After a couple of World Cup debates last week, we’re switching gears and will slowly start to focus on American football. After all, it won’t be long before football season arrives. Regular season action starts in less than three months, with training camp about six weeks away. With that in mind, we’re looking at NFL players who are on the hot seat for the 2010 season.
Without a doubt, the hottest seat for any player belongs to Matt Leinart.
Leinart, who had no ties to any rent-free house while at Southern Cal, obviously came into the league with great fanfare. But, let’s face it. Up to this point in his career, he has been a bust. He’s thrown more interceptions than touchdowns. Not long after being handed the keys to the franchise, he had them taken from him by possible future Hall of Famer Kurt Warner. All Warner did was throw for 70 touchdowns the past three seasons and took the Cardinals to Super Bowl XLIII, a game the team would have won if not for a sensational catch by Santanio Holmes.
Now, Warner has retired and Leinart once again has the keys to the franchise. How is he going to do this time?
One thing is certain. Arizona has overcome the losing stigma that has been attached to the franchise for years. Two consecutive NFC West titles took care of that. It’s also important to note that it’s a different team than the one that took the field the past two seasons. Among other things, Pro Bowl wide receiver Anquan Boldin is no longer with the team, as he was traded to Baltimore this offseason after an extended contract dispute. That leads many to believe that Leinart could be in control of a more balanced offense than in years past. Beanie Wells is coming off a solid rookie season in 2009, and with coach Ken Whisenhunt’s background often showcasing a strong running game, it’s safe to assume that Wells and Tim Hightower may have an increased role in the offense.
To his credit, Leinart is putting in his time. Whisenhunt is reporting that Leinart has often showed at team facilities as early as 6:30a. He’s putting in the time studying the playbook, and is putting in hours with individual workouts with his receivers. Apparently he’s spending more time in the film room than the hot tub, which is what the old Leinart used to do. He has more responsibility now, and that leads to more pressure.
It’s definitely sink or swim time for Leinart. But, there isn’t much water in the desert. So, maybe it’s now or never time. This is quite possibly his last chance to show all of us that he is good enough to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. Matt, it’s your time to write your own script.
Read the arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless about which NFL Wild Card game they believe is the best of this postseason.
It is rematch city this week for the NFL Wild Card weekend. In a bizarre twist of something that definitely is NOT luck, the NFL slate of playoff games features three rematches from week 17. With plenty of gamesmanship on display last weekend as teams did their level best to withhold game plans and star players, all the cards are on the table this weekend (get it… cards?). The best Wild Card game of this 2009 NFL postseason, therefore, is a rematch. Since Dallas and Philadelphia were actually playing hard (supposedly) last weekend, and the Bengals have played poorly down the stretch, the best game is the rematch between the Green Bay Packers and Arizona Cardinals in the desert.
Fresh off a lopsided Packers victory last weekend, where Arizona took the established step of benching important starters, the two teams meet again on the same field. Though the Packers handled the Cardinals reserves, and the Cardinals are scrambling to replace injured receiver Anquan Boldin in the lineup this week, do not dismiss these Cardinals.
It only SEEMS as though the Cardinals are easy to dismiss. Remember last season’s playoffs? The Cardinals were dismissed all the way to the Super Bowl, where the team barely lost thanks to last minute heroics from Pittsburgh. This Arizona team again seems underrated, and it is improved over last season’s team.
In 2008 the Cardinals were poor, at best, when it came to running the football. In fact, the Cardinals were dead last in the NFL in 2008 with a scant 73.6 yards per game earned on the ground. The team drafted Ohio State beast of a running back Chris Wells, and has now made dramatic improvements to the running game to balance out an already stellar passing game. The Cardinals certainly did not lead the NFL in rushing, but the team improved the yards per game by 20 yards – TWENTY YARDS. That is no small task, and the running attack will take pressure off of Kurt Warner AND help the team in goal line situations.
Since I mentioned Warner, it is only fair to fully outline why he is so vital to the team’s success. He throws for over 250 yards per game and has two 1,000 yard receivers. He has thrown for 100 touchdown passes with two different teams (Rams and Cardinals). He is a two time NFL MVP award winner, and has a Super Bowl MVP to his credit, too (he probably would have added a second if the Cardinals defense could have stopped Pittsburgh in last season’s Super Bowl). He is a great player, and a likely future hall of famer. And, Warner gets better as the running game improves. The Packers will need every bit of effort its defense can muster this weekend to limit, not stop, the Cardinals offense.
