Quarterback Decision Looms

[Russ Smith]

I think that the Chicago game, along with the KC game are both examples of good games for Leinart. However, putting up 14 quick points(putting up 2 good starts in his first 2 starts) then 6 points the final three quarters and the team losing is what I'm talking about(Leinart showing great potential in the beginning and slowly losing playing time and then getting injured again as the bad ending). I'm not discounting what he did in the Chicago game or saying he had a bad game or cost the Cardinals the win.

Of course you are if you weren't you'd acknowledge that in the Chicago game during the game Green took over the playcalling and started calling Edge left, Edge right, Edge up the middle on every play until the entire country, and the Bears defense, were all wondering who the hell is calling these stupid plays.

The lack of scoring late in that game was entirely on the playcalling, not on Matt. WHen Green finally turned Matt loose again he immediately marched us downfield but alas Rackers choked.

In the KC game Matt made a mistake, he got baited into throwing a ball that was picked. But he still again had the poise to come right back and take us all the way down for a FG that Rackers missed. And again, those were the first 2 starts of his career, you can't just ignore that it's not normal for a rookie QB to play that well that early, that's one of the main reasons the Cards are now going with Leinart, they saw early on what he can do if healthy and in a system that suits him. they think he's healthy, they have a system in place they think suits him.

 

[Joe L]

I just typed out a long brilliant reply and then my IE crashed, so here goes again.

Take a step back for a second and forget we're talking about Kurt Warner.
We have 2 QB's, one is currently 25, the other is currently 37. The game in question or games were 2 years ago so one was 23, the other was 35.

Can you not see why it's not out of the realm of normalcy to suggest that the impact of those games on the 23 year old rookie, his first 2 NFL starts, were significantly different than it would be on a 35 year old with the years of experience Warner had?

Valid points.

Matt's rookie year was off to a fairly remarkable start he played extremely well in his first 2 starts, if not for Rackers choking we likely win both starts in large part due to Leinart. But instead Rackers chokes, the team implodes and everything goes to hell which predictably takes Matt's level of play down with it(see stinkers against Raiders and Packers as exhibit 1 and 2)

.

* keep in mind that there was no game tape on Leinart to study. His starts were great but when you don't know what to expect from a guy with no NFL history, they element of surprise can make or break a defense. Rackers choked...no doubt but that wasn't why Matt's play level went down. The other teams had tape to study as a result of those remarkable 2 games you speak of. It sent a red flag to other teams that Leinart was one took look out for. And it's pretty obvious that the following competition studied game tape prior to playing the Cards.

Last year new coach comes in, completely remakes Leinart as a QB, new offense, new mechanics, Matt predictably is struggling, then he gets hurt.
Comes back this year, new outlook on preparation, better mechanics, healthier, in the words of his coaches much more comfortable in the system. Can you not see how a franchise would think it makes sense to play that guy now and see if they can get back to where they were in those first 2 starts before the Dennis Green implosion? Can you not see why a team would want to see if what they saw in those first 2 starts was real, rather than starting a 37 year old guy with a tendency to take too many risks and too many sacks trying to go downfield on a team with a coach who apparently doesnt' want to play that way?

Too many sacks? too many risks?

Here's something you probably don't know:

Leinart has been sacked 25 times in 17 games. Thats 1.4 sacks a game in the last 2 seasons

Warner has been sacked 34 times in 20 games the last 2 seasons. That's a 1.7 sacks a game. Not much difference...right? Leinart has more INT's than TD's in his career. Now, is Leinart any better than Warner when it comes to Risks ( TO's) or sacks?

What people don't understand is that Warner has been branded a TO machine ( some validity to that) but that makes it even much more magnified
when it does happen...especially with the ones who don't like him. If you compare both QB's and their respective stats, you will find that when it comes to risks and sacks, they are about equal and Lienart seems to have a bigger problem with taking risks compared top the pay-off.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I'm really not trying to convince you of anything. You want to place ALL the blame on him and I am just opening your eyes.

