I'll ask again, can anyone contradict anything Bickley said in the article? From Bickley, to Urban to Somers, the opinion of Matt's performance was essentially the same. Are they all "haters"?
I think this is pretty obvious.
Bickley, like many other holier then thou reporters who have feelings of entitlement, got pissed when Leinart left before he spoke to the media. Bickely and many other reporters can't do their job when players leave and I have seen more then a few rake a guy over the coals because they didn't follow the unwritten rule of "athlete to local beat writer" ettiquite. I have seen this kind of crap time and time and time again and when a athlete doesn't hold up his end of the "bargin", writers tend to go off like he murdered a young family. Especially at the Republic (see Peircoro, Nick)
Whatever. If you can't see that in this article you have'nt read enough Bickley in the past. For the record Urban and Somers called it like it was, not bad but not gangbusters either. This article is something completely different.
Ten bucks here says had Matt stayed afterwards to talk, or especially given Bickley an exclusive, you would have not read this article as it is presently constitutued. In fact it may have even been about Daryl Washington, Skeleton, or pointing the finger where it really belongs, at the OL.
Instead he kept up his weird dieficiation of Max Hall in this story (seriously whats up with that? the kid got a full article from the Bickster yet has been nothing better then average practice so far. The Republic is trying to make him Kurt Warner and there is some agenda here, I just don't know it is yet,) and decides to blast how lucky Leinart is to be mediocre, when he really looked decent last night. Or certainly not bad enough to warrrant a negative editorial the next day.
You see Chris you see things as they appear to be. I see them as they are. Look closer.
Your Welcome