The Packers, on the other side of this Wild Card coin, are hot with a record of 7-1 in the last eight games. A big reason the team is hot is the play from quarterback Aaron Rodgers. Sure, the Packers have a better record than their playoff foe (more on that in a moment), but Rodgers must be thanking his lucky stars to be out of the frozen tundra and landing in the desert for this game. The aerial assault the Packers offense has become synonymous with will thrive in the desert. No, the Packers did not have the season’s best passing attack (remember that Peyton Manning fella?), but the offense was formidable, especially considering some unfavorable weather conditions the team plays in every season. Thirty touchdowns against just eight interceptions are impressive statistics for Rodgers, who has reliable receivers all over the field. Rodgers took many sacks early this season, but limited them late. Rodgers’ improvement in this area is important as the Cardinals are sixth in the NFL with 43 sacks in 2009.
While it is easy to focus on the quarterbacks alone in this game, what makes this matchup so fascinating is Charles Woodson, hands down the best defensive players in the league right now. Without Anquan Boldin, Woodson can blanket star receiver Larry Fitzgerald and force Warner to throw to less reliable receivers. Consider the “Charles Woodson Factor” another reason to watch this game.
This game is also interesting because it is one of the countless matchups in the NFL playoffs over the years where a Wild Card team actually has a better record than the division winner that lays claim to home field advantage. I hope that the league reviews this policy in the coming years and reseeds once playoff teams are determined. The Packers have a considerable home field advantage it seems the team should have earned, since it has a better record than its opponent and even owns the head-to-head tiebreak. The league could kill two birds with one stone by not only rewarding the team with the better record, but forcing teams to not rest starters and compete in each game of the season. Having the best record matters, and should matter. But, earning the third best record should also matter… at least it should matter more than winning a lousy division.
For this game, however, the Packers seem to have the momentum even though Arizona has surprised in the playoffs in recent seasons and postseasons, especially in 2008. With Boldin down, a new receiver can step up and help carry the Cardinals into the second round of the playoffs. The Packers and Cardinals both have a lot to prove. One thing is for certain – this is the best Wild Card matchup on the NFL 2009-2010 postseason.
Read the debate intro and the arguments from Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer about the NFL potentially insisting players stay out an entire game after a head injury.
Here is an obvious, but important statement: NFL players have a job where they get hit a lot. Sometimes those hits happen in the head. Because of the enduring physical risk NFL players undertake to play football, in part, they receive salaries that many deem excessive. But, this is a job for only a certain time in a person’s life. It is not wrong and selfish for a player to remove themselves from a game because of trouble shaking a concussion. And if the NFL’s embedded locker room culture dictates masking head injuries, the NFL must step up its treatment of injuries that have long-term impact on a person’s post-football career. Loyal Homer is correct – the NFL must protect its players, and one game is not a major sacrifice.
The NFL currently has a retirement plan. That retirement plan has been attacked by 25 different federal lawsuits within the past 10 years. The content of those majority of the lawsuits has involved (you guessed it) disability determinations. In other words, a lot of smart people think the NFL does not do a good enough job taking care of its players when their careers are over, and including a mandatory extra one game out of the lineup for a player who suffers a head injury on the field of play is not just good policy. It simply makes sense.
The lawsuit examples indicate that the NFL already does not do enough to protect the long-term health of its players, though it does profit from their health in the near term. The NFL is – because of the way the game is played and the culture that is permitted within the league – obligated to take care of its players because so many long-term health issues result from playing the game hard.
It is hard to question a player like Hines Ward. Ward is a champion – two times over, to be exact – so he knows what it takes to win. He knows the effort and sacrifice required to attain success at the highest level. When he told NBC, “It’s tough… you don’t want to jeopardize your future. It’s a tossup. You either play and jeopardize your future, or you sit out and worry about the big picture.” The players are conflicted, so the NFL must intervene on behalf of a player’s long-term health. If a player makes his own decision to hold himself out of the lineup he is perceived as weak. However, if he plays and suffers a substantial injury because of the existing one he denied, he is permanently weak. The NFL can and should mediate.
