Who is immature ?

[RugbyMuffin]

Nice article from Darren Urban:
http://www.azcardinals.com/blog/post.php?author=1&id=1773

I think (shocker) Matt Leinart gets WAY too much flack for no reason. Leinart has done a lot of good things while a Cardinal. He continually has learned about what it takes to make it in this league from Kurt Warner. He got a rude awakening from Coach Whiz, and instead of pouting worked on his footwork, and improved his work ethic. Then after coming back from getting hurt, he said he worked harder then he had ever in his life, and still got a rude awakening that he is still not working hard enough when he lost his job to Warner. Now after getting the starting job, sharing it, and now losing it he still wants to be part of the team the drafted him, and is being a stand up team mate and professional.

What is his negative ? He got caught in pictures, at his house, partying with hotties. Uh......excuse me ? That is it? A millionaire 20 something guy had a party at his house, with a bunch of women and friends ? Come on, that is a stretch for a negative and has always been in my eyes.

He could be a mental case like Vince Young. He could be a cry baby like Jay Cutler.

Instead he is the Arizona Cardinals back up QB, and still the clubs QOF.

Which brings up the question why on earth would you trade Matt Leinart ? What sense does that make ?

Kurt Warner is playing for two years, tops. Who is going to play QB after Warner ? Brian St. Pierre ?

The short term memory of many fans is amazing. How long did the Cardinals search for a QB before Warner and Leinart came along ?

After the drought at QB in the desert, I completely understand why the Cardinals keep two QB's that could start in this league. Cause it just makes sense.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

 

[CaptTurbo]

I am pro Matt all the way and think he should get the nod after this year regardless of the outcome. He should be told that as well and signed to an extension.

 

[Catfish]

I'm hanging in there with Matt. Sure, he partied, and got into the Hollywood scene for a while. (What red blooded kid with the money to live that life style, and the opportunity to do so, wouldn't have)? The kid had one very terrible pre-season game, and was unfortunate enough to have it be the last one before the regular season started. He did OK for a rookie, being put into the fray cold. In fact he had a tremendous first half against the mighty Bears, until Denny decided to try and run the ball the entire second half to eat up clock. (Can you say three and out). He did not lose that game for us, and may have even won it if given a descent chance in the second half. Since his benching, he has said and done all the right things to warrant being considered our QBOF. I still say that our offense was more balanced with him at t he helm, and that his run-fakes were much more believable than Warner's have been. Remember, Kurt is 37, hates to run so much that his fakes are useless. We might as well run up a flag to tell the defense when to rush, and when to stuff the line. I can't wait until Matt gets a chance at a full season, with the personnel that we have now.

 

[NeverSayDieFan]

EXCELLENT post RUGBY...

We're "invested" in Matt and I think at some point it's going to pay-off. I think his work ethic was challenged and it looks like he's responded. In this day of microwave QB's it's easy to forget that in the old days ALL the rookie QB did was hold the clipboard for (5) years. It was all part of the seasoning process and learning the Pro-game. I think Matt has picked up alot, the nuances if you will, and is getting a better feel for the Offense. ...And I think in Kurt he's seeing leadership in action.

 

[bg7brd]

Nice post. I completely agree.

 

[Dr. Jones]

It didn’t take much coercion to get Graves to admit that, should USC running back Reggie Bush fall to Arizona’s 10th overall spot in next week’s draft, the Cardinals will take him.
Graves said the Cards would also snare Maryland tight end Vernon Davis or USC quarterback Matt Leinart with their top pick.

Oooof......1 out of 3 aint bad right?

 

[jf-08]

When I think of Matt & Kurt's situation, for some reason, I think of Steve Young and Joe Montana. Now, I know Matty is not in the same stratosphere of Young, and he may never be, but Young went to the 49ers in 1987 and didn't get his shot until his 5th year - 1991. He was 30 when he became their every day starter.

I know that was in the days before free agency like we have it today, but it is way too early to give up on Matt.

 

[TruColor]

Let's all remember that the Oakland preseason game was the THIRD game, not the last one before the regular season. And, Matt played very well in that fourth one (vs. Denver). Albeit against the Broncos' scrubs.

And let's all remember that it wasn't like it was a clear-cut decision to start Kurt either - he didn't exactly set the world on fire during the preseason, and a case could be made that he single-handedly lost a couple of games for the Cards in '07 (most notably the San Fran home game).

Now - after the way Kurt has played - it seems like a foregone conclusion that Kurt should be starting. But it hasn't always looked that way.

I feel like a lot of people's vision of Matt's play is in that Raiders' game. I don't think it's fair, but I'm also not saying that Matt should start over Kurt right now. (I'm not crazy.)

I feel good about the Cardinals' future with Matt as the starter in the future...let's just keep him happy, and have him continue to learn from a future HOF'er.

