Mokler seems to think the gloves have solved that it's not something that's clear yet although he did improve at that last year.
I'd like to thank the Academy, my family, friends and those that have supported me through all the wasted hours and thousands of posts that will never change anyone's mind and rarely enlighten, I'd also like to thank all the troubled souls who find message boards as entertaining as I do. To the Bidwills, coach Whisenhunt, Todd Haley, Matt Leinart, Kurt Warner, the defensive and special teams units. Also, thanks to the Morgan Athletic Club, Walter Camp and Pete Rozelle. Thanks to the cities of Chicago, St. Louis and Arizona. Lastly, I'd like to thank my dog Sadie for not staring a hole completely through the back of my head for participating in these mind numbing, circle jerks instead of getting off my fat butt and taking her for a walk. Thank God, Buddha, Allah and all the rest. Someone actually sort of sees my point of view. The gloves have "reduced" Warner's propensity to fumble.
Choosing Palmer over Kitna may have been the wrong move. WOW.
What's so amazing about that statement? If a team benchs a QB that has been "the" QB who helped the team go from 2-14 to 8-8 and had one of the best years in his career while doing it, it's bound to cause players to become divided on the subject. The timing of the decision and the team chemistry are what I'm referring to. Palmer is the better QB but just when everything was coming together for the team they have to watch an unproven rookie be handed the starting job of a guy that I'm sure was well liked and a leader of the team. I don't think that thing sits well with football players.
Then, again, it was only Matt's 12th start of his career and he did only turn the ball over once.
It was 2 interceptions, 50% completion and 102 yards but it was only his 12th game so everything else doesn't count. Can you please tell me the line at which "it's only his ___ game" isn't an argument so I'll know?
yup - but with a young QB, I (and pretty much anyone else) call them growing pains. With an old QB, there called more or the same
So, poor production and turnovers are acceptable into the player's 2nd year? When is Leinart going to be considered something other than young?
The funny thing is that you don't see that Rackers and Kurt BOTH repeatedly made huge gaffes.
I don't understand why you're so willing to accept circumstances, tolerate them and consider the big picture when it comes to the youth of a QB but somehow equate a kicker missing an extra point(again) to a QB that's playing with a dislocated elbow. Going into it I expected and understood that Warner would likely have some miscues. It was on the road, it was vs. a good defense and he had a bionic arm to go along with whatever else he normally does when he's at 100% healthy. With all of that, his knowledge and timing with the offense still gave the team the best chance to win since Rattay hadn't been there more than a week. Warner handled, I don't know, 50+ snaps and had 3 turnovers. Not great but that doesn't compare to a kicker who doesn't convert and automatic extra point and then doesn't justify his huge salary by pulling the team's fat out of the fire when he was perfectly capable to do so. I don't expect a kicker to make a 55 yarder and I admire his ability to kick onside kicks but he is paid to be a guy who can make that long field goal when it counts. If he's going to continue to suck, sign a guy like Tynes to much smaller contract and expect the suck and get Anquan signed. Then, at the end of a game when a 55 yarder is needed, they'll just settle for a hail mary and probably get better results. Fitz caught one last year, I don't think Rackers made a 50+ yarder at the end of a half.
in a position to win. When you're down 9 points with 30 seconds to play, you're not "in a position" to win. You're in a position to need a miracle (A TD, an onside kick and 55 yard FG all within 30 seconds) to win. Bravo.
When the team is trying a field goal on the last play and they win if it goes through, it doesn't count when Warner was the QB? He did complete 2 passes to get them where they were after the onside kick. When the young guy does it, it isn't expected so it's lauded but when the old guy does it, it doesn't even count and it wasn't Rackers fault? C'mon.
You assume the young guy will improve, you assume the old guy will just get older. tha'ts the distinction, that's why it may appear to you and Mokler that Matt is getting more slack from fans or coaches, it's because he's younger and we've learned to expect that a young guy needs to learn on the job.
I understand and agree with that approach when a team is rebuilding or is so good that the growing pains can be absorbed or compensated for. If this were the expansion Texans, then I'd agree with letting the rookie grow into his job. I think Minnesota and Green Bay are making mistakes doing it.
Even last year in a very good year for him recently Kurt threw more picks, in less attempts, than Matt has his first 2 seasons. So if you think Matt is INT prone you must REALLY think Kurt is?
And they say nature abhors a vacuum.
3) I think you picked out one fumble and then tried to imply from it Matt's not ready to protect the ball. He fumbled once, he's got a ways to go to catch up with Kurt in that regard.
When the perception is that "Leinart wouldn't make those kinds of mistakes" and give the team a better chance to win, it's only fair that he should be criticized for it when he does. Anyone want to guess what the fan reaction would have been if Warner had done the same thing?
I am astonished. His logic is getting so screwed up that not even Moklerman wants any part of his debate in Warners favor.
I think everyone can speak for themselves. I understand what he's saying though and think it's getting blown way out of proportion. With the Seattle game, I also feel that the game was way out of hand very early and it put Warner in a precarious situation. No QB will excel when a (good) defense knows he's going to have to pass the ball. Throw in the fact that Fitz was little more than a decoy because of his groin, Q was out, BJ was...well, can anyone honestly say they feel optimistic at the prospect of BJ as the go to guy in a game on the road down by 24 points? Take away any QB's top 2 WR's and the results aren't going to be pretty. Then, line up that JV squad against 8 man defensive backfields on the road in a game that will win the Seahawks the division. Reality-check, please.
