Holt, Bruce, and Fitzgerald were all great receivers without Warner. Quick isn't going to suddenly "get it" just because the ball is placed in a slightly more catchable position.
he might not get it but it sure would help in a more catchable position[/QUOTE]
Warner could throw the best pass ever thrown, it still won't help our receivers get off press coverage, or make pre-snap reads, or run sharp routes, or work back to the ball when the QBs under pressure, etc and etc.
Is Bradford really the problem with them? If you took say, Bradford, Warner, Bulger and concussion Chris Miller out to a field, would Warner really hit a target more than the others? I doubt it, otherwise he'd have been played more before '99 or drafted. What made Warner so great on the field was impeccable timing and the ability to read where the ball had to go. He was accurate of course, but he also could throw to a spot without ever seeing the receiver based on trust. And he could do that because Bruce and Co, or Fitzgerald and Co, were where they were supposed to be when they were supposed to be there. Can we honestly say the same thing about these wideouts?
I think I'm gonna change my answer. Faulk was the best player on the Rams team then, but we need Bruce or Holt now. We have a run game I think already.
This post probably needed an editor.