Congratulations to Matt Leinart - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**Kayacterype** · 01-02-2006, 02:21 AM

Way to go Matt...I'm sure you've enjoyed your last 4 years in beautiful sunny Southern California, winning every game for 3 straight years, 2-3 national championships, playing with a lineup that looks like a pro team, then spending your free time banging underwear models and any turbo hotty co-ed within arm's reach.

As the #2 pick, you may now report for duty in what equates to the lost city of Atlantis where dead bodies were floating around as recently as a couple of months ago, where you will have no real home stadium, and a completely clueless owner and front office.

No, you can't stay for a 5th year.

**libertiespana** · 01-02-2006, 04:59 AM

Who's to say he'll go #2?

**flanna.kersting** · 01-02-2006, 05:11 AM

Who's to say he'll go #2?

Me, Mike, everyone under the sun

**Ifroham4** · 01-02-2006, 05:16 AM

Who's to say he'll go #2?

Everyone I've heard talk about the 2006 draft anywhere at any time.

**pedFlicle** · 01-02-2006, 05:34 AM

Okay let me rephrase that.

What makes you think he's definitely bound for the Saints?

I'm guessing they trade the pick to a team really in desperate need for a QB in an attempt to fill their needs on D, which are plentiful. Brooks is a decent QB and the offense should be fine next year if McAllister can stay healthy. They need defense.

**casinobonuswer** · 01-02-2006, 05:35 AM

Okay let me rephrase that.

What makes you think he's definitely bound for the Saints?

I'm guessing they trade the pick to a team really in desperate need for a QB in an attempt to fill their needs on D, which are plentiful. Brooks is a decent QB and the offense should be fine next year if McAllister can stay healthy. They need defense.

He could just pull an Eli and say "I'm not playing for that clusterfuck", and then get traded.

**attishina** · 01-02-2006, 06:44 AM

Okay let me rephrase that.

What makes you think he's definitely bound for the Saints?

I'm guessing they trade the pick to a team really in desperate need for a QB in an attempt to fill their needs on D, which are plentiful. Brooks is a decent QB and the offense should be fine next year if McAllister can stay healthy. They need defense.

They just benched Aaron Brooks to start Todd Bouman.

That's the very definition of a team that needs a franchise QB.

Not to mention that they need something to excite that fan base. Trading down for defenders won't get people to drive to Baton Rouge to see them play.

**Gulauur** · 01-02-2006, 06:48 AM

Way to go Matt...I'm sure you've enjoyed your last 4 years in beautiful sunny Southern California, winning every game for 3 straight years, 2-3 national championships, playing with a lineup that looks like a pro team, then spending your free time banging underwear models and any turbo hotty co-ed within arm's reach.

As the #2 pick, you may now report for duty in what equates to the lost city of Atlantis where dead bodies were floating around as recently as a couple of months ago, where you will have no real home stadium, and a completely clueless owner and front office.

No, you can't stay for a 5th year.

Technically he has a chance to win his second national championship on the 4th. So he'll finish with 1 or 2. Not 3.

**ingeneensueva** · 01-02-2006, 07:03 AM

Technically he has a chance to win his second national championship on the 4th. So he'll finish with 1 or 2. Not 3.

They've won back to back championships, even though he wasn't starting, he was still on the team. This is his shot at the 3rd.

**Caliwany** · 01-02-2006, 07:04 AM

They've won back to back championships, even though he wasn't starting, he was still on the team. This is his shot at the 3rd.

They won the championship last year. LSU won it two years ago.

**NodePark** · 01-02-2006, 07:05 AM

They've won back to back championships, even though he wasn't starting, he was still on the team. This is his shot at the 3rd.

Um no you are wrong they have one 1 championship, yes the AP voted them the winner the year LSU won but the BCS is used to determine the national champion and LSU won the crystal that year.

Although USC winning back to back if they beat texas will still be good

**amannddo** · 01-02-2006, 07:06 AM

Um no you are wrong they have one 1 championship, yes the AP voted them the winner the year LSU won but the BCS is used to determine the national champion and LSU won the crystal that year.

Although USC winning back to back if they beat texas will still be good

Thank you.

**Hftqdxpm** · 01-02-2006, 07:08 AM

Um no you are wrong they have one 1 championship, yes the AP voted them the winner the year LSU won but the BCS is used to determine the national champion and LSU won the crystal that year.

Although USC winning back to back if they beat texas will still be good

Let's not get technical, they split the title.

