Florio: 5 QBS who should be benched

[D-Dogg]

I like how your argument for Matt is the "he should" be 9-8 as a starter or he has a "70ish" rather than the flat 70 rating making it sound better than it is. The "1 to 1 INT to TD ratio" which is not even close at 14-20. I especially love the "but we SHOULD know that he doesn't suck" when in reality we dont know that. That still has yet to be decided on both sides of the fence. Has he shown promise at times? Yes. Has he just plain been terrible at times? Yes.

Time will tell. Nobody on the optimistic side or the pessimistic side is any more right than the other. But I will tell you this. WE ALL HOPE THOSE ON THE OPTIMISTIC SIDE ARE THE CORRECT ONES!

Wow Shane, so 70ish is so much worse than the flat 70? I don't even know what it EXACTLY is. I know it was above 70 in the first 12 games, and under in the other 5. So instead of doing the math to realize it is a 70 exact, I said 70ish. Which would cover 70.1-70.9. Never knew you were such a stickler for math.

I think I made a GOOD case that sans Rackers' foot, Matt would be a 9-8 starter. If you have an issue there, I did say ARGUABLY. Only by the feeble like Shane H, is what I omitted.

And I went by his TD/INT ratio for the 17 starts in 2006 and 2007, regular season only which is 13/16. Closer to 1:1 than your number, but still off a bit. If you want to be a freaking math wizard, sure..it's a bit less but STILL within the realm of the dudes I was talking about earlier and their stats which were similar. Tell me how you got 14-20. 2-4 in '07 five games, and 11/12 in '06 via nfl.com. That's 13/16 in '07. Where are you picking up the extra TD and 4 INTs?

Yes, dude. We SHOULD know he doesn't suck. If he sucked...he'd be a backup at this point, and not practically anointed starter. The one thing we DO know is that he doesn't SUCK. He may not be good or great, but he doesn't suck. What we have to find out yet is if he is average, below average, good or great. That will happen over time.

Articles like the one this thread is based on assume he sucks. That's wrong, and stupid to even pursue.

 

[D-Dogg]

Has he just plain been terrible at times? Yes.

Please outline the "plain terrible" times. When did they happen? How are you judging them to be "plain terrible?"

 

[Shane]

Wow Shane, so 70ish is so much worse than the flat 70? I don't even know what it EXACTLY is. I know it was above 70 in the first 12 games, and under in the other 5. So instead of doing the math to realize it is a 70 exact, I said 70ish. Which would cover 70.1-70.9. Never knew you were such a stickler for math.

I think I made a GOOD case that sans Rackers' foot, Matt would be a 9-8 starter. If you have an issue there, I did say ARGUABLY. Only by the feeble like Shane H, is what I omitted.

And I went by his TD/INT ratio for the 17 starts in 2006 and 2007, regular season only which is 13/16. Closer to 1:1 than your number, but still off a bit. If you want to be a freaking math wizard, sure..it's a bit less but STILL within the realm of the dudes I was talking about earlier and their stats which were similar. Tell me how you got 14-20. 2-4 in '07 five games, and 11/12 in '06 via nfl.com. That's 13/16 in '07. Where are you picking up the extra TD and 4 INTs?

Yes, dude. We SHOULD know he doesn't suck. If he sucked...he'd be a backup at this point, and not practically anointed starter. The one thing we DO know is that he doesn't SUCK. He may not be good or great, but he doesn't suck. What we have to find out yet is if he is average, below average, good or great. That will happen over time.

Articles like the one this thread is based on assume he sucks. That's wrong, and stupid to even pursue.

70ish infers that it could be 79 which in actuality is much better than 70.

We really don't know if he doesn't suck IMO. His flat 70 rating and his overall performance IMO Warrants a below average rating which is in the sucky range for a QB as far as I'm concerned. I have some really serious doubts about Matt. I truly and sincerely hope he proves me wrong. I will be glad to eat crow. The better he plays the better off we are as a franchise. Thats all that matters. I will root for him as hard as ever. I just have my doubts.

 

[Shane]

Please outline the "plain terrible" times. When did they happen? How are you judging them to be "plain terrible?"

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200610220rai.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200610290gnb.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200611120crd.htm

here ya go!

 

[Shane]

Or Here:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200709100sfo.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200709230rav.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200710070ram.htm

 

[Shane]

Or here:


http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201001030crd.htm

Or if I could find a link to the stats where he threw 3 Ints in the first 1.5 QTRs during the most important pre season game of his life. Right before the beginning of the regular season in 2008 and he went out and threw 3 Ints against a sub par vanilla D in Oakland. Thus opening the door for Warner to take the helm.