I'm not even going to reply to the rest of it, because I felt I already did an adequate job. You ARE trying to rationalize Warner's crappy games where he is at fault.

I also didn't say that I was placing ALL the blame on him, I just said he was just as responsible as Rackers. I stand by that.

 

[joeshmo]

Too many sacks? too many risks?

Here's something you probably don't know:

Leinart has been sacked 25 times in 17 games. Thats 1.4 sacks a game in the last 2 seasons

Warner has been sacked 34 times in 20 games the last 2 seasons. That's a 1.7 sacks a game. Not much difference...right? Leinart has more INT's than TD's in his career. Now, is Leinart any better than Warner when it comes to Risks ( TO's) or sacks?

That is a big difference. That is 5 more sacks a season. And since Warner fumbles it 64% of the time that he gets sacked 3 more fumbles a season. Teams would kill to have 5 fewer sacks given up a season. 5 fewer drive killers. And for a team that lost 8 games by so few points, a game of inches, 5 fewer sacks is a big difference.

 

[joeshmo]

I guess you don't believe there are any intangibles in a football game. That's cool, I guess. But being a part of sports for a long time tells me that there is an ebb and flow to just about any contest, and it ebbed from there on out. Maybe you couldn't see it on TV, but you could feel it in that building.

Not to even mention that fact that teams have a much higher chance of winning at home then on the road. Or that if you ask any player they will say the crowd helps them out. Or the big noise causes teams who travel to Seattle to have the most false starts then any other stadium in the league by a large margin. Or how refs tend to side more towards the Home team then the Road team, which is a proven fact. There is without a doubt a 12 man factor and any professional sports athlete will tell you the same

 

[Russ Smith]

Valid points.

.

* keep in mind that there was no game tape on Leinart to study. His starts were great but when you don't know what to expect from a guy with no NFL history, they element of surprise can make or break a defense. Rackers choked...no doubt but that wasn't why Matt's play level went down. The other teams had tape to study as a result of those remarkable 2 games you speak of. It sent a red flag to other teams that Leinart was one took look out for. And it's pretty obvious that the following competition studied game tape prior to playing the Cards.



Too many sacks? too many risks?

Here's something you probably don't know:

Leinart has been sacked 25 times in 17 games. Thats 1.4 sacks a game in the last 2 seasons

Warner has been sacked 34 times in 20 games the last 2 seasons. That's a 1.7 sacks a game. Not much difference...right? Leinart has more INT's than TD's in his career. Now, is Leinart any better than Warner when it comes to Risks ( TO's) or sacks?

What people don't understand is that Warner has been branded a TO machine ( some validity to that) but that makes it even much more magnified
when it does happen...especially with the ones who don't like him. If you compare both QB's and their respective stats, you will find that when it comes to risks and sacks, they are about equal and Lienart seems to have a bigger problem with taking risks compared top the pay-off.

Sure game tape is a factor but I think a much bigger factor was that after the Bears game we imploded, Green demoted/fired the oc, replaced him with the QB coach and Matt lost his mentor because rather than standing next to Matt on the sideline he was sitting up in the booth playing OC.

As for the sacks thing again you're overlooking that those stats reflect a 35 and 36 year old Warner with a lot of NFL experience against a 23 and 24 year old Leinart with very little NFL experience. young Qb's take sacks they should not take, veteran QB's shouldn't do that.

Last year the Cards were very good at protecting Warner and he had a good season but still turned it over too much. The year before we couldnt' protect him as well and he was a turnover machine. in about 1/3 of the attempts he had more than half as many sacks(14 2 years ago 20 last year). I think it's illogical to assume we're going to protect the QB as well this year as we did last season, especially the way we've looked in the preseason.

Matt is better already at not getting sacked and he hasn't even thrown 500 passes in the NFL. Kurt has always got sacked a lot, that's one reason for his weird career path he got hit so much as a Ram that it derailed his career with injuries and inability to hold onto the ball.

