A quartet of questionable

Posted by Darren Urban on November 12, 2010 – 12:35 pm

The Cardinals worked with everyone at practice Friday as promised, leaving four players listed as questionable for Sunday’s game: LB Clark Haggans (groin), LB Paris Lenon (ankle), RB Beanie Wells (knee) and DT Darnell Dockett (shoulder). I’d expect all four have a good chance of being active, but coach Ken Whisenhunt has a difficult decisions to make with his 45 men against the Seahawks.

If Beanie is healthy enough to shoulder some of the load, then he should play. But if you aren’t confident enough in his health, it’d be tough to burn a spot on a guy who doesn’t play special teams. Remember, with Kenny Iwebema out, the Cards have to do some special teams shuffling, and there has to be a thought in case Lenon — who should play — gets dinged up again in the game.

“It’ll be like last week,” Whisenhunt said of Wells, saying he wants to see how the knee reacts tomorrow. “We cut down on the run game (plays) this week from the standpoint of volume so he is a lot more comfortable with what he have in and hopefully that allows us to play him in that role if we have the opportunity Sunday.”

— Whisenhunt, on how he’d assess his team midseason: “I don’t think we’ve attained what we hoped after eight games. Somebody asked me at the bye week, if I would’ve taken 3-2 and I said ‘Yeah,’ based on how we had played at that point. It’s a little more difficult after this last stretch because we have lost three in a row and a couple of those games we felt we could have won. We’re not where we wanted to be, not even close, but we are committed to doing a lot better in the second half and know if we do that, everything can work itself out.”

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 29 Comments »

29 Responses to “A quartet of questionable”

  1. By Brandon on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    Hindsight’s 20/20,but Knowing how the seasons gone looking back would you have rather we kept Leinart. In hopes he would do better then these two clueless people at QB.

  2. By ross on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    Darren, is beanie still officially the starter?

  3. By Darren Urban on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    Ross —

    RE: RB starter

    This week, I am sure we will see Hightower.

  4. By brad oneill on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    we are who everyone else thought we were. but we still ain’t who we is and we is a team to be feared come play off time.

  5. By Peter in Canada on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    Brandon – I think Leinart would be less clueless than Hall but slightly more clueless than Anderson

  6. By MikeG on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    Hey Darren—This is a MUST game!–I thought last week was one of the better games the Card’s played
    despite losing. I think we need to jump on this team early –Hawks have been blown out last 2 games & I’m sure their confidence is hurting. I think it is a good sign that Porter is getting more pressure–we need him to come up big this week. We should be able to run this week–given the Hawk’s injuries. I’m going Card’s 27 Hawks 17! Do you think Gabe Watson will play this week given the Iwebema injury????

  7. By Darren Urban on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    MikeG —

    RE: Watson

    Yes, he will play.

  8. By Brandon on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    I dont think so, Matt studied this playbook for four years, Under a HOF quarterback. He may have thrown the checkdown alot,but theres been great great quarterbacks which have done this (Joe Montana) For Example. Like I said before Studied this playbook for four years to say he would be clueless is stuipid. Along with the fact that “Whiz” never really gave him a true chance. So once again saying he would be clueless is wrong. Your turn 😀

  9. By Peter in Canada on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    Brandon- I feel that Leinart was on a downward spiral. Last year he went in against the Bears and almost snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and Warner had to go back in. His next appearance was against the Rams when Warner was concussed, he played the whole second half and again turned a game in which we were coasting into a nervous finish. He produced no points in the half against probably the league’s worst D. Then against the Titans he played the whole game and only produced 10 points. I was surprised when I heard it was his team. I was not surprised that he failed to keep it but that it happened so suddenly. That is my reasoning. Since Darren didn’t respond to you I took the liberty. LOL.

  10. By Darren Urban on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    Peter —

    RE: Argument

    I get into enough arguments without injecting myself into all of them. Besides, I think I’m done on the Leinart subject. I’ve said what I needed to say. Probably 1,000 times over.

  11. By Peter in Canada on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    Darren- So do I have your permission to handle all postings re Leinart on your behalf? LOL.

  12. By Khardz on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    He’s gone, what’s the point in bringing him up in every blog again?

  13. By Brandon on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    Look at all of those game you talked about,He had little to no time to prepair for those things. We dont need a start quarterback we needed a QB who could manage the game,throw when needed,give the ball it the running backs,and let our AWESOME Wide outs do what they do we dont need a Big ben or Tom brady out there we needed A game manager. That’s what we had with him. Derrick Anderson,Has trouble managing his starting job against a UDFA

  14. By Brandon on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    I think this is the first time i mentioned him in the blog since he left.

  15. By Casey on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    RE: Argument- QB/Leinart

    Peter and Darren,

    Here’s something I’ve been wondering given how the QB situation has played out- perhaps Darren has some more insight into this if he’s been able to speak with Rod Graves “off the record” or just in reading between the lines.

    How do you think the front office felt about how the Leinart situation was handled and how do you think that impacts how the QB situation will be handled this upcoming off season? In other words, do you think Graves et al were content bringing in Anderson (and thereby passing on Bulger who came available later and not getting seriously involved in McNabb discussions) primarily as a backup to Matt Leniart and not necessarily as a starting QB? Were Graves et al and Whisenhunt on the same page regarding Leinart? Did Graves et al not pursue a more legitimate “starting option” because they were under the impression that in 2010, the Cards were going to sink or swim with Leinart and would really only go to a backup (Anderson or a rookie) in an injury situation or catastrophic meltdown scenario like we’ve seen out of DA and Hall?

    When Whiz quickly made the decision to go with DA and the rookies over Leinart, do you think Graves et al were surprised? Were they involved in that decision? Did they even think that was a possibility back in April/May/June? Had they known that was a potential outcome, would they have more seriously pursued a trade for a “legitimate” starting QB (whether that was McNabb or someone else) instead of just bringing in someone who could potentially push Leinart a little/keep him honest or take over in a dooms day scenario (I put DA and Whitehurst in this category)? Would they have taken a QB in the first 3 rounds of the draft if they had known Leinart was definitely not Whiz’s long-term guy at the position? The basic question here is how involved were Graves et al in the evaluation of Leinart as the long-term QB for this team and the subsequent decision to release him before the start of the season?

    Here’s why all of this is so important. It’s somewhat related to what happened in Minnesota with Chilly and Moss. If Whiz simply decided on his own that Leinart was not his guy for whatever reason (including that the two just didn’t get along really well, which is what I’ve heard word of mouth from people close to the situation) and he didn’t necessarily have buy-in from Graves et all (including the Bidwills), I can see a situation unfolding this off season in which Graves and ownership play a much larger role in determining which QB or QBs this organization moves forward with next year and beyond. If Graves et al felt blindsided by the way the Leinart situation worked itself out, I would find it hard to believe that going into next season, even if Whisenhunt’s official position was, “I feel confident going into next year with an open competition between the 2 rookies and DA” (as hard as that may be to believe sitting here today), then I could see Graves et al (and ownership) stepping in and basically saying, “Coach, what happened last off season and during the season cannot happen again. We need more stability at that position. We felt that Leinart was going to be given every opportunity to be the long-term answer at QB for our organization and our decision to sign DA and pass on opportunities to make a trade or draft a QB high was heavily influenced by that understanding and we simply cannot risk history repeating itself. Therefore, we will be exploring the potential acquisition of McNabb (insert another QB here) and we’ve asked the scouting department to recommend 2 or 3 QBs we should take in the first 3 rounds of the draft.”

    Like many in Minnesota are doing with Chilly/Moss, I’m just wondering how much autonomy Whiz had over the QB situation and how that decision making authority may change this next off-season given what has played out the past several months. At what point does the General Manager step in and say, “Coach, although you may be comfortable with Player X, we are upgrading the position and bringing in Player Y. Player Y is going to be the QB of the future and we expect you and your staff to get the most out of Player Y and win a lot of games with Player Y.” At the very minimum, assuming Whiz had autonomy over the Leinart situation and QB fiasco, and assuming that Graves et al trusted Whiz’s decision making process and subsequent actions, barring some sort of miraculous turnaround in which Anderson reverts to 2007 form and wins a couple of playoff games, some of that credibility Whiz had in the minds of Graves et al must be diminished. And that in turn must lead to a stronger role of Whiz et al in the off-season trying to determine who the best QB or QBs are to lead this team in the future.