 

[SoCal Cardfan]

I have thought the same way all along, you don't trade a guy who has spent this much time in your system, has a crapload of your $$ AND has been learning the position from a (most likely) future HOF'r.

Trading Matt now would be like trading Steve Young because you had Montana.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

Let's all remember that the Oakland preseason game was the THIRD game, not the last one before the regular season. And, Matt played very well in that fourth one (vs. Denver). Albeit against the Broncos' scrubs.

And let's all remember that it wasn't like it was a clear-cut decision to start Kurt either - he didn't exactly set the world on fire during the preseason, and a case could be made that he single-handedly lost a couple of games for the Cards in '07 (most notably the San Fran home game).

Now - after the way Kurt has played - it seems like a foregone conclusion that Kurt should be starting. But it hasn't always looked that way.

I feel like a lot of people's vision of Matt's play is in that Raiders' game. I don't think it's fair, but I'm also not saying that Matt should start over Kurt right now. (I'm not crazy.)

I feel good about the Cardinals' future with Matt as the starter in the future...let's just keep him happy, and have him continue to learn from a future HOF'er.

When I think of Matt & Kurt's situation, for some reason, I think of Steve Young and Joe Montana. Now, I know Matty is not in the same stratosphere of Young, and he may never be, but Young went to the 49ers in 1987 and didn't get his shot until his 5th year - 1991. He was 30 when he became their every day starter.

I know that was in the days before free agency like we have it today, but it is way too early to give up on Matt.

I have thought the same way all along, you don't trade a guy who has spent this much time in your system, has a crapload of your $$ AND has been learning the position from a (most likely) future HOF'r.

Trading Matt now would be like trading Steve Young because you had Montana.

+1

 

[Stronso]

Nice article from Darren Urban:
http://www.azcardinals.com/blog/post.php?author=1&id=1773

I think (shocker) Matt Leinart gets WAY too much flack for no reason. Leinart has done a lot of good things while a Cardinal. He continually has learned about what it takes to make it in this league from Kurt Warner. He got a rude awakening from Coach Whiz, and instead of pouting worked on his footwork, and improved his work ethic. Then after coming back from getting hurt, he said he worked harder then he had ever in his life, and still got a rude awakening that he is still not working hard enough when he lost his job to Warner. Now after getting the starting job, sharing it, and now losing it he still wants to be part of the team the drafted him, and is being a stand up team mate and professional.

What is his negative ? He got caught in pictures, at his house, partying with hotties. Uh......excuse me ? That is it? A millionaire 20 something guy had a party at his house, with a bunch of women and friends ? Come on, that is a stretch for a negative and has always been in my eyes.

He could be a mental case like Vince Young. He could be a cry baby like Jay Cutler.

Instead he is the Arizona Cardinals back up QB, and still the clubs QOF.

Which brings up the question why on earth would you trade Matt Leinart ? What sense does that make ?

Kurt Warner is playing for two years, tops. Who is going to play QB after Warner ? Brian St. Pierre ?

The short term memory of many fans is amazing. How long did the Cardinals search for a QB before Warner and Leinart came along ?

After the drought at QB in the desert, I completely understand why the Cardinals keep two QB's that could start in this league. Cause it just makes sense.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!


POTW/POTM/In running for POTY

 

[WildBB]

What is his negative ? He got caught in pictures, at his house, partying with hotties. Uh......excuse me ? That is it? A millionaire 20 something guy had a party at his house, with a bunch of women and friends ? Come on, that is a stretch for a negative and has always been in my eyes.

The issue was that some of them were underage girls partying and drinking at a sports celebrity's house.


Not condemning him for it, he should have been more careful though and know he'll be scrutinised somewhat.

 

[moklerman]

The issue was that some of them were underage girls partying and drinking at a sports celebrity's house.

Dammit, you're gonna screw up the circle jerk.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

The issue was that some of them were underage girls partying and drinking at a sports celebrity's house.


Not condemning him for it, he should have been more careful though and know he'll be scrutinised somewhat.

I am sure they checked I.D.'s at the house.

It couldn't be the under aged girl's fault for lying about there age, or not saying "Oh, I can't drink I am not 21."

Nope, it could have definately been Matt Leinart and his little known pyschopathic side, where he finds under age girls and drags them to his house.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Dammit, you're gonna screw up the circle jerk.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[WildBB]

I am sure they checked I.D.'s at the house.

It couldn't be the under aged girl's fault for lying about there age, or not saying "Oh, I can't drink I am not 21."

Nope, it could have definately been Matt Leinart and his little known pyschopathic side, where he finds under age girls and drags them to his house.

Nice. I keep forgeting. Because I grew up in the East, underage was 13-17. Not 18-20.

Heck we were all 15 when we were doing that. The difference being we were ALL 15.