Matt's been hurt too but he's already shown he's better at not getting sacked.

The TD to INT thing again we're talking about a kid with less than 500 attempts in the NFL. Manning threw 28 picks as a rookie, should the Colts have benched him for a 36 year old QB? not saying Matt is another Manning but young Qb's almost always throw more picks than TD's, in fact a 13-16 ratio in his first 2 seasons is damn good compared to most rookie Qb's who play alot on bad teams.

Mokler keeps saying Matt hasn't shown anything to justify the way he's being treated which is completely untrue, he has shown enough early to explain why the coaches feel he should be starting, and the coaches showed last year if he doesn't play well, they'll play Warner.

There is no upside to starting the 37 year old right now all he's going to do is turn 38, guys that age don't normally improve suddenly. Guys Matt's age often improve, in fact it's the norm.

 

[jefftheshark]

When I read a thread like this, I can see why the Giants ran Warner out of town.

JTS

 

[nashman]

No Kidding JTS! Just wait and see is the approach most should take lets see how Leinart plays if its well enough to be the starter he will be. We need to get off to a quick start so the leash on Leinart will be short, god I hope the kid plays well so we can put an end to the QB thing for awhile at least. I am personally more concerned about the Boldin situation rather than the QB one.

 

[Joe L]

That is a big difference. That is 5 more sacks a season. And since Warner fumbles it 64% of the time that he gets sacked 3 more fumbles a season.

Fair enough...I'll buy that but a sack is a sack. Not all sacks are momentum killers. Unless you can point to how many drives either QB lost as a result of a sack...it's pointless. Show me the %'s of that and I will gladly concede.

* my original point was the disparity of sacks per game. I was addressing Russ's comment about Kurt taking the sack.

Teams would kill to have 5 fewer sacks given up a season. 5 fewer drive killers( assuming don't equate to facts). And for a team that lost 8 games by so few points, a game of inches, 5 fewer sacks is a big difference.

Teams would kill to have be in the top 3 in scoring inside the red zone. Teams would kill to have the 7th best passing offense and the 5th best scoring offense. Which would you pick? 5 fewer sacks a season which by no means equates to a "momentum killer" or the above mentioned?

* keep in mind we were the 3rd worst defense in points allowed. You are right, this game is about inches...it is also applied on the defensive end. Think about it? We had one of the most potent offenses scoring on average 25 points a game while allowing just as much. One of the best in scoring points and one of the worst in allowing points. Imagine if the defense was ranked as average? Less inches allowed...less points allowed. Make sense? I would rather keep a team on the field that can put up the points and negate those gaffes instead of an offense that can't score but still make those gaffes in a slightly slower ( not by much) fashion.

This game is about inches but what good are inches when this gave is played in yards & points. We don't have the best defense so we need a potent offense to carry that burden.

Bottom line, the team that ends up with the higher score....WINS!

 

[Russ Smith]

* keep in mind we were the 3rd worst defense in points allowed. You are right, this game is about inches...it is also applied on the defensive end. Think about it? We had one of the most potent offenses scoring on average 25 points a game while allowing just as much. One of the best in scoring points and one of the worst in allowing points. Imagine if the defense was ranked as average? Less inches allowed...less points allowed. Make sense? I would rather keep a team on the field that can put up the points and negate those gaffes instead of an offense that can't score but still make those gaffes in a slightly slower ( not by much) fashion.

This game is about inches but what good are inches when this gave is played in yards & points. We don't have the best defense so we need a potent offense to carry that burden.

Bottom line, the team that ends up with the higher score....WINS!

Fair points but consider that many of those scoring drives started with a Warner INT or lost fumble.

That's why coaches hate turnovers, they tend to turn into points.

I tend to agree with Pariah's statement, Kurt is the perfect backup you want a backup that can come in and take some risks because you're already in trouble. If he's the starter you can pretty much assume he'll put up numbers, turn the ball over, and eventually get injured. That's what his career tells us.