    I think there’s an interesting dynamic here that we can hopefully all follow/figure out with Darren’s help, some audience participation and maybe some cooperation from the front office in terms of interviews on


  16. By Dan on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    I don’t mean to beat a dead horse… But Brandon, you said he has never had enough time to prepare. Didn’t you say earlier that he’s had 4 years to study the playbook? If i had 1 book to read for 4 years, i’d be an expert at it. Just saying… I believe Leinart was successful in college because he had a great coach, a great RB, had a good team overall and he was an athletic, good QB. The NFL is a whole different animal. Maybe he doesn’t have what it takes to be a starting QB in this league. I can live with that, not the only 1st round QB bust… Ryan leaf, Tim Couch ring a bell?

  17. By Casey on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    RE: QB Argument

    Darren and Peter,

    I’m sorry, the last reference to “Whiz et al” should read “Graves et al.” Clearly, Whiz has been heavily involved in personnel decisions at the QB position- the real question is how much has Graves et al (including ownership) been involved in the decision making at QB, especially given that Graves/ownership drafted Leinart #10 overall, paid him a great deal of money over the past 4 years, and invested time/effort/patience in him.


  18. By Casey on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    RE: My Typos Today

    Darren and Peter,

    My apologies- I am definitely off my game today. Incorrect use of “wandering” in my opening sentence- should be “wondering.” I’m sure Darren’s wife would send me back to 1st grade (that’s not intended to rip anyone but myself because I believe that Darren has said in the past that his wife teaches English- I’m not sure which level).


  19. By Scott H on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    This sure has been a bummer of a season for Beanie. I was really looking forward to seeing him drive this team this year but it ain’t happening. I hope he isn’t gonna be another Doucet…

  20. By Brandon on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply

    Yes four years to study the playbook,but prepairing for the game with the starters in practice along with gameplanning ect ect is different

  21. By FBALL Frenzy on Nov 12, 2010 | Reply


    The Cards seem to be in that rebuilding stage (QB and Defense) and I personally think that they have done okay despite the fact that K. Warner isn’t here anymore, the shuffling on defense, and their 3-5 record. And I love how Wisenhunt ( i think I spelled his name correctly) has managed the ridiculous one-sided media and bandwagon fans that are out here. And M. Lineart was a joke considering he had been the understudy of Warner for 4 plus seasons and had not leared the passing system of the Cards. If DA continues to play the way he did in Minnesota, do you realistically think that the Cards will have a shot at least entering the playoffs? And what do you think about that O-Line? I know it’s all a learning process, especially when you got two new faces and a guy playing a different position than he was before, but you think that they can get their act together and play tough, physical football?

  22. By Darren Urban on Nov 13, 2010 | Reply

    FBall —

    RE: Playoffs

    There is little question this team is flawed and needs to upgrade in spots. But yes, given the schedule and the rest of the division, I do not think it is unrealistic to think this team can still win the division.

  23. By asH on Nov 13, 2010 | Reply

    If you remember back to when Whisenhunt and crew concealed Well’s injury, in spite of Well’s having to go under the knife. In Whisenhunt’s haste to get Well’s on the field, I feel they have caused more damage to Well’s knee..This should be investigated by the NFL – I believe Well’s safety was violated.

  24. By tyman on Nov 13, 2010 | Reply

    We need Jeff Garcia or Darren and every AZ card needs to call kurt. No way we win with DA or Max. just think if the raiders didnt miss the FG we would have one more loss. We need change at the QB.

  25. By TBru on Nov 13, 2010 | Reply

    We could have one more loss, and we could have three more wins. What if’s don’t matter, what is does. What is important is a home win against the Seachickens.

  26. By Kards on Nov 13, 2010 | Reply

    I think we should have kept Leinart just for the fact they paid him alot of money(for what) and also who is our best alternative, Hall shows promise but needs alot more reps DA is pretty good–well ya all have seen him he’s no KW but our only hope. I’m just praying that he’s another KW and surprizes everone–including me…

  27. By drumm-1 on Nov 14, 2010 | Reply

    you guys talk about the offense leave the defense on the field if the defense could make a stop.. it wouldn’t be that way.. i guest thats DA’s fault also..

  1. 2 Trackback(s)

  2. Nov 12, 2010: Wells ‘Questionable’ | Fantasy Demon
  3. Nov 13, 2010: Sports Review

Post a Comment

%d bloggers like this: