Rate Max Hall's performance in AZ Republic...

[Joe L]

I agree it's speculation but isn't that the point of the poll and this thread.

I guess so but isn't it also a discussion where discuss opinions? I've got Hall's stats that prove his performance wasn't good by NFL starter's standards. Much less speculation. I also have defensive stats that prove the defense won the game...no speculation there. Saying Hall made the team better when most of the points were scored by the defense, a side of the ball Hall doesn't play, is pure speculation and nothing tangible to substantiate the claim.

It's just as easy to speculate that the defense would have played this well if DA were still quarterback and, in fact, isn't that what you've done?

No, I haven't.

I am specifically saying that the defense won that game, without the help of any QB. In fact, I am saying this was all on the defense regardless of who was passing the ball.

 

[Joe L]

Did they ever do that for Matt Leinart? Or Anderson? They were really unexperienced as well. No, not even close. Did you see that in Andersons first game? The way they came up to him was special and had nothing to do with him being undrafted and all that. It was more like this: "Finally we have a leader again, we believe we can win, it's great to play football again". That's what it was from my perspective.

He (Hall) shows leadership that none of the other QB's do, besides KW offcourse.

Early, can we just put down the comparisons for a bit? You seem to think that the QB is responsible for the way the defense played. You can't substantiate that claim. DRC already said he was looking to score and get a bit of revenge. If DRC was on a mission, what makes you think the others weren't? You seem more intent on trying to pin the credit on a QB for what the defense did than just praising the defense for a good job. They had a game like that coming. Plus, I already gave you examples why I think the defense was fired up to play the saints.

Reasons:

1. They got knocked out of the play-offs in a blowout.
2. Teams usually play better against the guys with a target on their backs.
3. Defense took the wrap for a horrid display against them in the play-offs.
4. DRC already said he was getting back at them

 

[AzStevenCal]

I am specifically saying that the defense won that game, without the help of any QB. In fact, I am saying this was all on the defense regardless of who was passing the ball.

Well, that's where I'd say speculation entered the picture. If you start the season from that game forward it's easy to lay that victory solely at the feet of the defense. However, we have 4 games prior to that (plus preseason) that showed our defense to be rather inept most of the time. What changed?

I don't think Hall stepped on to that field and led our boys to victory. However, I do think that his presence helped revitalize our defense and made them want to give their best. He did this mostly by not being Derek Anderson. Granted, he still had a sub-par game by pretty much any standard (except the DA standard).

Steve

 

[Joe L]

Well, that's where I'd say speculation entered the picture. If you start the season from that game forward it's easy to lay that victory solely at the feet of the defense. However, we have 4 games prior to that (plus preseason) that showed our defense to be rather inept most of the time. What changed?

I don't think Hall stepped on to that field and led our boys to victory. However, I do think that his presence helped revitalize our defense and made them want to give their best. He did this mostly by not being Derek Anderson. Granted, he still had a sub-par game by pretty much any standard (except the DA standard).

Steve

Forget speculation. If you go by the concrete stats of that game. I don't see Hall anywhere in the stats save for his TO's. And based on that alone, and with the game footage, I don't see how anyone can say Hall revitalized the team to win. Not one shred of evidence that tells me Hall had a hand in inspiring the team to win. I'm sorry, the more I hear about Hall inspiring, the more I picture the movie, RUDY.

I'd probably believe it if he had inspired his offense to play but that didn't happen. Our rushing was bad, we couldn't get in for a score and when the defense put him on the 2yrd line, he fumbles the ball.

There is no way in the world he inspired the defense to play. If anything, the fact that DA was benched was probably a bigger factor in "revitalizing" the defense than Hall was. DA was so bad that any QB would have been a breath of fresh air for any team...Including a UDFA...Oh wait!

 

[AzStevenCal]

Forget speculation. If you go by the concrete stats of that game. I don't see Hall anywhere in the stats save for his TO's. And based on that alone, and with the game footage, I don't see how anyone can say Hall revitalized the team to win. Not one shred of evidence that tells me Hall had a hand in inspiring the team to win. I'm sorry, the more I hear about Hall inspiring, the more I picture the movie, RUDY.

I'd probably believe it if he had inspired his offense to play but that didn't happen. Our rushing was bad, we couldn't get in for a score and when the defense put him on the 2yrd line, he fumbles the ball.

There is no way in the world he inspired the defense to play. If anything, the fact that DA was benched was probably a bigger factor in "revitalizing" the defense than Hall was. DA was so bad that any QB would have been a breath of fresh air for any team...Including a UDFA...Oh wait!

We're on the same page here. I've given Hall the credit for this revitalization but it's only a matter of wording. I'm just as comfortable with saying it was more the absence of DA than the presence of Hall.

Steve

 

[D-Dogg]

He wasn't great, but he was better than DA by a mile. As an UDFA rookie starting against the SB champs? A. As a QB? D. As measured against the previous QB? B+.

He moved the chains on several possessions, found Larry, held up under pressure, and improved as the game went on.

I give him, with all things considered, a C+.

 

[Duckjake]

He wasn't great, but he was better than DA by a mile. As an UDFA rookie starting against the SB champs? A. As a QB? D. As measured against the previous QB? B+.

He moved the chains on several possessions, found Larry, held up under pressure, and improved as the game went on.

I give him, with all things considered, a C+.

According to nfl.com/scores the Cards had 12 first downs but in going through the play by play I can only find 10.

Also from their play by play the Cards had 11 drives. 5 resulted in 3 and out three of them the three drives that started in the 4th quarter.

There were 3 where the Cards picked up 2 first downs and one where they had 3. The other possession was the Levi Brown TD.

For comparison the Cards are credited with 15 first downs in the playoff loss to the Saints from last season.

So not great but not too bad either especially since Hall made some really good throws to Fitz.

 

[Cardiac]

Why does it have to be one or the other and not a combination?

To say Hall had zero impact on the attitude of the team is simply making a statement to win a discussion.

To say the only reason the D played well was because of Hall is....see above.

The D did play well because:
They have pride.
There is a good amount of talent on the unit.
They spent the week holding each other accountable and reviewed game tape as a group.
Davis simplified the game plan, scaled it back to what they spent most of their time practicing during TC and Preseason.
The Saints are struggling offensively this year.
The fans were electric and helped fire the players up and brought the 12th man with them.
They knew more then ever they had to have a good game because of our QB situation.
They want some pay back or how ever you want to phrase it from last years playoff loss

Tale of the tape says; advantage to the D winning the game and not because Hall is an excitable young boy.

Does Hall get some credit, absolutely, everyone on the team gets credit when the team wins.

 

[Early]

Why does it have to be one or the other and not a combination?

To say Hall had zero impact on the attitude of the team is simply making a statement to win a discussion.

To say the only reason the D played well was because of Hall is....see above.

The D did play well because:
They have pride.
There is a good amount of talent on the unit.
They spent the week holding each other accountable and reviewed game tape as a group.
Davis simplified the game plan, scaled it back to what they spent most of their time practicing during TC and Preseason.
The Saints are struggling offensively this year.
The fans were electric and helped fire the players up and brought the 12th man with them.
They knew more then ever they had to have a good game because of our QB situation.
They want some pay back or how ever you want to phrase it from last years playoff loss

Tale of the tape says; advantage to the D winning the game and not because Hall is an excitable young boy.

Does Hall get some credit, absolutely, everyone on the team gets credit when the team wins.

It's defenitely combination IMO.

The D is talented but they need a QB they believe in that leads the team and they need a defensive playcaller that does not get outschemed for that particular game.

This game, Davis was not outschemed as usual and the Defense had a leader in Hall and combine that with all of the great talent that we have on the defensive side of the ball, and the result was great.

Now, can Davis keep up week in and week out? Can Hall keep the same amount of respect from everyone on the team?

I think this will be a great year for Cards fans

 

[john h]

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/cardinals/

On the right side of the page halfway down is a poll asking to rate Max Hall's first game performance. I gave him a B. Right now C is the grade winning the poll. Damn! You guys are tough. I'd give him a C, plus getting a win gives you an extra grade, imho, so I gave him a B! Guy wins his first start. Gotta give him at least a B! Where's the love Cards fans?

After todays game he gets a solid "F" from me with not much hope for the future. In fact I say at this time next year he will not even be on the team.