From a business investment stand point it is worth a team’s while to lose a player for a single game over the course of the player’s contract when compared against the possibility of losing the player to injury for their entire career.
Whether it is the competitive nature of the player, as Loyal Homer points out, or the general culture that exists within the league, a person playing with a head injury is a risky thing to do. For fans it is easy to view the players as just that – players. They are business assets with a certain job to do. They are not allowed to make errors, and they are not allowed to succumb to injuries that are unseen by the eye. Fans are wrong in this view, and, strangely, agents are correct. A player’s agent must see a player as a person, with long-term plans, family (or families if you’re Travis Henry), other business interests, etc. Fans sometimes forget that players are people, and this concussion rule is a healthy reminder.
A fight from owners and some league insiders on this issue makes no sense. Why? If a team is unable to go one week without a certain player, then the owner, GM, and coaching staff is not doing a good enough job. The roster may lack depth, the coach is not using players well enough, or the owner has hired the wrong people in key positions. The Colts, in Bleacher Fan’s example, should have a better quarterback playing behind Manning. Fighting over greater protection for players who suffer injuries that science has not fully grasped yet makes no sense.
Bleacher Fan made some interesting points. However, the degree of injury – and the level of scientific understanding about a given injury – is extremely important. Bleacher Fan is also right about the difference between being hurt and being injured. However, head injuries need a different classification. The league must evolve to protect.
Bleacher Fan also mentions that a player’s perception of an injury (life-threatening versus non-life-threatening) impacts a team’s culture. I agree. But when the NFL imposes greater protections for injured players – even though the non-doctor teammates are unable to identify the appearance of an injury – it is changing the perception of the injury. Head injuries are not to be taken lightly anymore. By imposing this “extra day off” rule the NFL is forcing the perception of head injuries to change and shifting the league’s culture. That’s a good thing. While this potential rule is not designed to protect all players from all injuries, it is a positive precedent for the long-term health and viability of the NFL and its human employees.
Read the arguments from Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer about if staying out an entire game after a head injury is an excessive by the NFL.
How tough are you? How much physical abuse can you take? How willing are you to lay it all on the line for a goal and your teammates?
The answers are very, a lot, and completely. All of those questions are important in the NFL, and players must get each answer correct. No exceptions.
Head injuries, however, complicate that cultural mandate. Head injuries are treated the same in NFL locker rooms as any other injury. The league’s treatment of concussions has been well documented, and now the NFL is changing how it deals with them. Sports Illustrated writer Peter King and Fox Sports insider Jay Glazer are both reporting that the NFL – as soon as next week – will announce new guidelines for how severe head injuries and concussions will be treated. If a player shows that he has lost his bearings after a blow to the head, or suffers any memory loss or amnesia, that player will not be allowed back onto the field for the remainder of that game. Fair enough.
However, like most sticky issues in politics and sports, one constituency believes the NFL is going too far, another believes that the NFL has not gone far enough in protecting its players.
In a league where toughness rules, any player who suffers a head injury during a game is not allowed to reenter the game. A growing contingent believes that the NFL is not going far enough, and that a player should be kept out an additional game after receiving a head injury, no exceptions. This currently unofficial, de facto one game “ban” has already been evident in Arizona with Kurt Warner and Pittsburgh with Ben “I like to stop cars with my face” Roethlisberger. On cue, Pittsburgh wide receiver Hines Ward inferred to the media that Big Ben could have played – if he were tougher.
If not for The Sports Debates, it is hard to imagine this issue getting resolved! Fortunately we are here to answer the following: Should the NFL include a mandatory one-game ban for a player who suffers a head injury on the field?
Loyal Homer argues in favor of expanding the removal of a player who receives a head injury from the remainder of the game where the injury occurs to include the following game as well. Bleacher Fan will argue the “ban” is extreme and not something the league should be allowed to control.
Is this potential rule change and extension fair? Does it signal a culture change in the NFL from a predominantly toughness-centered league to something weaker? Would players whose careers seemingly ended too soon due to head injuries – Al Toon, Harry Carson and Wayne Chrebet, for a few examples – have been prolonged with better post-injury care?