**Kokomoxcv** · 01-02-2006, 07:09 AM

Thank you.

Well I am sick and tired of hearing from every damn media source that USC will 3-peat, there was never a first so there can not be a 3-peat. When Skyler Green voiced his opinion a couple weeks ago, I agreed with him 100 percent

**BILBONDER** · 01-02-2006, 07:10 AM

Let's not get technical, they split the title.

Not really. Every conference (including the Pac-10) agree on the method to determine the national champions. The two polls used to be all they had to go on. But now every NCAA 1-A conference agrees that the BCS is what is used to determine the national champs. Finishing on top of the AP poll is an honor, but does not give you a share of the championship.

**Aluback** · 01-02-2006, 07:11 AM

Let's not get technical, they split the title.

Im not getting technical its just the truth, college football decided that the BCS is used to determine its national champ, that is why the title game is called the BCS Championship Game, it isnt the AP Championship Game

**lapyignipinge** · 01-02-2006, 07:11 AM

Well I am sick and tired of hearing from every damn media source that USC will 3-peat, there was never a first so there can not be a 3-peat. When Skyler Green voiced his opinion a couple weeks ago, I agreed with him 100 percent

I had been annoyed with that ever since they started talking about the 3-peat before the season had even started. I thought I was the only one that noticed until I read an article (very possibly the same one you are referring to) a week or two ago. It was nice to have some sense brought to the situation for once.

**nermise** · 01-02-2006, 07:13 AM

I had been annoyed with that ever since they started talking about the 3-peat before the season had even started. I thought I was the only one that noticed until I read an article (very possibly the same one you are referring to) a week or two ago. It was nice to have some sense brought to the situation for once.

The only thing is that all the media want them to 3-peat because they are USC, one of the most historic college football schools. and matt leinart and carson palmer were both pretty boys

**eljugadordepoquer** · 01-02-2006, 07:19 AM

Let's not get technical, they split the title.

Yeah really...we can get bogged down in semantics but they split the title 2 years ago.

**slima** · 01-02-2006, 07:20 AM

Yeah really...we can get bogged down in semantics but they split the title 2 years ago.

Alright.....but they didn't.

01-02-2006, 02:21 AM	#1
Kayacterype Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 397 Senior Member	Congratulations to Matt Leinart Way to go Matt...I'm sure you've enjoyed your last 4 years in beautiful sunny Southern California, winning every game for 3 straight years, 2-3 national championships, playing with a lineup that looks like a pro team, then spending your free time banging underwear models and any turbo hotty co-ed within arm's reach. As the #2 pick, you may now report for duty in what equates to the lost city of Atlantis where dead bodies were floating around as recently as a couple of months ago, where you will have no real home stadium, and a completely clueless owner and front office. No, you can't stay for a 5th year. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 04:59 AM	#2
libertiespana Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 465 Senior Member	Who's to say he'll go #2? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 05:11 AM	#3
flanna.kersting Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 422 Senior Member	Who's to say he'll go #2? Me, Mike, everyone under the sun Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 05:16 AM	#4
Ifroham4 Join Date Apr 2007 Posts 5,196 Senior Member	Who's to say he'll go #2? Everyone I've heard talk about the 2006 draft anywhere at any time. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 05:34 AM	#5
pedFlicle Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 460 Senior Member	Okay let me rephrase that. What makes you think he's definitely bound for the Saints? I'm guessing they trade the pick to a team really in desperate need for a QB in an attempt to fill their needs on D, which are plentiful. Brooks is a decent QB and the offense should be fine next year if McAllister can stay healthy. They need defense. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 05:35 AM	#6
casinobonuswer Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 455 Senior Member	Okay let me rephrase that. What makes you think he's definitely bound for the Saints? I'm guessing they trade the pick to a team really in desperate need for a QB in an attempt to fill their needs on D, which are plentiful. Brooks is a decent QB and the offense should be fine next year if McAllister can stay healthy. They need defense. He could just pull an Eli and say "I'm not playing for that clusterfuck", and then get traded. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 06:44 AM	#7
attishina Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 823 Senior Member	Okay let me rephrase that. What makes you think he's definitely bound for the Saints? I'm guessing they trade the pick to a team really in desperate need for a QB in an attempt to fill their needs on D, which are plentiful. Brooks is a decent QB and the offense should be fine next year if McAllister can stay healthy. They need defense. They just benched Aaron Brooks to start Todd Bouman. That's the very definition of a team that needs a franchise QB. Not to mention that they need something to excite that fan base. Trading down for defenders won't get people to drive to Baton Rouge to see them play. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 06:48 AM	#8
Gulauur Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 595 Senior Member	Way to go Matt...I'm sure you've enjoyed your last 4 years in beautiful sunny Southern California, winning every game for 3 straight years, 2-3 national championships, playing with a lineup that looks like a pro team, then spending your free time banging underwear models and any turbo hotty co-ed within arm's reach. As the #2 pick, you may now report for duty in what equates to the lost city of Atlantis where dead bodies were floating around as recently as a couple of months ago, where you will have no real home stadium, and a completely clueless owner and front office. No, you can't stay for a 5th year. Technically he has a chance to win his second national championship on the 4th. So he'll finish with 1 or 2. Not 3. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 07:03 AM	#9
ingeneensueva Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 399 Senior Member	Technically he has a chance to win his second national championship on the 4th. So he'll finish with 1 or 2. Not 3. They've won back to back championships, even though he wasn't starting, he was still on the team. This is his shot at the 3rd. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 07:04 AM	#10
Caliwany Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 511 Senior Member	They've won back to back championships, even though he wasn't starting, he was still on the team. This is his shot at the 3rd. They won the championship last year. LSU won it two years ago. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 07:05 AM	#11
NodePark Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 500 Senior Member	They've won back to back championships, even though he wasn't starting, he was still on the team. This is his shot at the 3rd. Um no you are wrong they have one 1 championship, yes the AP voted them the winner the year LSU won but the BCS is used to determine the national champion and LSU won the crystal that year. Although USC winning back to back if they beat texas will still be good Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 07:06 AM	#12
amannddo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 410 Senior Member	Um no you are wrong they have one 1 championship, yes the AP voted them the winner the year LSU won but the BCS is used to determine the national champion and LSU won the crystal that year. Although USC winning back to back if they beat texas will still be good Thank you. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 07:08 AM	#13
Hftqdxpm Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 450 Senior Member	Um no you are wrong they have one 1 championship, yes the AP voted them the winner the year LSU won but the BCS is used to determine the national champion and LSU won the crystal that year. Although USC winning back to back if they beat texas will still be good Let's not get technical, they split the title. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 07:09 AM	#14
Kokomoxcv Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 380 Senior Member	Thank you. Well I am sick and tired of hearing from every damn media source that USC will 3-peat, there was never a first so there can not be a 3-peat. When Skyler Green voiced his opinion a couple weeks ago, I agreed with him 100 percent Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 07:10 AM	#15
BILBONDER Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 382 Senior Member	Let's not get technical, they split the title. Not really. Every conference (including the Pac-10) agree on the method to determine the national champions. The two polls used to be all they had to go on. But now every NCAA 1-A conference agrees that the BCS is what is used to determine the national champs. Finishing on top of the AP poll is an honor, but does not give you a share of the championship. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

01-02-2006, 07:11 AM	#16
Aluback Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 475 Senior Member	Let's not get technical, they split the title. Im not getting technical its just the truth, college football decided that the BCS is used to determine its national champ, that is why the title game is called the BCS Championship Game, it isnt the AP Championship Game Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 07:11 AM	#17
lapyignipinge Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 576 Senior Member	Well I am sick and tired of hearing from every damn media source that USC will 3-peat, there was never a first so there can not be a 3-peat. When Skyler Green voiced his opinion a couple weeks ago, I agreed with him 100 percent I had been annoyed with that ever since they started talking about the 3-peat before the season had even started. I thought I was the only one that noticed until I read an article (very possibly the same one you are referring to) a week or two ago. It was nice to have some sense brought to the situation for once. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 07:13 AM	#18
nermise Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 527 Senior Member	I had been annoyed with that ever since they started talking about the 3-peat before the season had even started. I thought I was the only one that noticed until I read an article (very possibly the same one you are referring to) a week or two ago. It was nice to have some sense brought to the situation for once. The only thing is that all the media want them to 3-peat because they are USC, one of the most historic college football schools. and matt leinart and carson palmer were both pretty boys Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 07:19 AM	#19
eljugadordepoquer Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 439 Senior Member	Let's not get technical, they split the title. Yeah really...we can get bogged down in semantics but they split the title 2 years ago. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-02-2006, 07:20 AM	#20
slima Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 543 Senior Member	Yeah really...we can get bogged down in semantics but they split the title 2 years ago. Alright.....but they didn't. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote