Matt Leinart wants another opportunity

[Pariah]

Why can't we hate on players who know longer steal money from the Cardinals?

You're a lawyer? Really?

 

[moklerman]

Since we're on the subject of obtuse, do you realize what a contradiction this is? What people like you fail to understand is, Whiz is smart enough to realize that it's in his best interest to let his personnel dictate his offense. With an elite QB, elite receivers, and a good pass blocking OL, he gave up the Pittsburgh ground and pound quickly and was adept enough to realize his best chance of winning was to put the offense in Kurt's hands. (Which included making sure it stayed in his hands by cutting down his fumbles)

People like me? So what's his excuse for last year? Did he stop being smart?

Obviously, Kurt deciding to retire left everyone in the organization with their pants on the ground. Here the Cards we're stuck with a team that was molded to Kurt's skills, and suddenly the foundation of the house was ripped out. Your delusions of grandeur about a roster tailor made for Matty are laughable.

They had all offseason and the fact that Warner was gong to be 39 to clue them in to the situation. They weren't caught with their pants down, Leinart was the guy being groomed for 3 years to take over for Warner. They had their backup plan in place. It was Whis who pulled down his own pants by cutting Leinart AFTER the preseason was over. But people like me just don't understand how smart that is.

LOL, you must define great as something totally different from my understanding. Wells and Hightower? Neither is a top 15 RB. Great, my ass.

Put that tandem in Pittsburgh and I have no doubt they would replicate what Amos and Jerome did. Or Fast Willie and Old Jerome. No doubt. The Cardinals focusing on the running game might have meant the o-line finally being fixed too. Which continues to be their biggest problem.

Your arguments get even more ridiculous as we go on here. Let's recreate USC all over again!

All we need is -
arguably the best college RB of all time
Lendale - another top 5 RB in college football that year
dominant talent at every position, and a superior roster to almost every team we play

Newsflash! This ain't college football, and these circumstances ain't gonna happen again.

Leinart's offense in college was:
1. hand off to Bush for massive gain
2. hand off to Lendale for massive gain
3. play action to wide open great receivers who are single covered at best

You're right though, if we could somehow recreate that scenario in the NFL, Matt will be back!

So, trying to emulate what Pittsburgh had a few years ago is akin to college football? Seems to me that both Pittsburgh and USC had a run-first philosophy which set up better passing game matchups and a ball control offense that helped their defenses stay fresh(and dominant). Yeah, that's a horrible plan and one that Whis would never consider. Silly me. Pro style instead of GSOT is unthinkable to you? You don't think Leinart would be better suited to the former as opposed the latter?

Spectacular! An over the hill guard who is at best average at this point. It's stunning we didn't have multiple 1,000 yard rushers last year, since our offense was so tailor made for a transition to a power running team.

So, would it have been a transition or happen overnight? I really don't see how you think it was anything other than a transition year. QB and WR1B were gone, new OG, etc. Beanie's been underutilized since he got to the Cardinals and was a waste for where he was drafted. TH has been very solid and the two of them would be a great 1-2 punch if the Cardinals decided to focus on the running game more. That they aren't producing out of so many passing sets doesn't establish them IMO.

No, the problem was getting rid of the QB who could function in a pro-style offense. You can't do anything effectively when your QB only completes 55% of his passes. Everything else fails on that note alone unless your running game is truly spectacular.

Which reminds me of your point about Whis tailoring his offense to the personnel. Just how did he do that last year? Did he really think Anderson was going to resemble Warner? Did he think that Leinart was going to resemble Warner? The Cardinals ran the ball 45 times less last year with a severely debilitated passing game. Warner retired, Boldin left and they pass the ball even LESS than when Warner was audibling out of "every" running play?

I really don't see how any of your opinions are factually based.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Forgive me if I don't take the opinions of those who are far more interested in casting insults and reveling in their hate of players.

You guys just keep believing that Leinart "couldn't even get a first down or TD" in the preseason and that he just sucks. I envy the bliss that such ignorance must produce.

huh? who's been insulting anyone in this thread? i don't think Matt has it and i think the jury's out on wiz. how is that insulting to anyone?

you're the one who's coming on here and calling people ignorant or putting words in peoples mouths instead of responding to what they're saying.