 

[JeffGollin]

What Makes Florio's Article So Stupid...

If Florio had waited until, say, right after the second preseason game, to base his judgments on Leinart and the other four guys, he'd have a more recent body of work from which to build his case.

But to jump in with so much certitude a week before the first day of training camp is premature, presumptious and, therefore, dumb.

 

[Russ Smith]

Matt has a chance to do what Aaron Rodgers did and shut everyone up for good. The main difference is Matt has played a LOT more NFL football than Rodgers had when he finally got his chance when Favre "retired."

Will Matt play that well is anybody's guess, I think the offense will be a lot more balanced this year so we're not going to have as much need for the QB to carry the offense as we did with Warner under Center.

 

[Redrage]

What's missing from the conversation is how this is such a bad article overall, not just the portion about Leinart. For example, why the hell would the Panthers bench Matt Moore at this point? He played very well last year.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200610220rai.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200610290gnb.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200611120crd.htm

here ya go!

Or Here:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200709100sfo.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200709230rav.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200710070ram.htm

For as many games you claim that he has been terrible, I can show games where he was not terrible. Furthermore, if we are only going to base a player's ability on their terrible games, then Kurt Warner would be the worst QB I have ever seen.

 

[Shane]

For as many games you claim that he has been terrible, I can show games where he was not terrible. Furthermore, if we are only going to base a player's ability on their terrible games, then Kurt Warner would be the worst QB I have ever seen.

Try going back and actually reading the exchange between Donald and myself will ya. Especially this post: http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2274345&postcount=25

I specifically stated he has shown promise agreeing with Donald's take. But I also stated that he has looked absolutely terrible at times too. Which shows the other side and is reason enough to give anyone pause about how Matt will eventually turn out.

Furthermore I didn't just outwardly list his terrible times. I was asked to list/show them by Donald. So In no way shape or form did I do what you said above that I put in bold.

 

[cardsloco]

Mr, Florio also wrote this article, so in my opinion his credibility is suspect.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/art...s-whose-fans-should-temper-their-expectations

I will wait until Leinart gives me reasons to bash him to start my tirade. In the meantime, why isn't Alex Smith on that list?

 

[D-Dogg]

Or here:


http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201001030crd.htm

Or if I could find a link to the stats where he threw 3 Ints in the first 1.5 QTRs during the most important pre season game of his life. Right before the beginning of the regular season in 2008 and he went out and threw 3 Ints against a sub par vanilla D in Oakland. Thus opening the door for Warner to take the helm.

Pre-season? Really dude? LOL.

Haters, they gonna hate.

 

[D-Dogg]

70ish infers that it could be 79 which in actuality is much better than 70.

We really don't know if he doesn't suck IMO. His flat 70 rating and his overall performance IMO Warrants a below average rating which is in the sucky range for a QB as far as I'm concerned. I have some really serious doubts about Matt. I truly and sincerely hope he proves me wrong. I will be glad to eat crow. The better he plays the better off we are as a franchise. Thats all that matters. I will root for him as hard as ever. I just have my doubts.

I see where I could have confused you then. Of course, you are easily confused.

But his flat 70 rating, for a guy who essentially has the experience of a second year player, is NOT indicative of SUCKY. It's average or better. His performance (the games you posted included several close losses, and some during the Warner/Leinart two headed monster games, which doesn't do anything other than say...dude is a young developing QB) hasn't shown him to be sucky at all...unless you want him to be sucky. Doesn't really show anything. Shows a guy who needs to develop at the NFL level, who has potential. Wow. Exactly what he was and is.

It's like some of you, Shane iincluded, expect a draft pick QB to walk out of college, into the NFL and dominate. That just doesn't happen. There is a steep learning curve, and Matt was on the way to getting it IMO. We'll see this year if he has it or not, but to suggest as the OP's article does that he should be benched or that he sucks has no actual basis in reality.

 

[Shane]

Pre-season? Really dude? LOL.

Haters, they gonna hate.

Not just pre season. The one single pre season game where he finally had the chance to nail down the starters job. You know that all important 3rd game of the pre season where when you start you are usually playing into the 2nd half. He failed miserably! Being yanked early in 2nd qtr. Way to discount the other 7 pathetic games I listed too all reg. season btw.


I have just as much reason to be skeptical as you do to have promise. I certainly don't hate. Like I said I hope I'm wrong and your right. But gonna take the play on the field to give me that confidence in him.

 

[D-Dogg]

Try going back and actually reading the exchange between Donald and myself will ya. Especially this post: http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2274345&postcount=25

I specifically stated he has shown promise agreeing with Donald's take. But I also stated that he has looked absolutely terrible at times too. Which shows the other side and is reason enough to give anyone pause about how Matt will eventually turn out.

