What if?? Warner vs. Brunell

[GTripp0012]

Probably would have been mostly the same, although Warner would have likely had a significant better 2004 season since Brunell was hurting that season. Warner's had a stronger career though, so it definitely wouldn't have hurt. Probably wouldn't have helped much either.

[SkinzzFan]

Instead of trading for Brunell we should have brought in Heath Shuler and Tony Banks to compete for the starting job! Just kidding, I like this thread but I really think Brunell fit our offense at the time better than Warner. Like others have said, the run heavy offense doesn't fit Warner's style. Plus Brunell was running for his life (even on rickety legs he's more mobile than Warner) that first season and Warner would have been killed! There are alot of personnel moves we can question (which is fun and all) but the bottom line is we are who we are right now. Honestly, I like where this team is at right now and with the right moves this offseason we can be even better next year.

HAIL!

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Probably would have been mostly the same, although Warner would have likely had a significant better 2004 season since Brunell was hurting that season. Warner's had a stronger career though, so it definitely wouldn't have hurt. Probably wouldn't have helped much either.

I don't get how you're assuming Warner would have had a better season in 2004?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I don't get how you're assuming Warner would have had a better season in 2004?

Wasn't hurt.

I mean, 2004Ramsey>2004Brunell and Ramsey is not a better player than either Brunell or Warner.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Wasn't hurt.

I mean, 2004Ramsey>2004Brunell and Ramsey is not a better player than either Brunell or Warner.

But we saw the 2004 Warner play 10 games for the Giants and have something like 9 TDs and 6 INTs, so is that really all that much better than what we saw out of Brunell in '04?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

But we saw the 2004 Warner play 10 games for the Giants and have something like 9 TDs and 6 INTs, so is that really all that much better than what we saw out of Brunell in '04?

If I remember correctly, Warner was on a two poor game stretch when he was benched (following a solid, and unexpected, 8 game start), which suggests to me that his numbers were likely a sample issue. Or maybe he was just in decline...but then how do we explain his Arizona numbers?

I have no idea if a healthy Warner is better than a healthy Brunell. Brunell bounced right back the next year, so it's probably not a big deal anyway. I'm not sure Kurt Warner wins more than one more game than 04 Brunell anyway, in the same, pathetic offense.

I suspect Warner is a little bit better. But ultimately, our fans would have crapped on him anyway for the same not-his-fault reasons that Brunell got it. So our results wouldn't have been too much different, save for that pesky 2004 season maybe.