 

[joeshmo]

This game is about inches but what good are inches when this gave is played in yards & points. We don't have the best defense so we need a potent offense to carry that burden.

Bottom line, the team that ends up with the higher score....WINS!

What helps a defense more, not giving the opposing team short fields to work with because of turnovers, or constantly throwing the ball down field.

Put the Horse in front of the cart. We were average in yards given up per game on defense but close to last in points. That means the opposing offense was given short fields to work with constantly because of special teams and turnovers by Warner.

Higher score wins, but I guess it is what philosophy you believe in. Do you want to score 30 points a game or would you rather score 20 and hold opponents to under 20. I come from the standpoint that Championships are won on Defense and Warner hinders the defense with short fields. I guess it is just a philosophy differnce. I would rather hold opposing offenses then to try and outgun them.

 

[joeshmo]

Fair enough...I'll buy that but a sack is a sack. Not all sacks are momentum killers.

Not all sacks but it is very safe to assume that MOST, a very high portion, or what have you, sacks are drive killers. Not sure what that is even a debatable issue? It is a fact.

 

[Joe L]

Sure game tape is a factor but I think a much bigger factor was that after the Bears game we imploded, Green demoted/fired the oc, replaced him with the QB coach and Matt lost his mentor because rather than standing next to Matt on the sideline he was sitting up in the booth playing OC.

I see it different but let agree to disagree.

As for the sacks thing again you're overlooking that those stats reflect a 35 and 36 year old Warner with a lot of NFL experience against a 23 and 24 year old Leinart with very little NFL experience. young Qb's take sacks they should not take, veteran QB's shouldn't do that.

So is that your disclaimer? He is young and therefor he gets a free pass? Wasn't he the most NFL ready QB coming out of college? So you are basically saying that Leinart's sacks are condoned and even though they are sacks, the repercussions are not the same? I don't get it?

Last year the Cards were very good at protecting Warner and he had a good season but still turned it over too much. The year before we couldnt' protect him as well and he was a turnover machine. in about 1/3 of the attempts he had more than half as many sacks(14 2 years ago 20 last year). I think it's illogical to assume we're going to protect the QB as well this year as we did last season, especially the way we've looked in the preseason.

I beg to differ. The line improved marginally but Warner & Leinart were hit more often than not.

You can call Warner a TO machine but he is also a scoring machine. Warner has the propensity to overcome those gaffes than Leinart.

Matt is better already at not getting sacked and he hasn't even thrown 500 passes in the NFL.

You mean like the KC game where he was sacked and lost the ball? Is that what you mean? At least Warner held on to it.

* didn't you just say:

young Qb's take sacks they should not take, veteran QB's shouldn't do that.

So is he ready or not? Same post but contradictory statements.

Matt's been hurt too but he's already shown he's better at not getting sacked.

Kurt has always got sacked a lot, that's one reason for his weird career path he got hit so much as a Ram that it derailed his career with injuries and inability to hold onto the ball.

Like I posted:

1.4 sacks
1.7 sacks

Not much of a difference.

The TD to INT thing again we're talking about a kid with less than 500 attempts in the NFL. Manning threw 28 picks as a rookie, should the Colts have benched him for a 36 year old QB? not saying Matt is another Manning but young Qb's almost always throw more picks than TD's, in fact a 13-16 ratio in his first 2 seasons is damn good compared to most rookie Qb's who play alot on bad teams.

That's all good and dandy but if we were rebuilding then it would be appropriate to ride it through with him but with all the pieces in place and the uncertainty of player contracts & disgruntled players, we need to win now.

There is no upside to starting the 37 year old right now all he's going to do is turn 38, guys that age don't normally improve suddenly. Guys Matt's age often improve, in fact it's the norm.

Beg to differ. Most QB prospects fall through the cracks....especially in that position. There are more heartbreaking stories of young QB's who couldn't live up to their potential then there are success stories.

 

[Joe L]

What helps a defense more, not giving the opposing team short fields to work with because of turnovers, or constantly throwing the ball down field.

Back it up with some facts. The Seattle game was not short field. They started on their own territory except for the missed field goal by Rackers. All the others were on their side of the field...and guess what? they scored a TD 3 consecutive times. Is starting on your own field a short field?

Give me a game where the field was short due to Warner's TO's? I just disproved your statement...can you redeem yourself?

Put the Horse in front of the cart. We were average in yards given up per game on defense but close to last in points. That means the opposing offense was given short fields to work with constantly because of special teams and turnovers by Warner.

No, it means we sucked protecting against the pass.

Higher score wins, but I guess it is what philosophy you believe in. Do you want to score 30 points a game or would you rather score 20 and hold opponents to under 20. I come from the standpoint that Championships are won on Defense and Warner hinders the defense with short fields.

I would rather have both but this isn't a perfect world. And your notion of "short" fields is just that...a notion with no facts.

I guess it is just a philosophy differnce. I would rather hold opposing offenses then to try and outgun them.

I would also love to hold opposing teams but how is that working out for us?????

How is our offense working out for us?????

Nuff said.

 

[Pariah]

Back it up with some facts. The Seattle game was not short field. They started on their own territory except for the missed field goal by Rackers. All the others were on their side of the field...and guess what? they scored a TD 3 consecutive times. Is starting on your own field a short field?

Give me a game where the field was short due to Warner's TO's? I just disproved your statement...can you redeem yourself?

When you say "they," you're talking about the Cardinals? Because when the Cardinals turn the ball over, they're giving their opponents the short field, and, while I don't want to put words in his mouth, I think that's what Joe is talking about.

I don't see how that fact can be argued. If the Cards' offense doesn't turn the ball over, even if they don't score they're putting distance between opposing offense the the endzone they're defending.

If I'm understanding your post correctly, I don't believe you've "disproved" anything; in fact, I believe earlier in this thread you cited an example of a short field yourself when talking about the first TO of the Seattle game last year. Warner threw a pick and it was returned past the Cards' 50 for a FG.

 

[RonF]

What has Kurt done this year to prove that he is better than Matt?

Anyone?

Not get his picture printed on the internet partying and using a beer bong for one.

 

[Russ Smith]

I see it different but let agree to disagree.



So is that your disclaimer? He is young and therefor he gets a free pass? Wasn't he the most NFL ready QB coming out of college? So you are basically saying that Leinart's sacks are condoned and even though they are sacks, the repercussions are not the same? I don't get it?



I beg to differ. The line improved marginally but Warner & Leinart were hit more often than not.

You can call Warner a TO machine but he is also a scoring machine. Warner has the propensity to overcome those gaffes than Leinart.


You mean like the KC game where he was sacked and lost the ball? Is that what you mean? At least Warner held on to it.

* didn't you just say:


So is he ready or not? Same post but contradictory statements.






Like I posted:

1.4 sacks
1.7 sacks

Not much of a difference.



That's all good and dandy but if we were rebuilding then it would be appropriate to ride it through with him but with all the pieces in place and the uncertainty of player contracts & disgruntled players, we need to win now.




Beg to differ. Most QB prospects fall through the cracks....especially in that position. There are more heartbreaking stories of young QB's who couldn't live up to their potential then there are success stories.

Never said free pass I was explaining why you don't view the 2 the same way as an NFL coach, because one is 12 years younger than the other. How many guys Matt's age get sacked at the rate he has, most young Qb's get sacked a lot more than that. he's already showed that he was more NFL ready than the average first round QB that plays on a bad team is.

Secondly, Matt doesn't fumble as often as Kurt does, he doesn't fumble every other time he gets sacked, he doesn't just drop the ball for no apparent reason as Kurt does. 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.

Matt has played in 17 NFL games and fumbled 8 times over 2 seasons. IN those same 2 seasons Kurt played in 20 games and fumbled 22 times. Even if we take out the disaster first 4 games of 2006(10 fumbles) he's still fumbled 12 times in his last 16 games. Fact is Warner is a fumbler, he has been for years.

Apparently you're saying because Matt fumbled against the Chiefs and Kurt didn't that Kurt is now no longer a fumbler. That's one game, the last 2 years tells the exact opposite story on the 2 of them.

Sure we got hit again last year but the offense was a bit different so we were able to avoid as many sacks. A lot of that was because the coaches knew Kurt was playing and Kurt holds the ball and gets hit a lot, so they game planned to protect Kurt.

From games 9-14 Kurt was sacked 16 times, the last 2 games were against the bad Falcons and Rams and Kurt wasn't sacked at all and predictably had huge games against both of them. prior to that we were having trouble protecting him. In those same 6 games kurt had 13 turnovers.

Matt has shown he's ready to take the next step and start if he can stay healthy. he can't show that by not starting. he manages the game differently than Warner, he doesn't take the same risks, he already protects the ball better despite having only played 17 NFL games.

Sure most young Qb's don't become good, most first round QB's at least get to start a full season before they're considered to have fallen through the cracks. And most 37 year old Qb's don't get handed starting NFL jobs when there is a viable 25 year old on the same team.

Whiz proved last year he'll play anybody if he thinks it will help the team win.

I don't see why given that you can assume he's starting Matt for the wrong reasons, he clearly has some reason he thinks Matt should start.

 

[RonF]

Hopefully, the coaches are starting the best QB who they feel gives us the best chance of winning. Period. The first four games are relatively easy games for us compared to the rest of the schedule. It sure would be nice to start 4 and 0 when the schedule gets a little tougher.

 

[Joe L]

When you say "they," you're talking about the Cardinals? Because when the Cardinals turn the ball over, they're giving their opponents the short field, and, while I don't want to put words in his mouth, I think that's what Joe is talking about.

I didn't see that way. Short field means just that...a short field to work with.

I don't see how that fact can be argued. If the Cards' offense doesn't turn the ball over, even if they don't score they're putting distance between opposing offense the the endzone they're defending.

True but our Defense wasn't holding the distance. Only so many 3 and outs you can live with before they start scoring on you.

If I'm understanding your post correctly, I don't believe you've "disproved" anything; in fact, I believe earlier in this thread you cited an example of a short field yourself when talking about the first TO of the Seattle game last year. Warner threw a pick and it was returned past the Cards' 50 for a FG.

Yes but the ball was intercepted at THEIR 18 yrd line. I was disproving the short field notion and how the defense made the stop by only allowing a field goal. A field goal is a start but by no means does that equate to the momentum of the game. The next 3 SEA pssesions where not short field and they scored at will. Was that a direct cause of Warner's INT in their first possession? Not even close.

 

[Pariah]

Yes but the ball was intercepted at THEIR 18 yrd line.

Oh, that's so much better. (that's sarcasm)

You're being really irrational about this, Joe. TO's hurt the defense's ability to stop the opponents from scoring. No matter who they come from or where they happen. Period.

 

[Joe L]

Never said free pass I was explaining why you don't view the 2 the same way as an NFL coach, because one is 12 years younger than the other. How many guys Matt's age get sacked at the rate he has, most young Qb's get sacked a lot more than that. he's already showed that he was more NFL ready than the average first round QB that plays on a bad team is.

In all honesty, it really doesn't matter how you view it....not during a game. The results are the same whether you are a first year, 1st round draft pick or a 38 yr old QB. You are making that distinction...not me.

Secondly, Matt doesn't fumble as often as Kurt does, he doesn't fumble every other time he gets sacked, he doesn't just drop the ball for no apparent reason as Kurt does. 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.

Very true but Leinart doesn't score at will like Warner does....pick your poison.