Furthermore I didn't just outwardly list his terrible times. I was asked to list/show them by Donald. So In no way shape or form did I do what you said above that I put in bold.

No, it doesn't give anyone pause. It shows WHY his rating was a 70. With those "terrible games" he still had a 70 rating, so he must have had some pretty good games along with it to get that rating to mediocre.

Young QBs look terrible at times. Some look terrible all the time. Others show promise. Matt has shown promise. He's a young QB, and to expect him to fail is silly given what he's shown us so far. Expecting him to succeed is also silly. He's kind of a blank slate...our own box of chocolates...this year we find out what we're gonna get. Frankly, I am excited for this, whether it be good or bad.

 

[Shane]

We'll see this year if he has it or not, but to suggest as the OP's article does that he should be benched or that he sucks has no actual basis in reality.

Totally agree!

 

[TJ]

Or here:


http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201001030crd.htm

Or if I could find a link to the stats where he threw 3 Ints in the first 1.5 QTRs during the most important pre season game of his life. Right before the beginning of the regular season in 2008 and he went out and threw 3 Ints against a sub par vanilla D in Oakland. Thus opening the door for Warner to take the helm.

How many times have we seen Kurt have 4+ turnover games? Matt and Kurt were neck-and-neck in 2008 up until the OAK game. Matt just picked a wrong time to have his worst game.

In addition, it is not like Kurt had a great preseason last year. IMO, Matt had the better preseason but the starter position was already set in stone, and rightfully so.

 

[D-Dogg]

If Florio had waited until, say, right after the second preseason game, to base his judgments on Leinart and the other four guys, he'd have a more recent body of work from which to build his case.

But to jump in with so much certitude a week before the first day of training camp is premature, presumptious and, therefore, dumb.

Co-sign.

 

[D-Dogg]

Not just pre season. The one single pre season game where he finally had the chance to nail down the starters job. You know that all important 3rd game of the pre season where when you start you are usually playing into the 2nd half. He failed miserably! Being yanked early in 2nd qtr. Way to discount the other 7 pathetic games I listed too all reg. season btw.


I have just as much reason to be skeptical as you do to have promise. I certainly don't hate. Like I said I hope I'm wrong and your right. But gonna take the play on the field to give me that confidence in him.

You and Denny Green on pre-season game...who takes the third game of the p.s. and treats it like bullsh%#! BULLSH^%!!

I don't think you are out of bounds to be skeptical. I am too. I also see the promise he's shown. All in all, we don't know what we have in him exactly, but I feel he's shown that he doesn't suck. He may be below average in the end, but he's shown enough as a young QB to see he's got talent, needs work before he gets to polishing stage, is injury prone, but is learning and actually improving (footwork is much better in the Titans game than his rookie year). Bottom line, we don't know what we know right now. And that's a hard position to be in...but understanding that NFL QBs aren't hatched putting up a 90 plus QB rating, I see that Matt's development cycle seems to track ok so far...he just sat behind an all-time great who was hot as hell for a couple of years.

I just don't understand the viewpoint that he sucks...or shouldn't start, or whether DA is going to take his job, etc. All of this is on the board right now...and training camp hasn't even started. Plus, I love arguing with you.

 

[Shane]

I just don't understand the viewpoint that he sucks...or shouldn't start, or whether DA is going to take his job, etc. All of this is on the board right now...and training camp hasn't even started. Plus, I love arguing with you.

Totally agree. I think the article is stupid. He absolutely should start. I'll take it one further. Even if DA outplays him in the pre-season Matt should still start.

This is HIS year. He has had the early promise/stumbles and has now learned for 2.5 years behind a HOFer. This is the prime time for him to show what hes got and if he in fact has "it" Its now or never for him IMO. I'm rooting for the now! If he turns out to be as good as we had all originally hoped this franchise will be fine for the next 10 years. We can only hope!

 

[Mulli]

Totally agree. I think the article is stupid. He absolutely should start. I'll take it one further. Even if DA outplays him in the pre-season Matt should still start.

This is HIS year. He has had the early promise/stumbles and has now learned for 2.5 years behind a HOFer. This is the prime time for him to show what hes got and if he in fact has "it" Its now or never for him IMO. I'm rooting for the now! If he turns out to be as good as we had all originally hoped this franchise will be fine for the next 10 years. We can only hope!

Yes, if this coaching staff does not let Leinart start, and if he struggles, and let him play through difficulties, they will have wasted all their time trying to coach up Leinart by not letting him have a long leash.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

How many times have we seen Kurt have 4+ turnover games? Matt and Kurt were neck-and-neck in 2008 up until the OAK game. Matt just picked a wrong time to have his worst game.

