Thanks for holding up your end in the latest NFC West chat. Transcript here. Highlights below:
Jeff (Seattle): If the Hawks beat the 49ers this weekend do they gain any momentum going into games against Atlanta and Tampa? Or does it not really matter because they would just be beating yet another bad team?
Mike Sando: It would matter, but I think the Falcons are a brutally tough matchup for Seattle based on what is likely to happen along the lines of scrimmage. Beating the Bucs would probably be easier, particularly if Tampa Bay continues losing key players to injury. The Seahawks' chances against Atlanta could improve with the Falcons playing their third road game in a row heading into a Monday nighter against New Orleans. But if the Falcons apply themselves at Seattle, I like their chances.
Shwivel (Columbus, Ohio): Can you explain to me Mike Singletary's reason for pulling Troy Smith when he went 3-2 with limited time with the team for Alex Smith, who had one win over seven games and has stunk it up since he's been there?
Mike Sando: Troy Smith was 1-2 in his last three starts and getting worse. I think that was the main reason for the decision. We can talk about Alex Smith better fitting the offensive style in a post-Frank Gore offense, but if Troy Smith had continued winning and making big plays, he would still be the QB.
Tyler (Wichita): What are the Rams' realistic goals for stopping the Saints with a banged up secondary, that already has trouble against the pass. Will it come down to our front 4 getting pressure?
Mike Sando: Yes, it'll come down to pressuring Drew Brees. I just think Brees is too good for the Rams' defense when they are playing at the Superdome. I was there to see what he did against Seattle a few weeks ago. Perhaps those memories are too prominent in my mind. With the Rams banged up in the secondary, though, this one seems like a tough matchup. I am interested in seeing whether there is any carryover from last season, when the Rams played the Saints very tough in the Edward Jones Dome.
Mo the Stripper (Chico): What do you see the Cardinals doing with the QB position in the near term? Draft? Free Agent? They might as well prop up a dead corpse under center, or at least someone who has their head on a swivel, because that o-line doesn't offer much protection! I'm enjoying a large turkey leg and a gigantic bowl of corn while participating in your Live Chat! Keep up the great work, Sando! Good Luck!
Mike Sando: Thanks. Ken Whisenhunt actually stood up for his line this season, offering a fairly compelling case that the real problems lie elsewhere. They need to draft a quarterback and also sign a veteran. What they should do and what they ultimately do might not be the same thing, necessarily. The way the Cardinals handled the quarterback situation following Warner's retirement raises questions about the organization's ability to make decisions on that subject. In retrospect, they lucked into Kurt Warner, at least to a degree. He was already there. Every other quarterback they've coached has gotten worse, it seems.
The last answer could use some elaboration. Warner improved in some ways and I thought the Cardinals' coaching staff did a good job helping him focus more on ball security. Warner suffered occasional lapses in that area, but his mindset seemed to change under Whisenhunt and former coordinator Todd Haley.
The other quarterbacks -- Matt Leinart, Derek Anderson, Brian St. Pierre and even Max Hall -- did not or have not made obvious gains despite having excellent receivers.