Motivated in part - but not entirely - by this story: Matt Leinart Benched
That is right, this is the SECOND time that Leinart has been benched. The first time was last year, but it was quickly forgotten as a result of Leinart's season - ending injury. I actually thought that Leinart's getting hurt would wind up benefitting him, as he A) did not have to deal with the media asking him about getting benched every week and calling him a possible bust especially with Reggie Bush struggling as well and B) after he got hurt the media and the fans would only remember the injury, not the benching (of course the players, coaches, and front office are another matter). So Leinart had a real shot to come back, win the starting job in the offseason, and mostly conceal the fact - as far as the public is concerned - that he ever did lose his starting job to Kurt Warner in the first place.
Truthfully, this should not be portrayed as a second (or first) benching either. Why? No 7th overall pick in the draft and presumptive starter gets benched after a bad preseason outing. Instead, truthfully, this is honestly just things picking up from where they left off last year. Make no mistake: Kurt Warner and Matt Leinart competed for the job last season. And it wasn't even a fair competition ... the odds were stacked for Leinart, whom the organization had every interest in seeing claim the starting job. Warner beat Leinart in that competition, and it wasn't close (remember, it was stacked, so had Warner beaten out Leinart by a small margin Leinart would have gotten the nod anyway). Even then, Leinart was given playing time, something that would have never been done for Warner had Leinart been the starter, mind you. So, things are really just back where they were before Leinart's injury. Warner is the starter, and due to his odd career path and the way that he plays the position (relying more on accuracy and timing than arm strength), can conceivably remain so for the next several years unless he gets hurt or someone beats him out.
Now let me make something clear: as an SEC fan who generally roots for Auburn (which is the "ugly duckling underdog" in both their big rivalries to Alabama and Georgia and will never have the great advantages that Florida, LSU, or even Tennessee enjoy), I have an interest in seeing yet another member of that "greatest ever" USC 2004 team shown to be overrated by their NFL struggles while so many members of that Auburn team have played pretty well (even if Ronnie Brown and Carnell Williams have been hampered by injury). However, even one with such biases as myself feels compelled to rise up and defend Leinart.
3 comments Last one added 10 months ago — Leave a Comment
Tommy Trojan 10 months ago
The NFL struggles of a couple of players from USC's 2004 team does not "prove" the 2004 team was overrated.
Firstly, there are plenty of players off that team that have done exceptionally well in the NFL -- Lofa Tatupu, Mike Patterson, Ryan Kalil, et al. And many others are just getting their feet wet in the pros (your own argument here is that Leinart hasn't had enough time to shine).
Secondly, college success and NFL success are two different things. Do you believe Tommy Frazier's Nebraska teams were also overrated because Frazier had no NFL success? Do you believe Tom Brady's Michigan teams were underrated because Brady became an NFL great? Of course not. College is college and the NFL is the NFL.
Thirdly, the success of the USC team in question speaks for itself. They destroyed team after team, going undefeated and stomping #1 Oklahoma in the NC game. Nothing can ever take away the greatness of the 2004 National Championship Trojans.
By the way, those "overrated" Trojans had no problem beating the mighty Jason Cambell/Cadillac Williams/Ronnie Brown Auburn teams in 2002 and 2003. Maybe your yellow-scheduling Auburn Tigers were the overrated ones?
Edit Comment Cancel
Gerald Ball 10 months ago
Tommy:
It is not the struggles of a couple of players. Seriously, of all the high draft picks from Pete Carroll's teams, only Troy Polamalu, Carson Palmer, and Lofa Tatupu have been anything near Pro Bowlers. The fact that you had to even mention Mike Patterson, who is just a guy in Philadelphia's unspectacular DT rotation, illustrates it.
By the way, quit it with the 2004 revisionist history. Remember that atrocious pass interference call followed by that Reggie Bush punt return that allowed you to escape Virginia Tech? Remember your close calls against Oregon State, Cal, Stanford, and UCLA? USC sleepwalked through 2004 and then put it on Oklahoma, who never should have been in the title game to begin with. The fact that USC was a repeat champion and their bowl blowout of Oklahoma allows everyone to ignore how average they looked for most of the season. USC actually played better in 2005 than 2004.
Meanwhile Auburn ... you can keep pretending that beating 6 - 6 Notre Dame out of your conference is more important than 4 games against the BCS top 15 within your conference. You know perfectly well that if the situation was reversed, it is an argument that neither you or your program's fans in the media would make.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gerald Ball 10 months ago
Tommy:
As far as the NFL player thing, you have to be honest: several teams have produced as many good NFL players as has USC during the Carroll era, and Ohio State has actually clearly produced more.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.