In addition, it is not like Kurt had a great preseason last year. IMO, Matt had the better preseason but the starter position was already set in stone, and rightfully so.

Two of those INT's of that Oakland game were tipped balls that Matt had no control over.

 

[IAWarnerFan]

He didn't struggle in 2006 (when he started the regular season as a rook for 12 games). His numbers are comparable to all those other guys in that year, and that was when he led us to near victories over KC and the Bears (very good teams at the time, and the bears were unbeaten) that were lost by gamewinning miss....errrr gamelosing kicks by Rackers. It is revisionist history to say that he struggled because the kicker missed end of game kicks against teams when Matt drove the squad down to put us in position to win or tie games.

He didn't start the season as starter, KW did. The Kansas City game was week 5 and the Chicago game was week 6. He did play well in those games, but he had 9 other starts that year and in those he had 7 TDs to 11 Ints.

In 12 starts he was 4-8 (give him the bears/KC games, and it's 6-6). 74 passer rating. 11 TDs to 12 INT. Only 57% completion, but all in all you tell me a rookie QB goes .500, has a 74 rating, even td/int ratio and I'll show you tons of others that started the same way, including the mannings and such. It's a solid start to a career. He only played 5 games the following year (going 3-2 in those) before being injured for the year. After that, he was bench guy.

11 starts and 4-7. Overall though he did struggle as a rookie and most QBs do. During that 3-2 year he did struggle in two of the wins and Warner had to come in during both.

So you have a guy, who arguably should be 9-8 as a legit starter, with a 70ish rating, roughly 1:1 TD/INT ratio but has shown poise (and bad footwork) in driving his team to game winning kicks against strong teams that went on to the Superbowl, as basically a rookie. Then he sits behind a HoF QB who catches FIRE with great WRs clicking, a new coach that opens it up and plays to the HoFers strength, team goes to a SB, HoF plays well again and then retires.

Again he did have to be replaced by KW in games and whose to say how those games go if Warner wasn't there?

And now, guy who had what for ANY team would be a promising start to his career, is washed up and should be benched?????

I'm not saying that and I don't think anyone here is. My feel on this is that he should be given the opportunity to be starter for the first few games and then from there we see how he is doing. If he continues to struggle, we see what we have in the backup QBs.

Again, if you talk about injuries, I'm all freaking ears because that shoulder/collarbone is worrisome. But talent? What he has "shown us so far?" Take that argument to the trash can because the only thing he's shown us so far is that he has a lot of potential, and has performed in line with the way a solid QB can develop from...he didn't suck when he played. He didn't light it up, but neither do most QBs coming into the NFL. It takes time. Matt's had it. Now it's up to him to show us that he's GOT it. We don't know now...but we SHOULD know that he doesn't suck, and IMO people are FAR too concerned about how Matt will perform. Yes, there will still be some learning curve, but he's shown a good foundation to date.

Agreed, but I don't think the Cardinals should stick with him if he continues to struggle. I'm not thinking that he will, but there should be a backup plan in place in case he does. I do believe he has that talent to do well, but it's just a case of putting it together when he's out there.

Yes, if this coaching staff does not let Leinart start, and if he struggles, and let him play through difficulties, they will have wasted all their time trying to coach up Leinart by not letting him have a long leash.

How long a leash do you want? If he does happen to struggle do you want to wait until the Cardinals are now longer in the playoff picture? Realizing Anderson has been both bad and good, wouldn't you want to see what he has as well?

 

[Russ Smith]

He didn't start the season as starter, KW did. The Kansas City game was week 5 and the Chicago game was week 6. He did play well in those games, but he had 9 other starts that year and in those he had 7 TDs to 11 Ints.
11 starts and 4-7. Overall though he did struggle as a rookie and most QBs do. During that 3-2 year he did struggle in two of the wins and Warner had to come in during both.

Well you have to look at more than just numbers in Matt's rookie year. How many rookie QB's could have succeeded that season here? Matt was the starter, after the Bears loss the franchise imploded, Green started doing his crown their A stuff on tv, blamed the offensive coordinator, fired him. Matt's QB coach mentor suddenly became the OC which meant instead of standing on the sideline next to Matt(when we weren't on offense) he was upstairs calling plays. Luckily Kurt was a big enough man that he didn't pout and tried to help Matt that year but not too many rookies are going to excel when they have no run game and are playing for a lame duck coach with an OC change like that.

If you look Matt played much better before we changed OC's, maybe the NFL just figured him out but I'm personally of the opinion that coaching change really hurt Matt that year.