Matt would have won Sunday. True or False.

[kjbad]

This past weekend, there were 17 plays of 40+ yards in the NFL. AZ didn't get one of them.

The big play offense is in a slump.

[Tucson]

Originally Posted by kjbad

In the title that says, "Matt would have won Sunday. True or False." Since the thread was originally about Matt winning the game, I was assuming (yeah, I know what happens when I assUme) that you were talking about a Matt Leinart-led offense...

If you meant that the Cards led by Leinart would have scored more than 21 points without the turnovers, that's the claim I was asking about.

If you meant that the Cards led by Warner would have scored more than 21 points without the turnovers, I can understand what you are saying.

What do you mean if? Matt Leinart is not and never was at all relevant to the argument about the primary reason (6 turnovers vs. poor run defense) for the loss. Leinart didn't even play.

[kjbad]

Originally Posted by Tucson

What do you mean if? Matt Leinart is not and never was at all relevant to the argument about the primary reason (6 turnovers vs. poor run defense) for the loss. Leinart didn't even play.

I'm aware that Leinart did not play.

I'm also aware that you believe Leinart almost certainly wouldn't have thrown 5 interceptions, that 6 turnovers is the primary reason for the loss, and that you believe it's clear that the Cards would have scored more points without the turnovers.

You said you didn't know if Matt would have won Sunday, but it's pretty safe that Matt would not have thrown 5 interceptions since he has never thrown more than 2 interceptions in a regular season NFL game.

So let me ask you this...if it's safe to say that Matt wouldn't have thrown 5 interceptions, and if you believe the Cards would have scored more points without the turnovers, do you believe that Matt would have done better than Kurt did?

[thesmel]

you talking the Drive or the fumble? I was a Browns fan and yes Denver loss some SB's but never won until Elway shared the load Kurts carrying right now!
Your right but the Denver D wash great at times. And elway was a decentfine HOF QB ,against the grain I don't think our oline is that bad, just asked to the improbable way to often Actuallt they are great under these circumstances. again293 attempts with 14 sacks138 total runs counting the crapola in comparison GB has 228 attempts with 31 sacksyes Kurts quick release needs to be cheered but IF WE KEEP DOING WHAT WERE DOING WE'LL KEEP GETTING WHAT WERE GETTING this pass game is and has been figured out by good defenses. we can't outperform week in and week out giving them the advantage.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/stats/t...G/2009/regular

Originally Posted by fastcashAZ

smelly,

You do realize that Elway did ZIPPO until they got an OL, or do you not remember the years of futility?

Check his stats, his CAREER passer rating was 79, and his first ELEVEN years in the league he had a passer rating under 90.

His percentage completion ratio, TD vs attempts are horrible.

He had seven years where his TDs vs INTs were equal or below or close to the same.

If we had Denver's current OL we would be 6-1 right now, just like they are.

I love it how people just excuse the obvious problem we fail week in and out.

2/3 of Elways career were abysmal, bring in Shanny and get an OL and it solves every single problem the offense had and amazing that they were dominant after that.

We dont even SNIFF the toilet of what the Broncos OL was and is.

[BodybuildingCardsFan]

Defense didn't show up, so it doesn't matter.

I do think Leinart would've turned the ball over less, but that really isn't saying much.

[Tucson]

Originally Posted by kjbad

I'm aware that Leinart did not play.

I'm also aware that you believe Leinart almost certainly wouldn't have thrown 5 interceptions, that 6 turnovers is the primary reason for the loss, and that you believe it's clear that the Cards would have scored more points without the turnovers.

You said you didn't know if Matt would have won Sunday, but it's pretty safe that Matt would not have thrown 5 interceptions since he has never thrown more than 2 interceptions in a regular season NFL game.

So let me ask you this...if it's safe to say that Matt wouldn't have thrown 5 interceptions, and if you believe the Cards would have scored more points without the turnovers, do you believe that Matt would have done better than Kurt did?

It is irrelevant because Leinart didn't play.

[JayGee]

Originally Posted by AZCARDSFAN89

EXACTLY what my thoughts have been. Whiz has made it known he wants to run, and I believe him. I think he's a very good playcaller seeing as how he won a SB as an OC.

What I'm wondering is how often does Kurt check out of run plays? How much freedom does Kurt have with the playcalling? I understand Kurt likes to pass, but when he's THAT pass happy, and let's be honest a little dumb at times with his decisions, I wouldn't want him to have a huge influence when Whiz has wanted to establish the run more. There's only so much Whiz can control I guess.

anyone that watched that SB would be hard pressed to deduct that Whiz is a master play-caller. he won on a trick play when Randle-El, the WR, faked reverse and threw the ball to Hines Ward. the Steelers weren't known for a high scoring offense by any means; they lived off solid defense, running game (bettis/parker). big ben just did enough to win.

the playcalling we have here now sucks.

[Crunchmen]

Originally Posted by JayGee

anyone that watched that SB would be hard pressed to deduct that Whiz is a master play-caller. he won on a trick play when Randle-El, the WR, faked reverse and threw the ball to Hines Ward. the Steelers weren't known for a high scoring offense by any means; they lived off solid defense, running game (bettis/parker). big ben just did enough to win.

the playcalling we have here now sucks.

Very stupid isn`t it? Same 11 players on offense yet we aren`t very good this year. Maybe just maybe it`s the ONLY change, which is the guy calling the plays.Seems elementary to me but these same 12-15 Warner bashers(Matty lovers ) say Kurt sucks. The bias is plain as day.They aren`t calling out Q who is playing hurt & clearly is not very good right now.They aren`t calling out A-DUB or DRC or anybody else for that matter.

[Goodnight]

Originally Posted by BigRed11

Please elaborate on why you all think we lose regardless. I do not think Matt throws 5 picks and fumbles once. That is the basis in which I think we would have won that game.

If Matt would have hit Urban in stride and Urban couldn't hang on would that be Warner's fault? If Matt had a pass tipped at the line and it was picked would that be Warner's fault? If Matt had thrown a desperation pass when it didn't matter would it be Warner's fault? If Matt was sacked from behind and fumbled would it have been Warner's fault? Leave it alone already.

[Fan43]

Originally Posted by Crunchmen

Very stupid isn`t it? Same 11 players on offense yet we aren`t very good this year. Maybe just maybe it`s the ONLY change, which is the guy calling the plays.Seems elementary to me but these same 12-15 Warner bashers(Matty lovers ) say Kurt sucks. The bias is plain as day.They aren`t calling out Q who is playing hurt & clearly is not very good right now.They aren`t calling out A-DUB or DRC or anybody else for that matter.

You know, I don't know much about football but, I do know enough to look at a game like that and see that it's not all on one player. Pretty obvious adjustments weren't being made, defense looked plain lazy, and the QB(regardless of who it was), and receivers, weren't getting one ounce of protection. Whoever had the ball was strictly on his own. I saw no teamwork at all. Warner and receivers looked totally disgusted and i don't blame them one bit. They're doing what they're told, and it's not working. If Warner had the freedom some accuse him of having, he wouldn't have to check in with Whis so often. He obviously doen't have anymore freedom with Whis, than he did with Haley.