 

[Mulli]

You're a lawyer? Really?

Oops. You don't have to go to law school to know Shane Rule. :multitasking:

 

[Pariah]

Oops. You don't have to go to law school to know Shane Rule. :multitasking:

You passed the Rosanne Barr exam.

 

[Mulli]

You passed the Rosanne Barr exam.

Yep, you just had to know that "loose meat" is.

 

[moklerman]

huh? who's been insulting anyone in this thread? i don't think Matt has it and i think the jury's out on wiz. how is that insulting to anyone?

you're the one who's coming on here and calling people ignorant or putting words in peoples mouths instead of responding to what they're saying.

There are plenty of examples of personal comments that weren't meant as compliments. Use your back button if you want find them.

Also, "ignorant" isn't an insult, especially considering all of the misinformation that I've TRIED to correct. It all started with the oft-repeated "Leinart couldn't get a first down or TD" idea and branched off in many different directions.

 

[Cheesebeef]

On the other hand it could be that Leinart,Anderson,Hall,BSP, and Bartel and maybe even Skelator are simply a collection of worthless talents as NFL QBs. A collection that only the Cardinals could put together*. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

*See Jeff Blake,Shaun King, John Navarre, and Josh McCown. Also Kent Graham, Mike Buck and Stoney Case.

i think there is A LOT to this point. i mean... anderson has been shown to be a worthless talent on multiple teams, is BSP even in the league?... Hall wasn't even drafted... and most 5th round rookie QBs look like complete and utter crap. Matt's the only one with ANY kind of pedigree whatsoever in that group and he hadn't looked good in a single game since 2007.

 

[Cheesebeef]

There are plenty of examples of personal comments that weren't meant as compliments. Use your back button if you want find them.

if you're going to make a claim, you should at least be able to back it up without saying "they're there!"

Also, "ignorant" isn't an insult, especially considering all of the misinformation that I've TRIED to correct. It all started with the oft-repeated "Leinart couldn't get a first down or TD" idea and branched off in many different directions.

ignorant isn't an insult... give me a break.

and why have you not responded at all to the idea that it was Haley's offense with Warner that was the key when Haley has run NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO SUCH AN OFFENSE IN KC?

I mean, you say the offense we were successful with with Warner couldn't have been Wiz's because of what he ran in Pittsburg (even though he was the OC when that offense was instituted here)... yet Haley gets credit for the offense even though on his own team, he runs something that in no ay shape or form resembles what we run?

instead of lobbing insults and crying foul, why not just respond to the point above and start talking football again? good grief.

 

[moklerman]

if you're going to make a claim, you should at least be able to back it up without saying "they're there!"



ignorant isn't an insult... give me a break.

and why have you not responded at all to the idea that it was Haley's offense with Warner that was the key when Haley has run NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO SUCH AN OFFENSE IN KC?

I mean, you say the offense we were successful with with Warner couldn't have been Wiz's because of what he ran in Pittsburg (even though he was the OC when that offense was instituted here)... yet Haley gets credit for the offense even though on his own team, he runs something that in no ay shape or form resembles what we run?

instead of lobbing insults and crying foul, why not just respond to the point above and start talking football again? good grief.

And why don't you just ask me a question instead of making a challenge out of it? Have I ever shied away from one?

I think you're misreading a bit though. I said Warner & Haley. What they had going as a pair is what was so successful for the Cardinals. It wasn't "Haley's" offense it was both of them together.

Haley was a Whis guy so obviously he's going to have a similar approach to offense in theory and both of them obviously, ultimately catered to what Warner wanted/was good at. From what Whis did in Pittsburgh to what he brought to the Cardinals, I think the situation was much more one of Warner and Haley convincing Whis though. I think Warner chirped in Haley's ear long and hard and eventually, the choice was made for all of them when Warner was the last man standing at QB and he had a torn elbow.

That's why I'm hesitant to give Whis credit for adapting. It was ultimately his call but I don't think he deserves credit for changing the plan midstream. His handling of Leinart and the QB's he's brought in to run offense that none of them have seemed suited to reinforces my belief that he is much more rigid about "his" offense and making pieces fit. Much more so than adapting to the personnel on hand.

EDIT: Oh, and no, ignorant isn't an insult. Stupid, moronic, idiotic...those are insults. Ignorant is: "Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular"

But you weren't ignorant about the definition of ignorant, you were mistaken or misinformed.

 

[Cheesebeef]

And why don't you just ask me a question

i asked that exact question earlier in the thread

instead of making a challenge out of it?

because apparently that's the only way you'll respond to it.

Have I ever shied away from one?

um yes... you shied away from answering that very question earlier in the thread.

I think you're misreading a bit though. I said Warner & Haley. What they had going as a pair is what was so successful for the Cardinals. It wasn't "Haley's" offense it was both of them together.

and yet there's ZERO evidence in any of Haley's career outside the cardinals that he's run any kind of that offense whatsoever... which is your thesis in maintaining that the offense couldn't be Wiz's... because he never ran anything like that in pittsburg. It's a complete contradiction.

Haley was a Whis guy so obviously he's going to have a similar approach to offense in theory and both of them obviously, ultimately catered to what Warner wanted/was good at. From what Whis did in Pittsburgh to what he brought to the Cardinals, I think the situation was much more one of Warner and Haley convincing Whis though.

again... you're using Whiz's past experience against him as evidence yet completely fail to acknowledge that Haley had no prior experience with that kind of offense and hasn't had any since.

I think Warner chirped in Haley's ear long and hard and eventually, the choice was made for all of them when Warner was the last man standing at QB and he had a torn elbow.

and yet Wiz already started running the hurry up MUCH before that when he started platooning QBs.

That's why I'm hesitant to give Whis credit for adapting. It was ultimately his call but I don't think he deserves credit for changing the plan midstream. His handling of Leinart and the QB's he's brought in to run offense that none of them have seemed suited to reinforces my belief that he is much more rigid about "his" offense and making pieces fit. Much more so than adapting to the personnel on hand.

so... again, you just COMPLETELY ignore the fact that prior to Haley's time with the team, he was never involved in that type of offense and once he left, he's never had any involvement in that type of offense again... but it was he and not Wiz who was responsible along with Warner for getting that offense in gear... even though Wiz had already started laying that offense in with his platooning QBs... and even though Wiz was the OC in 2007 when we were winging the ball all around the field in the second half.

sorry man... but you continuing to belabor your points without even ACKNOWLEDGING what Haley's past and present are as far as his offensive philosophy/mind is... well... it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

it's funny, you ask above about "why not just ask me the question"... well, i have now... MUTLIPLE TIMES and yet you still haven't given me an answer.

 

[Cheesebeef]

EDIT: Oh, and no, ignorant isn't an insult. Stupid, moronic, idiotic...those are insults. Ignorant is: "Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular"

But you weren't ignorant about the definition of ignorant, you were mistaken or misinformed.

"You guys just keep believing that Leinart "couldn't even get a first down or TD" in the preseason and that he just sucks. I envy the bliss that such ignorance must produce."

you're right... that's a compliment if I ever saw one.

for pete's sake, TALK FREAKING FOOTBALL.

 

[moklerman]

i asked that exact question earlier in the thread

Well, out of the hundreds of different things form a wide variety of posters it's possible I missed one. Which I then addressed when asked...sorry, accused and challenged.

and yet there's ZERO evidence in any of Haley's career outside the cardinals that he's run any kind of that offense whatsoever... which is your thesis in maintaining that the offense couldn't be Wiz's... because he never ran anything like that in pittsburg. It's a complete contradiction.

I don't think so because I'm not basing my opinion solely on Whis' time in Pittsburgh. He has shown a tendency to revert back to or prefer "his" offense with the Cardinals as well. When you also factor in the dramatic increase in production Roethlisberger had after Whis left Pittsburgh, the dramatic improvement in the Cardinals offense once Warner hurt his elbow and the base offense was relegated to secondary instead of primary focus and the total disaster that last year's squad produced then I think there is ample reason to doubt Whis' involvement in what Warner & Haley put together.

There isn't a previous history for Haley and what he's done in KC is just in year two but more importantly, he doesn't have Warner at QB. To me, Haley has adjusted his playcalling to the QB that he's got to work with much more than Whis has.

and yet Wiz already started running the hurry up MUCH before that when he started platooning QBs.

Because HIS offense wasn't working! Don't you think the fact that it took until game 3 for him to decide to do so matches exactly what I wrote? By game 6 they had completely flipped the offense. Throughout the whole time Warner was QB, whenever they tried to play the Whis offense it would stutter and they would have to revert to the pass first stuff to bail them out. But Whis would always try and go back to the ineffective stuff. He still does.

so... again, you just COMPLETELY ignore the fact that prior to Haley's time with the team, he was never involved in that type of offense and once he left, he's never had any involvement in that type of offense again...

I'm not ignoring anything. I JUST said that Haley was a Whis guy and that they would have similar thoughts on concepts. But go Google some past articles about Haley and Warner. They were two peas in a pod and they were the one's who were putting together that offense. Why are you so adamantly against that idea? The OC and the QB often have closer working relationships than the HC and the QB and I don't find it hard to fathom that that is exactly what happened with Warner and Haley. I haven't read anywhere that those two were implementing what Whis was coming up with. Those two were the one's who were coming up with it.

but it was he and not Wiz who was responsible along with Warner for getting that offense in gear... even though Wiz had already started laying that offense in with his platooning QBs...

Should I even mention that it was specifically pointed out during that time that Warner was calling his own plays during those hurry-up situations? Which perfectly matches what I said about Whis ultimately giving the go-ahead and Warner & Haley putting it all together.

sorry man... but you continuing to belabor your points without even ACKNOWLEDGING what Haley's past and present are as far as his offensive philosophy/mind is... well... it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

And, just to restate, I am not basing my opinion on Whis' time in Pittsburgh alone and I never said it was just Haley. It was Haley and Warner. But Haley certainly seems to be more pliable with his approach. Gave up control of the offense to Weis last year in KC and Cassel and the offense had some great results. Looks like he learned his lesson from Whis. When Whis gave up control and let the OC & QB get things going, look what happened. Eerily similar in both cases.

you're right... that's a compliment if I ever saw one.

Believe what you want. I'd much rather be ignorant and happy. Arguing points with those who refuse to acknowledge facts is not blissful.

 

[Duckjake]

i think there is A LOT to this point. i mean... anderson has been shown to be a worthless talent on multiple teams, is BSP even in the league?... Hall wasn't even drafted... and most 5th round rookie QBs look like complete and utter crap. Matt's the only one with ANY kind of pedigree whatsoever in that group and he hadn't looked good in a single game since 2007.

Which brings us back the question of how the Cards ended up with such a pitiful group and why are the Cards so good at it?

Somebody on the Cards staff must have mistakenly thought more highly of them than that.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Believe what you want. I'd much rather be ignorant and happy. Arguing points with those who refuse to acknowledge facts is not blissful.

good god... when you can't even admit THAT sentence was an insult... and then somehow try to spin that it's a COMPLIMENT above, how can anyone take anything else you say seriously?

good grief. if you're going to insult someone, at least have the balls to stand by your convictions.

 

[cardncubfan]

AsuChris was insulting & not Cheesebeef fwiw imho.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

AsuChris was insulting & not Cheesebeef fwiw imho.

Thanks Judge Wapner. Unfortunately, a little hard for ol Moklerman to cry about it when he did the same thing. I just choose not to get my feewings hurt by internet banter.

 

[moklerman]

good god... when you can't even admit THAT sentence was an insult... and then somehow try to spin that it's a COMPLIMENT above, how can anyone take anything else you say seriously?

good grief. if you're going to insult someone, at least have the balls to stand by your convictions.

I guess that means you don't want to talk about football? "Ignorance is bliss" is a pretty common idiom but if you want to take it as an insult, even after it being explained to you, then that says more about you than it does me.

Thanks Judge Wapner. Unfortunately, a little hard for ol Moklerman to cry about it when he did the same thing. I just choose not to get my feewings hurt by internet banter.

Always talking crap. What a big man you are.

 

[john h]

I hope he gets a chance to start somewhere.

GBR
40

One does not get a chance to start. He earns the right to start. I think Matt's ship sailed last year and only some team looking for a 4th QB would even sign Matt.

 

[john h]

That leaves 9 teams and I'm not so sure about Hasslebeck. Not really sure about McCoy either.

I'm not disagreeing with your point as it's a terrible year for any QB to latch on a with a new team, so Leinart's chances of competing for a job are probably very slim at best and that goes for the Cardinals finding a new guy too. Which I agree is probably necessary. Skelton didn't exactly set the world on fire with his chance last year.

I don't even consider Hall a real option. He's just not NFL caliber from what I saw.

Hasselback has moved to the front of my list for a veteran QB to sign.

 

[moklerman]

Hasselback has moved to the front of my list for a veteran QB to sign.

Makes sense when it comes to ability but his career as a WCO guy doesn't really make it seem likely. His health(back) is a scary proposition too considering how many hits Cardinals QB's have been taking over the last few years.

Otherwise Bulger would be a no-brainer.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Back on topic -

So what's his excuse for last year? Did he stop being smart?

What's his excuse? He went in the season with the worst QB roster in football and a pitiful defense. Any coach in NFL history would have had a real challenge on their hands with that personnel. Considering the personnel, I have chosen to give Whiz a mulligan on last year. Is he partially responsible for the personnel situation? Of course, but considering he couldn't even bring in the QB he wanted, I'll give him a break. As he's the only coach that has been able to give this sad franchise any credibility, I think he deserves some time to transition from losing a HOF qb.

Of course, you're of the opinion that it was all Warner, which is quite surprising, considering you're a Warner fan first, only came to this board because Warner joined the Cards, and STILL are rocking a Warner avatar. Something tells me you may be somewhat less than objective on the matter.

They had all offseason and the fact that Warner was gong to be 39 to clue them in to the situation.

Warner signed a 2 year deal. Clearly the plan was for him to follow through on it, and he didn't.

But people like me just don't understand how smart that is.

Because people like you refuse to face the reality that Leinart did nothing to show he was ready to lead the team, and UNTIL he proves otherwise, he's not a quality NFL starter.

Put that tandem in Pittsburgh and I have no doubt they would replicate what Amos and Jerome did. Or Fast Willie and Old Jerome. No doubt.

Maybe the most ludicrous claim you've made. You realize that Jerome Bettis is like 5th all time in rushing yards? The Cardinals don't even have a top 15 back, which you so conveniently continue to ignore. Our running game sucked out loud last year, yet you continue to compare it to historically good rushing teams. Just ridiculous.

The Cardinals focusing on the running game might have meant the o-line finally being fixed too. Which continues to be their biggest problem.

Earlier, you state that the situation was tailor made for Matt. Now you're saying it wasn't?

So, trying to emulate what Pittsburgh had a few years ago is akin to college football? Seems to me that both Pittsburgh and USC had a run-first philosophy which set up better passing game matchups and a ball control offense that helped their defenses stay fresh(and dominant).

You completely miss the point, again. Matt Leinart was successful in a system where he had a considerably more talented team vs. nearly everyone they played. That doesn't happen in the NFL. I don't know how I could explain that any more clearly.

So, would it have been a transition or happen overnight? I really don't see how you think it was anything other than a transition year.

Again, was the team tailor made for life past Warner, or was it a transition year?

Beanie's been underutilized since he got to the Cardinals and was a waste for where he was drafted. TH has been very solid and the two of them would be a great 1-2 punch if the Cardinals decided to focus on the running game more. That they aren't producing out of so many passing sets doesn't establish them IMO.

I assume you watched most of the games last year, if so, I would imagine you noticed that we were awful running the ball. Blame it on a bad QB, blame it on a lack of commitment, but beyond a couple long runs, our running game was not effective all year.

Which reminds me of your point about Whis tailoring his offense to the personnel. Just how did he do that last year?

There's an old cliche about making chicken salad here. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Bottom line is it's impossible to run a successful offense when your QB situation is the worst in the NFL. I doubt Leinart would have markedly improved that situation. Again, if he proves to be a good starter in this league, I'll eat crow, but until then, he hasn't proven anything. Any objective NFL fan would say that.

I really don't see how any of your opinions are factually based.

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

 

[moklerman]

What's his excuse? He went in the season with the worst QB roster in football and a pitiful defense.

That doesn't have anything to do with tailoring the schemes to the personnel on hand. Which is what was being talked about. Whis hand-picked Derrick Anderson, Max Hall and the others and still CHOSE to run a pass first offense that relied on accuracy. In now way did he illustrate that he is adept at tailoring his offense to what he had to work with.

Of course, you're of the opinion that it was all Warner,

Primarily, yes. "All", no.

Warner signed a 2 year deal. Clearly the plan was for him to follow through on it, and he didn't.

I think it's just as feasible to say that the plan was to sign him to a 2 year deal to spread the signing bonus out, try and take advantage of the playoff window they had, get one more year out of Warner and Boldin and Fitz together and then go with Leinart whenever it was that Warner decided to retire. But the plan was always to have Leinart take over for Warner. Counting on Warner to remain healthy for 3+ consecutive years after the age of 35, with his history and with as many hits as the Cardinals allow doesn't seem realistic to me, but if you want to go with that, then be my guest.

Because people like you refuse to face the reality that Leinart did nothing to show he was ready to lead the team, and UNTIL he proves otherwise, he's not a quality NFL starter.

Ah, extreme(absolute) hyperbole. Leinart did "nothing". Yes, it's obvious that I'm the one who has objectivity issues. I have provided in this thread MANY examples of solid QB play by Leinart but you argue that none of that was valid enough to let Leinart sink or swim in 2010 for the Cardinals. Even in retrospect, you think he wasn't worth taking a shot with, just to see what he might do? Even in the preseason he showed me that he was protecting the ball better than his spot appearances in '09 and he was taking hits while completing passes. Certainly did more than "nothing". He also did more than the other candidates. Leinart may or may not become an NFL starter but the situation with the Cardinals came down to a personality clash with the coach. That's all there is to it.

Maybe the most ludicrous claim you've made. You realize that Jerome Bettis is like 5th all time in rushing yards?

Do you realize that the years we're talking about he was on the north side of 30 and not what he used to be? He wasn't even the leading rusher, Zereoue and Parker were clearly taking over. And they weren't even that special. They were just in an offense that ran the ball 500-600 times per year. Which leads us to:

The Cardinals don't even have a top 15 back, which you so conveniently continue to ignore.

They don't even attempt to run the ball. Last year, they ran it 40 times less than when Warner was here. None of which is an indicator of TH/BW's skillset. I think Wells is very capable of being the lead in a tandem backfield and Hightower is a really good #2. As a combo, I have no reservations about saying they are very good. Get 'em a line and feed 'em the ball 600 times and they'd put up numbers like Bettis, Zereoue and Parker.
'01 - Bettis: 1,072/4 Zereoue: 441/1(#7 offense)
'02 - Bettis: 762/4 Zereoue: 666/9(#8 offense)
'03 - Bettis: 811/7 Zereoue: 433/2
'04 - Bettis: 941/13 Staley: 830/1(15-1 team)
'05 - Parker: 1,202/4 Bettis: 368/9(Super Bowl team)

Most of those numbers are right at, or below, 4 ypa too. It was just a dedication to actually doing it. Sure, get a Chris Johnson or Jamaal Charles and he can rack up the yards in few carries but generally, you just gotta keep pounding it. I perfectly confident that TH/BW would have been able to replicate those numbers if they had been the one's running the ball in Pittsburgh.

Earlier, you state that the situation was tailor made for Matt. Now you're saying it wasn't?

No, I'm still saying the situation was right for him(on the field anyway. Whis had much more impact on the whole situation). Not sure why you think improving the o-line equates to the situation not being one that shifting to a 2 back, run-oriented offense wouldn't play to Leinart's strengths as a QB.

You completely miss the point, again. Matt Leinart was successful in a system where he had a considerably more talented team vs. nearly everyone they played. That doesn't happen in the NFL. I don't know how I could explain that any more clearly.

I'm not missing anything. I'm also not saying he'd put up the numbers he did while at USC so you're not really comparing apples to apples. The fact is though, that his skillset is one that plays to that kind of offensive approach. I think it would have been wise to put him in an environment resembling what he's been successful with in the past and that it mirrored what Whis had done in the past and been successful with was too convenient. It isn't just the Steelers though. The Giants have been doing it with Eli and their RB tandems/trios. Minnesota had great success with it with AP and Chester Taylor. The Ravens...there are a variety of teams to look to as examples that instituted a focus on the running game to help their young QB's and defenses. I think it's ludicrous that you're saying the only way that would work or that Leinart could be successful is if his team had a distinct talent advantage over their opposition.

Again, was the team tailor made for life past Warner, or was it a transition year?

It was a transition year. Which is my point. Even had Warner stayed, it probably would have been a transition year with Boldin leaving and all the changes on defense. I think that's probably why Warner decided to leave. But that's why I think it was a perfect time to make a shift. After spending a first round pick on Wells and landing an incredible value and surprise with Hightower, I think moving to a two back set was the better way to go. Trying to get Anderson and the rest to emulate what Warner was doing was just dumb. To make them try it without a healthy WR corps and without Boldin was dumbfounding.

I assume you watched most of the games last year, if so, I would imagine you noticed that we were awful running the ball. Blame it on a bad QB, blame it on a lack of commitment, but beyond a couple long runs, our running game was not effective all year.

I'm not sure what the point is. No one's arguing the end result of the running game was good, but for the reasons you listed, it didn't have to be that way. More commitment to the run, running out of different sets, having a QB who could complete more than 55% of his passes...add it all up and doing things differently might have produced better results.

I doubt Leinart would have markedly improved that situation.

There's obviously no way to know for sure but Leinart's accuracy alone would have been an improvement to the situation. Now, before you look at his career completion percentage of 57%(which is sadly still 6% better than Anderson's number last year), I'm basing this on my perception of what he was doing in '09 and what he did in the preseason in '10. The preseason especially. Not based on the percentage though but on what Leinart's decision making was. He was taking the check downs and the dump-off's and letting his guys try and make plays. Most people were frustrated by him not forcing the ball down field but I thought what he was doing was exactly what had been preached for so long. He wasn't forcing things, he was getting the ball to his receivers and he wasn't turning it over.

I think if they had given that time to gel, the majority of smart passes would have been balanced out by longer, more explosive plays and it would have helped open up the running game. If nothing else, it would have allowed the short, methodical passing game to continue to be effective.

Again, if he proves to be a good starter in this league, I'll eat crow, but until then, he hasn't proven anything. Any objective NFL fan would say that.

Isn't that the definition of a straw man? Who's argued that he's a proven good starter?

 

[Duckjake]

What's his excuse? He went in the season with the worst QB roster in football and a pitiful defense. Any coach in NFL history would have had a real challenge on their hands with that personnel. Considering the personnel, I have chosen to give Whiz a mulligan on last year. Is he partially responsible for the personnel situation? Of course, but considering he couldn't even bring in the QB he wanted, I'll give him a break.

That is impossible to debate here because no matter what anyone says the answer is always that we had horrible QB play. The Offense didn't work because we had horrible QBs. The Defense was bad because we had horrible QBs. The water boy was bad because we had horrible QBs, the Hot Dogs were bad because we had horrible QBs.

Of course knowing that the QB Whiz supposedly wanted was Bulger doesn't make me feel any better about the QB evaluation skills. Because Bulger hasn't been any good since 2006.

But then there wasn't much else out there and sadly there still isn't and even if they draft Gabbert or another top QB, a real risk considering their suspect QB evaluation skills, the lockout makes him basically useless until 2012 or 2013. We're in a real mess.

 

[moklerman]

But then there wasn't much else out there and sadly there still isn't and even if they draft Gabbert or another top QB, a real risk considering their suspect QB evaluation skills, the lockout makes him basically useless until 2012 or 2013. We're in a real mess.

Not necessarily. Having to protect a QB can sometimes force a coach to alter his approach. Obviously Whis didn't do it last year but I would contend that he was still trying to make the offense work more than he was trying to run an offense that insulated his young QB(s).

If he approaches it like Atlanta with Ryan, Baltimore with Flacco, St. Louis with Bradford then it might actually work. It isn't ideal but I think it could work.

If they bring in a veteran, then I think they will fall back into the trap of making the players fit the offense instead of designing an offense to fit the players.