Leinart forces us to commit to run game!

[dreamcastrocks]

It is a rare day that any one player is totally responsible for any loss.

It is rare indeed, but we saw it last week.

What if Fitz had caught a couple of those early passes he dropped? Who knows how that could have changed the course of the game. Could have led to TD's.

Fitz also caught a couple of balls that were bad throws by Warner, saving drives. Who knows what would have happened if he would have dropped those.

Who knows if Rackers would have made the field goal if Warner had not fumbled?

Thanks for helping us prove our point.

There are no guarantees about anything. We win as a team and lose as a team. One play early in a game can change the entire momentem of a game.

The Cards lost this game because of Warner. I am completely convinced that Navarre could have started this game for us and led us to a win.

What if Green had started a different right corner back? How might that have changed the outcome.

He probably would not have forced the turnover that gave us the 7 points back that he allowed.

What if the coaches had taken a couple of kneel downs at the end of the game and then let Rackers kick? You take a different type of snap if you are going to kneel down and perhaps there is no fumble.

No coach in the NFL, (even Denny Green) would do such a thing. Who would kick a 40 yard field goal, with time on the clock and a probowl runningback in the backfield? None, end of discussion.

How many times do we expect Warner to throw three interceptions and fumble. I say more than a 100 to one. This is not the time to make such a major change at QB. Who knows how the players will take this? Will they play better or worse?

How much longer should we allow Warner to commit 10+ turnovers? What if he fumbles the ball 3 more times? At some point, you have to cut your losses, and decide if Leinart would give us the best chance to win. Hell, Navarre of all people would have given us a win last week.

 

[JeffGollin]

If Jeff Blake had played the way Warner has played this season, there would be a riot if Green didn't yank him. Just because Warner played in a Super Bowl doesn't give him an unlimited pass for poor play.The Shark

What games were you watching?

Warner and his receivers lit things up in Game #1. Warner was wearing pass rushers like a suit in Game #2. It's amazing he survived the beating he took. Game #3 was a mixture of good results, some off-target passers and a "bad hair day" turnover-wise. (Heck! Bleep happens!)

The difference between Warner and Blake was upside. While both have had their mistake-prone moments, when Warner's was hot, he broke records. When Blake was hot, he was, at best, average.

Every NFL QB will inevitably fall into a rut a few times in his career. With Warner it has to do with not protecting the ball well enough. Usually, these types of errors are correctable.

The problem with force-feeding a rookie QB (no matter how good he looked in preseason) is that you're likely to wind up with the same number of turnovers, but you won't benefit from much of an upside because the rook won't have had the necessary time to learn the position, read defenses and make sound decisions at 180 mph during the real season.

The odds are far better that we'll be able to pull Warner out of his funk than they are that a rookie will lead us to the promised land with our offensive line in his rookie year

 

[Sandan]

John there is a huge differance between warner and maning/leinart

Warner is what he is, he will not get better only worse. Up until Sunday I was on the Warner bandwagon.

However, now if Matt plays and makes the inevitable mistakes, he will learn from them.

Warner is supposed to be the experienced veteran and should not get the slack we might cut a rookie or even 3rd year player. For rookies we want to see improvement each week/month/year