While this debate is bigger than just how the NFL treats players with concussions, let’s stay focused on that for this topic.
Read the arguments from Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer about which NFL backup quarterback SHOULD be starting for their team right now.
Matt Leinart should be starting at quarterback in the NFL this season… at least, somewhere. Since Leinart was drafted as the tenth overall pick by the Arizona Cardinals in 2006, a series of unfortunate events (i.e. a broken collarbone, a horrendous preseason, Paris Hilton) derailed Leinart from the fast track to superstardom. Now, during just his fourth season in the NFL, he finds himself blocked on the depth charts by a surprisingly resurgent fossil – I mean, quarterback – Kurt Warner. Leinart deserves a shot at a starting gig, if not in Arizona then somewhere.
Leinart has demonstrated immense talent. His college accolades are a testament to that, but he also has NFL experience. Leinart displayed flashes of brilliance his first season in the league throwing for 11 touchdowns and rushing for two more. In just 11 starts during the 2006 season, Leinart amassed 2,547 passing yards proving that he is more than capable of starting in the NFL, but he has not been given the opportunity to develop further. Leinart’s critics will point to his 12 interceptions that season and claim it was a sign of problems to come. Those critics should remember that a young Peyton Manning threw 26 touchdowns and a league leading 28 interception across four more starts than Leinart during his first season, and he turned out okay.
Serviceable quarterbacks are in high demand in the NFL in 2009. Numerous teams are looking to resolve QB questions in the upcoming 2010 draft, but Leinart serves as a unique and much better alternative. Leinart provides experience and affordability. The top two quarterbacks in last year’s draft received massive contracts, including $41.7 million (Matthew Stafford) and $28 million (Mark Sanchez) in guaranteed money. Leinart is currently in the fourth year of his six year deal, and his salary breaks down to an average around $6.75 million a year. His contract allows the team that acquires him a relatively cheap test drive. If they like him, they could sign him long term. If they find him a poor fit then they could part ways following the 2011 season. That is like offering a guy on a moped a $25 a month lease on a sports car. Who could turn that down?
You may be thinking, “Babe Ruthless, you are CRAZY! There is no way the Cardinals could afford to let Leinart go because Kurt Warner is way too old.” Let me assure you that I am crazy… crazy like a fox. You see, trading Matt Leinart is the right deal for both Leinart and the Cardinals. Warner has some gas left in the tank and many think he will remain the starter for the next two seasons. This creates a situation for Leinart not unlike what Aaron Rodgers faced just two seasons ago. Rodgers was blocked from the role of starter by living legend, Brett Farve, but the Packers waited till it was too late to make the most of both quarterbacks value. I suggest that the Cardinals strike while the iron is hot and trade Leinart for players that can make a difference now. The Cardinals could trade Leinart to a team in need of a new quarterback and get an upgrade that pays immediate dividends. I would bet that the Bills, Panthers, and more teams could find suitable trades that would benefit both teams. The Cardinals could get a trade that brings in a game-changing pass rusher like Julius Peppers or Aaron Schobel. Such a trade could bring the missing piece of the puzzle the Cardinals need to return to and win the Super Bowl, and allow Leinart to prove he has what it takes to lead a team.
Leinart must start somewhere, and soon. He is capable and ready to shine. If the Cardinals are not ready to give him the reigns, then the team should use him as trade bait to improve a team that is bordering on the cusp of greatness.
The NFL season kicks off officially Thursday night, with the Steelers taking on the Titans. The full week schedule, of course, begins on Sunday. Some teams really start off the season under the gun. Quite frankly, some teams just are not very good. In fact, if one team deserved to be demoted from the NFL, it would be the St. Louis Rams.
Quite honestly, the Rams are not very good right now. My how they have really fallen from being “The Greatest Show on Turf.” I thoroughly enjoyed watching those teams. What a show they could put on, with the likes of quarterback Kurt Warner, running back Marshall Faulk, and wide receivers Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce. Now Warner coming off a Super Bowl appearance with Arizona, Faulk is working for the NFL Network, Holt is with Jacksonville, and Bruce is with the 49ers.
Now the Rams have a new coach in former New York Giants defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo. Last year they played under Scott Linehan, who was fired, and interim coach Jim Haslett. The 2008 Rams finished 2-14, which was proceeded by a 3-13 record in 2007. There is no guarantee that this year’s team is going to reach either one of those records.
