When Were You Most Upset At The Arizona Cardinals?

On a holiday without a ton of news as of Sunday night (yes, I typically get my writing done late the night before and have the scheduled to post throughout the day), I though I would steal an idea I got from an SB Nation Arizona colleague, who also wrote something like this for BSOTS. 

The idea is to share (either in comments or as a separate FanPost if it is more than a couple of paragraphs in length -- so if you get going and you realize that it's long, before posting it, copy and paste it into a FanPost and give a brief link and comment in the tread) when you were most upset at the Arizona Cardinals -- meaning what the team, a front office member, a coach, a player or an employee did and not what happened to the team.

Here is what Scott Howard write as guidelines for the Suns post on the same topic:

There's a few conditions here:

It had to be something the franchise (meaning the players, coaches, front office, ticket folks, president, usher, parking lot attendant, Go-Rilla) did. So that means you can't just say "Well the time Stoudemire/Diaw got suspended for leaving the bench." You can say you were mad at Amar'e Stoudemire and Boris Diaw for leaving the bench or Phil Weber for not breaking their legs to prevent them from moving - but being mad at the NBA for suspending them doesn't count.

It also has to be one thing. You can't just say "all the moves Robert Sarver has made" - it's got to be one specifically that pissed you off. Like effectively letting Joe Johnson walk (yes I know they traded him).

Please don't adjust for your age. If you were a child and super pissed that the team traded Dennis Johnson for Rick Robey to the point where you wouldn't come out of your room for a week that's cool and that counts. Maybe as an adult you was pretty upset about Amar'e leaving but you probably still got up in the morning for your dead end job and kissed your horrible spouse before driving off for work in your economy vehicle that gets good gas mileage.

You should get the idea, but this time it is about the Arizona Cardinals. 

In my case, I am not an overly angry fan. I don't typically get upset at what my teams do. And I if I think back to my teenage years when I started following the Cards, I was only a radio fan. I listened to games on the radio at home because my family did not watch TV on Sundays. 

However, I can think of two instances -- once in my youth and one not so very long ago. 

The first time I was truly upset was when Simeon Rice called the Cardinals the "armpit of the NFL." At the time, I interpreted it as that he was insulting Arizona and not the organization. I love Arizona. I am born and raised here. It would take a lot to get me to leave here. It hurt me as a native for one of the team's best players to say something like that. And it hurt me that he wanted to leave. 

The second time was this past year. It was the handling of Matt Leinart. It is water under the bridge now because we can't change what happened and he did not go and lead a team to the playoffs, but I am still mad at how Whiz handled everything. 

There are plenty of people who think he never would have done much. They might have been right. But I never, ever saw where Derek Anderson was clearly better than Leinart. I told my buddies for months before the event that the Cardinals would be fine. Leinart would be good, perhaps very good in time and the Cards would return to the playoffs. 

The fact that he wasn't around to show that Whisenhunt made the right choice at the start of the season still makes me shake my head. The fact that everything was and still is so cryptic with Whiz and Leinart is frustrating. Whiz never came out and explained his rationale for starting DA and cutting Matty. That would perhaps clear things up. If he said -- "He never showed me in his years here that he was going to be capable of leading this team. He didn't respond to competition the way I want my quarterback to respond. The team seems to respond better to Derek than to Matt. Plus, his outburst in public was not good for the team or what I want in the locker room." -- I would have understood at least what he thought. I probably would have disagreed, but I would have understood.

For now, it really just looks like Whisenhunt just really didn't like him and had no faith in him. 

After all, I have described Derek Anderson in this way in the past:

He was cut by the CLEVELAND BROWNS, a disaster of a team. Anderson could not beat out Brady Quinn in Cleveland, who cannot beat out Tim Tebow, who many believe will never be a good NFL QB. 

And this is the guy that Leinart was cut in favor if. I do agree that, in the end, the reason for his release was the public outburst. Had he not done that, he would have been on the team and would have started at some point. Plus, we would have been saved the Max Hall experience. Maybe Skelton would have played, as he came in after DA and Hall were both hurt, but probably not. The year would have gone differently, I am sure of it.

It makes me upset still to think about it. 

Those are the two times I was most upset at the Cardinals. It is now your turn. Be specific!