Pete Carroll on Matt: "I think he’s going to be a terrific player."

[Arizona's Finest]

Good read

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/16031/one-potential-key-for-leinart

The Cardinals are big on promoting competition throughout their roster -- even at quarterback.

Matt Leinart is the starter, though, and he won't have to worry about Kurt Warner beating him out. Leinart's college coach, Pete Carroll, said job security was critical for Leinart at USC. Carroll, speaking at the NFL owners meetings Wednesday, told reporters Leinart was "floundering" at USC before finding out he would get the call over Matt Cassel.

Carroll: I know the fact when Kenny [Whisenhunt] says to Matt, 'You're my starting quarterback', it makes worlds of difference to Matt. I watched that happen when we had to choose between he and Cassel years ago. Matt was floundering. Cassel was floundering. We didn’t look like we were going anywhere. Then we made a call the last day of spring practice, 'OK, if we were playing a game today, you’d be the starter, Leinart. Go ahead and take it over.' He had a look in his eye. He said what I think he probably said to Kenny: 'You'll never regret this and you'll never have to look back.' And he just flipped and hit the switch. I think that's what he’s been waiting for. He's been waiting for that recognition that you are our starting guy and I think he’s going to be a terrific player. I don’t know him in any other way. I don’t know how to think of him in any other way than he is going to be a great performer for them."​

This isn't a new concept in analyzing Leinart and it doesn't mean Leinart will suddenly blossom, but Carroll's firsthand account does provide some credence to the thinking.


I know many will reply to this thread and say " I want my QB to thrive on competition " but we are all wired differently and are motivated in different ways. I know Pete has always been a big proponent of Matt, but even so, this is one of the more encouraging things I have read this off season so far.

I am getting pumped for the regular season

 

[ASUCHRIS]

So basically if Whiz doesn't coddle Matt and tell him he's a special little guy every night before he goes to bed, he'll be erratic? Color me scared.

 

[Ronin]

What did/does Pete Carroll think of Mark Sanchez?

 

[Mitch]

So basically if Whiz doesn't coddle Matt and tell him he's a special little guy every night before he goes to bed, he'll be erratic? Color me scared.

Exactly. This is no longer Pop Warner. It's the pros. And, think about it, if Pete Carroll, now a division rival coach, were honestly that high on Leinart, why would he want to coach "Kenny" into coddling Leinart?

It's a farce.

Carroll also said today that Tim Tebow is going to be a special QB.

Take that as you wish.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

Haters the going to hate. Here is what I think is funny. I work with a lot of corporate execs on a day to day basis and one of the themes of any good leader in people I talk to is understanding the motivation of your people and responding accordingly.

I love how many on this board like to think that they are these Type A fire breathers who respond to competition like say a Kurt Warner did, but the reality is thats not likely the case.

Some people can be berated, some people need ot be supported, and some need to be incenticized. All different tactics and as long as the results follow, I don't think the psychology of the way you go about it as very important.

Matt may not like looking over his shoulder and now respond positively knowing not every bad throw leads to getting pulled. Some people need to be told their the guy.

You should probably check the rocks at the door of your glass house before thinking "Oh poor Matty needs to be coddeled"

I think all of us will take Matt being successful no matter how in fact he gets there. Petes points are A) Factual and B) come from a credible source so I don't see the need to deligitimize what he said. He sure as hell knows alot more about football and motivating players then anyone on this board to be sure.

But the reality is if you don't buy in anyway, you'll just use this thread as an excuse to bash. So do what you like.

And I'll even let you back on the bandwagon come next December when he's leading us to our third straight division championship.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

So basically if Whiz doesn't coddle Matt and tell him he's a special little guy every night before he goes to bed, he'll be erratic? Color me scared.

You came away with that from reading this article ?
Every QB plays better knowing they are the guy and not having to look over their shoulder if they make a mistake.

 

[Mitch]

Haters the going to hate. Here is what I think is funny. I work with a lot of corporate execs on a day to day basis and one of the themes of any good leader in people I talk to is understanding the motivation of your people and responding accordingly.

I love how many on this board like to think that they are these Type A fire breathers who respond to competition like say a Kurt Warner did, but the reality is thats not likely the case.

Some people can be berated, some people need ot be supported, and some need to be incenticized. All different tactics and as long as the results follow, I don't think the psychology of the way you go about it as very important.