Do not let the 2009 preseason record of 3-1 fool you. The Detroit Lions went 3-1 this preseason, if that tells you anything. The Rams are still bad. Just take a look at their roster.
When healthy, quarterback Marc Bulger and running back Steven Jackson are good players. Bulger is a two-time Pro Bowler who has struggled some the past two years but still is a serviceable quarterback. Jackson is a former Pro Bowler who has rushed for over 1,000 yards the past four seasons. After that, it is slim pickings for an offense that scored a minuscule 232 points last year. Longtime Rams receiver Torry Holt left for Jacksonville, leaving the likes of Donnie Avery and Laurent Robinson at wide receiver. Some of you may have heard of both of these guys, but most probably have not. Just take a look at their depth chart! Yikes!
On defense, it is much of the same story. Recent draft picks Chris Long and James Laurinaitis may eventually pay off down the road, but right now, it is a weak defense.
The Rams, like several NFL teams, may be experiencing blackout problems this year. The Rams had two blackouts last year and have not officially released any numbers regarding potential blackouts this year. But it is logical to think that if the Rams struggle right out of the gate, the possibility of multiple blackouts looms large. Playing in the NFC West definitely helps the team, as it is one of the weaker divisions in football, and the schedule could be tougher. But, the Rams are definitely in no position to overlook anyone.
I really hope the Rams turn it around. I miss watching The Greatest Show on Turf. It fits my football mindset. What does not fit my football mindset is how the team is now. It is bad, folks. It is so bad that if I had to choose one team for demotion, it would be the St. Louis Rams! Prove me wrong, Rams!
It is NFL training camp, and veteran professional football players hate it. It is hot at the tail end of the summer, especially when they are forced to spent time away from their families and go through the motions for a team they already know they made. After camp pre-season hits, which consists of four full length games with rosters sometimes topping 80 players. It is a maze of players that coaches promise playing time. There is no way around it – for veteran NFL players, the pre-season sucks.
Football fans hate it, too. They are forced to pay full price for pre-season games that do not make any impact on the regular season. In some cases, when fans refuse the $100 ticket price to watch a game where their favorite players will only play for two series (at best), they are threatened with a local blackout of the game. That sure is endearing for the fans.
It is the NFL pre-season, and it seems everyone – except the owners – hates it.
So, why does the NFL pre-season exist? Coaches will argue that seeing the players compete in game situation that do not count toward the overall record is a positive thing. Some players – especially undrafted rookies (folks like San Diego Chargers tight end Antonio Gates and Arizona Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner) argue that they need the time to prove themselves worthy of a spot on an NFL roster. Some really geeky fans (even more than me…) will watch the NFL Network wire to wire since they are showing EVERY pre-season game on the channel in 2009. The real reason pre-season exists? These games make money for the owners. Big time. They do not have to pull out all the “game day” stops they usually do to impress fans and create the ultimate fan experience, but they DO get to charge full price for tickets. That is a lot of margin for very little investment… a.k.a. an owners dream.
Fortunately, enough fans and players seem to have expressed their disdain for the pre-season that owners and the NFL are considering the option of expanding the regular season to absorb the normal pre-season schedule. In other words, the crappy games that never counted could become the early start to the regular season, a regular season that would expand to 20 games, rather than the normal 16.
While that option would make fans and owners happy, now the players would be unhappy, as cited by NFLPA union chief DeMaurice Smith. Smith believes extra regular season games would take a real toll on players, and the already high number of injuries we see in the NFL would become even higher.
Given both sides of the discussion and the general impression of the pre-season by all relevant parties, the question for today’s debaters to argue is:
Does the NFL even need a pre-season? Rather than having a four game pre-season and 16 game regular season, the debaters will argue to retain the current system or replace it with 20 regular season games.
Bleacher Fan will argue that the NFL does not need a pre-season while Loyal Homer will argue that the NFL should retain the pre-season.
Argue your sides strongly – the future of the NFL may depend on it!
And we're back... Should college coaches look into criminal and juvenile records when recruiting? The verdict says YES! http://bit.ly/dZ5LF311 months ago
Posted by Loyal Homer 
