starting RB. I don't think the ball control ground game is really compatible with the explosive vertical passing game. Now, I say that understanding that was exactly the team we were in 1998. But first off, Jamal Anderson at that point was way better than Turner is now. And Chris Chandler was a much better vertical passer than Ryan is now. So I think you have to do it a little differently than we did in '98, because of rule changes and just the passing game has evolved a bit more than it was then. We didn't even have a No. 3 WR or a good receiving TE back then. And I don't think that offense could work as well nowadays unless you had Adrian Peterson and a QB like Cam Newton at the helm. Which we don't have, and we're probably not ever going to have for the foreseeable future.

So that's why I put so much stock in whether we keep Turner or not. Because IMHO, Turner represents this comfort zone for Smitty, that I think is limiting this offense/team. I want to see him show the gall and willingness to get out of his comfort zone. That to me is a stronger indicator of a good coach than a guy that once upon a time went to the Super Bowl.

Because if the coach is very one-note in his approach/philosophy, and can only win one way. Then ultimately the team's success isn't really dependent on his coaching ability, but more on the GM and front office's ability to find the right players to win with that approach/philosophy.

Now that's what I've been talking about and mean when I say " I don't count the ones they drop; I count the ones they catch"

Ps. I'm not debating Warner! Just saying that any Qb in the last 30 years that carried their team to a Super Bowl win; would be one
more than i've enjoyed...... I just have a strong belief that most fans think its easier to win a Super Bowl than fans think.... I'm not positive
(its too early for me to look something up) but I don't think that Brady or Bill B. have won one in 10 years; but it seems like their always
winning something which is not really the case!!

So which one good year did he have with the Rams? The one where he won the Superbowl, or the one where he broke the records? Also, the year between those two, he missed out on 5 games... That year easily could have been an outstanding year as well.


4000+ yards at 65%+ completion %, and passer ratings over 100? That's not like what we're seeing now?

This year was an anomaly. No one got close to 5000+ yards last year. There was no magical rule change that will see us having 5000+ yard seasons. The difference this year was a rushed training camp, and offenses coming out firing. Look at Cam Newton, for instance. At the beginning of the year, he was putting up 400 yard games. He didn't break 200 for the last 3 games of the season. Tom Brady had almost 1,500 yards after week 3. I highly doubt that we'll see a 5000 yard passer next year.

Also, in 2001, when Warner threw for 4800 yards, the next closest guy was Peyton Manning, with 4100. In 2000, when Warner missed 5 games, he was 11th in passing yards. He was averaging 311 yards per game. He very well could have broken Marino's record that year, if not for the injury.


Not 60%... 65%. Second best all time. Also, the highest passing yards per game average in the NFL.


Sorry, the big networks refer to it all the time when they talk about powerful offenses. Do a Google news search for "Greatest show on turf" and you'll likely find 30 articles written in the last 30 days that mention it.


His NFL playoff record is 10-2. He has the most passing yards in superbowl history, and is #1, #2, and #3 for most yards passing in a superbowl. He is among the best post-season QBs of all time.


This was a brain fart on my part. For some reason my brain decided that Arizona was an AFC team for a brief moment. He has 3 NFC rings.


No, Mark Bulger didn't post similar numbers. His numbers were considerably below Warner's. He had one year where he threw for more than 4,000 yards, and he only completed 63% of his passes that year. In his best season, Bulger averaged 15-25 yards per game less than what Warner was putting out when he was the guy. Also, Bulger's best wasn't close to Warner's best with regards to TDs and completion %.

For a time, Warner was the best in the NFL. If not for some injuries, and his coach losing his mind, (and does anyone want to argue that Martz freaking lost his mind after a while?) Warner and the Rams might have been the other dynasty of the new millennium.

Yes!

4 references on the first two pages of Google. 2 have to do with Martz's retirement.

1999. 36-22 TD-INT isn't that spectacular (to me at least; certainly good, but HoF worthy?). Granted, the yards are quite good.

9-3 in the playoffs. Very good, but, as with the earlier point, a smidge exaggerated.

He averaged 10 fumbles a year.

Outside of the 2 superlative and 2 quite good seasons (1999-2001, 2008) he's not amazing, rating-wise.

Bulger's stats are very comparable for the last few years/first few years transition point. And, if you want to argue that Martz lost his mind, how does this not apply to Bulger?

We'll see how much of an aberration the passing yards are, though your point is a good one.

I still wouldn't vote him in considering his support and the glut of QBs that will be considered from this era.

I'm with Robert all the way on this one. Let's not forget that long after he won 2 NFL MVPs, Warner took the Arizona Cardinals to the Super Bowl. That's right, the Arizona Cardinals! Warner is a HOF lock.