Matt may not like looking over his shoulder and now respond positively knowing not every bad throw leads to getting pulled. Some people need to be told their the guy.



You should probably check the rocks at the door of your glass house before thinking "Oh poor Matty needs to be coddeled"

I think all of us will take Matt being successful no matter how in fact he gets there. Petes points are A) Factual and B) come from a credible source so I don't see the need to deligitimize what he said. He sure as hell knows alot more about football and motivating players then anyone on this board to be sure.

But the reality is if you don't buy in anyway, you'll just use this thread as an excuse to bash. So do what you like.

And I'll even let you back on the bandwagon come next December when he's leading us to our third straight division championship.

You cannot be serious???

 

[Mitch]

You came away with that from reading this article ?
Every QB plays better knowing they are the guy and not having to look over their shoulder if they make a mistake.

Right on, especially in the pros.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

You cannot be serious???

Dead.

But refute in kind if you like.

My main point is, if you come away from this article as a Cardinals fan and think "Whatever" then there is probably a good chance that you are very bias to the subject and likely anything short of Leinart lifting mutiple Lombardi Trophys over his head is going to cause you to think any differently.

I have a wait and see attitude but I like reading stuff like this and to me, it makes sense.

 

[Mitch]

Dead.

But refute in kind if you like.

My main point is, if you come away from this article as a Cardinals fan and think "Whatever" then there is probably a good chance that you are very bias to the subject and likely anything short of Leinart lifting mutiple Lombardi Trophys over his head is going to cause you to think any differently.

I have a wait and see attitude but I like reading stuff like this and to me, it makes sense.

Wow, AF. That's incredible.

Let's trace ML's history with Whiz.

As Pete Carroll suggested today...make Matty the man and he'll respond.

Whiz has already done that.

He started ML and he was ineffective before getting hurt...so ineffective Whiz created a 2 minute offense role for KW...which he thrived at.

The disparity of how KW led the team down the field versus how ML struggled was glaring.

Despite that, Whiz appoints ML as the clear-cut starter heading to 2008...and ML takes the collar at Oakland in a pre-season game and has only started one game since in two years. And ML played decently in that game, but to bet the ranch on him and annoint him as a Lombardi hoister becuase of that one game, ignoring the numerous failures in other games, is extraordinary.

Right now what you and others are getting duped by is pure and simple Coach-speak. ML was the only QB left on the Cardinals' roster...Whiz has been talking him up in hopes that, hey, maybe he learned from KW by osmosis. But, the reality is what he said to Adam Shefter today, "you'd better believe there will competition at the QB position."

And I am sure of this, we don't know yet exactly what that competition will be. Derek Anderson is now in the mix. Who's next?

 

[ASUCHRIS]

You came away with that from reading this article ?

Perhaps you're reading comprehension is lacking. I'll cut it down here, and tell me if you read it differently:

"When we made a call the last day of spring practice, 'OK, if we were playing a game today, you’d be the starter, Leinart. Go ahead and take it over.' He had a look in his eye. He said what I think he probably said to Kenny: 'You'll never regret this and you'll never have to look back.' And he just flipped and hit the switch."

It seems blatantly obvious that Carroll is stirring the pot and in a subtle way questioning the way Whis is handling Leinart. Unfortunately for Matt, nothing is handed to anyone on this team. If Carroll is right, and Matt does need that constant affirmation from Whis, we could be in trouble.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

Wow, AF. That's incredible.

Let's trace ML's history with Whiz.

As Pete Carroll suggested today...make Matty the man and he'll respond.

Whiz has already done that.

He started ML and he was ineffective before getting hurt...so ineffective Whiz created a 2 minute offense role for KW...which he thrived at.

The disparity of how KW led the team down the field versus how ML struggled was glaring.

Despite that, Whiz appoints ML as the clear-cut starter heading to 2008...and ML takes the collar at Oakland in a pre-season game and has only started one game since in two years. And ML played decently in that game, but to bet the ranch on him and annoint him as a Lombardi hoister becuase of that one game, ignoring the numerous failures in other games, is extraordinary.

Right now what you and others are getting duped by is pure and simple Coach-speak. ML was the only QB left on the Cardinals' roster...Whiz has been talking him up in hopes that, hey, maybe he learned from KW by osmosis. But, the reality is what he said to Adam Shefter today, "you'd better believe there will competition at the QB position."

And I am sure of this, we don't know yet exactly what that competition will be. Derek Anderson is now in the mix. Who's next?

First off I am not being duped by Coach speak. I am failry confident Wiz, like many of us, is not sure what he has in Matt.

Listen I am in the camp that Wiz wasn't fully sold on Warner when he announced him the starter before 2008 (and the competition back then was alot harder then everyone likes to remember save the Oakland game in which Warner was quite underwhelming as well) but went with the vet because of the road heavy first 4 games. Otherwise if he knew Warner was going to turn out to be what he ended up being the next two years, he would have scrapped the comp all together and likely named him starter in 2007 as well.

So my point is Wiz is being smart. He is hedging his bets and bringing in competition in the most important position in sports. Its funny because if Wiz had said "Well I am going to just go into 2010 with Leinart as the starter and 2 rookies behind him" everyone would have been KILLING him (rightfully so) for putting all his eggs in Matts basket. Now that he did the right thing and tried to bring in Whitehurst and Anderson, its because he doesn't believe in Matt????

I am okay with you being somewhat skeptical, and even thinking long term Leinart isn't the answer ( I myself am not sure) but when every bit of positive news about Leinart that comes out is excused away, and every Wiz quote and PC is analyzed like the Zapruder film to "read between the lines" to make it seem like he doesn't have faith in the kid, it tells you that you likely are not giving him a fair shot.

The bottom line is the samople size is small, and his pedigree, time in the system, and attitude since Warner retired should all be seen as positive signs.

Ultimately you may prove to be right, but I don't see the harm in acknowldeging the POSSIBILITY that Matt hasn't exactly been in the best circumstances to thrive the last two years and this season could be his breaking out party.

Keep in mind Mitch, you were already to ship Warner out of here in pre-2007 so its not like there is not precendent here. I am not attacking you but I will be honest that it does draw my ire when Cardinal fans want to throw Matt out with the bath water, when its pretty obvious that hes our best option for 2010 and has earned the right to be the undisputed starter for 2010.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

I have a wait and see attitude but I like reading stuff like this and to me, it makes sense.

That's fine, but don't come up with garbage like calling people "haters" for having a different take than yours, it's just stupid. You don't think Mitch, I among many others who are unsure what Matt will bring would love Matt to lead this team to a title, or at least run the offense effectively?

You read the article and look at it as a positive that Matt can allegedly turn a "switch" on when he's told he's the man. It can just as easily be interpreted as at least mildly troublesome that a qb can go from erratic to a world beater depending on whether or not he has a coach telling him he's the man.

In case you and Matt hadn't noticed, sports in general are pretty much all about competition. It's ok if your average Joe doesn't respond well to it, but not great when you're an NFL qb. If Matt doesn't want to be looking over his shoulder, the best thing to do would be to perform, and do his job.

It's fine to have different opinions, let's just try to keep dumb words like "hater" out of the discussion, ok?

 

[PoolBoy]

Mitch telling someone they cannot be serious. Post of the month for sure.

 

[red desert]

 

[TJ]

My antennas go up when a guy like Pete Carrol talks QBs. This is a guy who sent 4 of them to the pros in his 9 year stint with USC (Palmer, Leinart, Booty, Sanchez). Look out for Matt Barkley, another Carrol protege, to make noise in the NFL too. To me, his credibility on this topic is 2nd to none.

Ive made these arguments many times in the past but it's worth repeating.

With what was given to him, Leinart did a decent job as a rookie. Recall that he was in a system ran by a lazy coach who knew his days were numbered with the team. The only fire Denny Green showed that season was the Bears postgame interview. Anyway, here are some facts to ponder when looking at 2006; his rookie season:

• Leinart's 1st start against KC = 22 for 35 253 yards 2 TDs 1 INT
• 2nd start against the Bears (best team at the time) = 24 for 42 232 yards 2 TDs no INTs
• Against another one of the best defenses at the time, he set an NFL record for most passing yards in one game by a rookie = 405 yds
• Sent Anquan Boldin to the pro bowl

What has happened since then was the emergence of a brand new coach, a significant change in the offense and the resurgence of an HoF caliber QB in Warner. I dont care who you are, that is a lot of change for a rookie to handle. Think about it: in 3 years he was in 3 different offenses (Carrol, Green, Whisenhunt). Imagine every year, memorizing a 200+ page offensive playbook then throwing it away and starting from scratch.

Furthermore, the 2008 QB race was closer than people really want to admit. In one preseason game, Leinart three 3 INTs, yet before that, both Warner and Leinart were neck and neck. I'm not taking all responsibility away from Matt, just saying that his one bad game came at a horrible time (how often did we see 5 turnover games from Warner?)

People want to throw him under the bus for his time during mop up duty in 2009. Trust me, I was one of the hardest on him but later I put things in perspective. Warner had taken nearly every 1st string snap in practice. Since this is a timing-based offense, rhythm is key to success. Warner had the chance to develop it, Leinart didn't. Before the Titans game, Leinart was given a significant portion of the snaps (not as many as Warner typically gets) and he did just fine in that game.

Other proponents for Leinart want to compare him to Aaron Rodgers. I don't. I compare him more to Steve Young. From 1985-86, he started 19 games for a bottom feeding Tampa Bay Buccaneer team. His overall record: 3-16. Look here at the stats for those two seasons. They are not pretty. He was deemed a "bust" after just two seasons and was subsequently traded to SF after TB drafted Testaverde. After sitting for 4 seasons behind Joe Montana, another legendary QB, he took the reigns and had an HoF career himself.

Whether you are a Leinart proponent or detractor, consider what the man has been through since being in the NFL. No one is saying that Leinart is better than Warner or that the offense will improve, but rather he will be an upper echelon quarterback in this league. Now that Warner is out of the picture, Leinart can focus on success rather than constantly looking over his shoulder. Trust me, Derek Anderson is not going to phase him one bit.

 

[PoolBoy]

Leinart will have success. I have no doubt about this. I'm so sick of the Leinart hate because of his off the field stuff. Call it on the field if you want people, but you hate Leinart for other reasons.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

That's fine, but don't come up with garbage like calling people "haters" for having a different take than yours, it's just stupid. You don't think Mitch, I among many others who are unsure what Matt will bring would love Matt to lead this team to a title, or at least run the offense effectively?

You read the article and look at it as a positive that Matt can allegedly turn a "switch" on when he's told he's the man. It can just as easily be interpreted as at least mildly troublesome that a qb can go from erratic to a world beater depending on whether or not he has a coach telling him he's the man.

In case you and Matt hadn't noticed, sports in general are pretty much all about competition. It's ok if your average Joe doesn't respond well to it, but not great when you're an NFL qb. If Matt doesn't want to be looking over his shoulder, the best thing to do would be to perform, and do his job.

It's fine to have different opinions, let's just try to keep dumb words like "hater" out of the discussion, ok?

Take a valium Chris. Its pretty obvious that Mitch doesn't like Leinart one bit and will take every opportunity to bash him.

I didn't think this thread dictated that. This was a pretty positive comment by Pete and calling it a "farce" or thinking that Matt "needs to be coddled" (as you said) is way off base and again, the words of those who aren't going to believe no matter what. And they bring the cynicism about him into EVERY THREAD, spinning it every which way when like me, they really have no clue of what to make of Matt. There has been bad and good and to acknowledge anything definite at this point and be so absolute is pretty irritating.

As for you, I have no answers. Like I said in the first reply not everyone responds the same way. And it does'nt seem to be the case with Matt. Is that so hard to acknowledge of do you want to piss in everyone elses cheerio-s on yet another subject?

 

[Arizona's Finest]

Leinart will have success. I have no doubt about this. I'm so sick of the Leinart hate because of his off the field stuff. Call it on the field if you want people, but you hate Leinart for other reasons.

Yup.

 

[red desert]

Leinart will have success. I have no doubt about this. I'm so sick of the Leinart hate because of his off the field stuff. Call it on the field if you want people, but you hate Leinart for other reasons.

Much of it is not hate. It's doubt. From where I stand anyway.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

My antennas go up when a guy like Pete Carrol talks QBs. This is a guy who sent 4 of them to the pros in his 9 year stint with USC (Palmer, Leinart, Booty, Sanchez). Look out for Matt Barkley, another Carrol protege, to make noise in the NFL too. To me, his credibility on this topic is 2nd to none.

Ive made these arguments many times in the past but it's worth repeating.

With what was given to him, Leinart did a decent job as a rookie. Recall that he was in a system ran by a lazy coach who knew his days were numbered with the team. The only fire Denny Green showed that season was the Bears postgame interview. Anyway, here are some facts to ponder when looking at 2006; his rookie season:

• Leinart's 1st start against KC = 22 for 35 253 yards 2 TDs 1 INT
• 2nd start against the Bears (best team at the time) = 24 for 42 232 yards 2 TDs no INTs
• Against another one of the best defenses at the time, he set an NFL record for most passing yards in one game by a rookie = 405 yds
• Sent Anquan Boldin to the pro bowl

What has happened since then was the emergence of a brand new coach, a significant change in the offense and the resurgence of an HoF caliber QB in Warner. I dont care who you are, that is a lot of change for a rookie to handle. Think about it: in 3 years he was in 3 different offenses (Carrol, Green, Whisenhunt). Imagine every year, memorizing a 200+ page offensive playbook then throwing it away and starting from scratch.

Furthermore, the 2008 QB race was closer than people really want to admit. In one preseason game, Leinart three 3 INTs, yet before that, both Warner and Leinart were neck and neck. I'm not taking all responsibility away from Matt, just saying that his one bad game came at a horrible time (how often did we see 5 turnover games from Warner?)

People want to throw him under the bus for his time during mop up duty in 2009. Trust me, I was one of the hardest on him but later I put things in perspective. Warner had taken nearly every 1st string snap in practice. Since this is a timing-based offense, rhythm is key to success. Warner had the chance to develop it, Leinart didn't. Before the Titans game, Leinart was given a significant portion of the snaps (not as many as Warner typically gets) and he did just fine in that game.

Other proponents for Leinart want to compare him to Aaron Rodgers. I don't. I compare him more to Steve Young. From 1985-86, he started 19 games for a bottom feeding Tampa Bay Buccaneer team. His overall record: 3-16. Look here at the stats for those two seasons. They are not pretty. He was deemed a "bust" after just two seasons and was subsequently traded to SF after TB drafted Testaverde. After sitting for 4 seasons behind Joe Montana, another legendary QB, he took the reigns and had an HoF career himself.

Whether you are a Leinart proponent or detractor, consider what the man has been through since being in the NFL. No one is saying that Leinart is better than Warner or that the offense will improve, but rather he will be an upper echelon quarterback in this league. Now that Warner is out of the picture, Leinart can focus on success rather than constantly looking over his shoulder. Trust me, Derek Anderson is not going to phase him one bit.

Well played TJ Bout time you got here

Where's MD on this topic!?!? Is he banned again?

 

[TJ]

Well played TJ Bout time you got here

Where's MD on this topic!?!? Is he banned again?

My exact words to you on the phone were: "I got your back homie....as soon as I get back to my computer" I came through, didnt I?

 

[Arizona's Finest]

Much of it is not hate. It's doubt. From where I stand anyway.

I am more then okay with that. And would be lying if I didn't tell you I had a little of my own.

But there is a difference between the two and it only takes a read through this thread to see the difference.

 

[Buckybird]

Leinart will have success. I have no doubt about this. I'm so sick of the Leinart hate because of his off the field stuff. Call it on the field if you want people, but you hate Leinart for other reasons.

I agree with you...


but he could have that success with another team. Unless he has a very good season, chances are his contract will get him put of town. Since the day we drafted him, I always thought he would be the guy who got us to our ultimate goal & timing is clicking. He has 1 season to prove his worth in AZ.

 

[conraddobler]

There are all types of people and they all have different potentials.

One of the best coaches ever, John Wooden, would of been successful IMO at whatever he chose to do.

Whiz is one type of coach, Pete is another, and I would chose Whiz all day long and twice on Sunday.

I've said for years that Whiz and Matt aren't something you'd probably put together if you were designing things from scratch, not that either one is bad in their own way but they aren't on the same basic philosophy page IMO.

Whiz is more the type to be hard on players, Matt I think thrives more in a more supportive enviroment and I can't stand people who say tough, it's football suck it up.

If you're that type of coach fine, don't ever have a player like Matt on your team because they'll flounder but a true coach, a true leader can sometimes switch styles and make the most out of what he has.

Whiz may fall short of that in Matt's case, he may not, IMO he does but I think Whiz is more important than Matt so it's fine by me if it never works out.

To have a philosophy though that no one could ever support a player like Matt and be successful I don't think is true though.