Matt has played in 17 NFL games and fumbled 8 times over 2 seasons. IN those same 2 seasons Kurt played in 20 games and fumbled 22 times. Even if we take out the disaster first 4 games of 2006(10 fumbles) he's still fumbled 12 times in his last 16 games. Fact is Warner is a fumbler, he has been for years.

Very true about his his troubled past but that same fumbler bailed Leinart when he couldn't move the ball last season. On top of that, Leinart still managed to get intercepted more times then he put the ball in the end zone. His very first throw was intercepted....wasn't it? Lets call them equal. Matt is prone to throwing INTs...and has been for 2 years.

Apparently you're saying because Matt fumbled against the Chiefs and Kurt didn't that Kurt is now no longer a fumbler. That's one game, the last 2 years tells the exact opposite story on the 2 of them.

That's not what I am saying. Kurt will always have that tendency (imho) but I was just countering your argument that Matt can and is ready to protect the ball. I just gave you an example on why it isn't true. The irony is that Matt held onto the ball just like Warner used to.

Sure we got hit again last year but the offense was a bit different so we were able to avoid as many sacks. A lot of that was because the coaches knew Kurt was playing and Kurt holds the ball and gets hit a lot, so they game planned to protect Kurt.

Shouldn't that be the plan of every coach? Protect your QB????? I sure hoped they planned on that, I would hate to see a coach not do that for his player. I think it's called pass protection.

From games 9-14 Kurt was sacked 16 times, the last 2 games were against the bad Falcons and Rams and Kurt wasn't sacked at all and predictably had huge games against both of them. prior to that we were having trouble protecting him. In those same 6 games kurt had 13 turnovers.

See what happens when you have pass protection? Maybe the O-line was meshing...no?

Matt has shown he's ready to take the next step and start if he can stay healthy. he can't show that by not starting. he manages the game differently than Warner, he doesn't take the same risks, he already protects the ball better despite having only played 17 NFL games.

He manages the game differently which is why he was replaced during games.
He protected the ball so good that he didn;t move the ball for the most part and averaged a INT in every game he played in.

Sure most young Qb's don't become good, most first round QB's at least get to start a full season before they're considered to have fallen through the cracks. And most 37 year old Qb's don't get handed starting NFL jobs when there is a viable 25 year old on the same team.

They should if that 38 yr old QB is out playing the often hurt 25 yr old viable one.

Whiz proved last year he'll play anybody if he thinks it will help the team win.

I don't see why given that you can assume he's starting Matt for the wrong reasons, he clearly has some reason he thinks Matt should start.

Wise said a player doesn't lose his job due to injury. He also said the best player plays but if he is holding out the player in pre-season that is supposed compete, what is one to think????

 

[Joe L]

Oh, that's so much better. (that's sarcasm)

You're being really irrational about this, Joe. TO's hurt the defense's ability to stop the opponents from scoring. No matter who they come from or where they happen. Period.

Who's being irrational? couldn't an intercepted pass be the equivalence of a punt caught at the 18 yrd line? It's a bit heartbreaking but don't you think the defense has enough field to stop the opponent? Or is it all mental? It's not like the D just got off the field only to return. that was their first series in the game.

a start at 20 yrd line is about average...isn't it?

 

[Mulli]

great googly moogly, give it a rest.

Score at will? Come on now.

 

[Pariah]

Who's being irrational?

Dude, come on. We're not even talking about Warner vs Leinart anymore. We're talking about turnovers, and you seem to be arguing that they're not that big of a deal.

I really, truly think it's you who's being irrational.

couldn't an intercepted pass be the equivalence of a punt caught at the 18 yrd line?

uh, no. Unless it's thrown on purpose and there are 10 other guys out there in a scheme designed to take down the guy who intercepted it.

It's a bit heartbreaking but don't you think the defense has enough field to stop the opponent? Or is it all mental? It's not like the D just got off the field only to return. that was their first series in the game.

By that logic they ought to have 3 and outs every time they step on the field.

 

[Pariah]

a start at 20 yrd line is about average...isn't it?

They didn't start there!