10 thoughts - training camp

[kerouac9]

Spending money on players just to spend is worse than inactivity.

You need to have confidence in the GM/HC to acquire the player talent. Most here didn't think we had the right ones.

Being bad allows you to greatest chance stockpile franchise altering talent.

We went from having the first overall pick to winning 5, 8, 11 games.

You know what's worse than being really bad? Winning 5-6 games every year without the top tier talent to turn things around. Just look at our record in the late 90s into late 2000s.

2000 - 3-13
2001 - 7-9
2002 - 5-11
2003 - 4-12
2004 - 6-10
2005 - 5-11
2006 - 5-11
2007 - 8-8

None of those years were were closing to having the #1 pick and it shows.

In 2003 we had the third overall pick in the draft and took Larry Fitzgerald, a hall of famer. What is your argument supposed to be?

The Kansas City Chiefs drafted perhaps the top franchise altering player in the NFL for the next decade with the 10th overall pick in the NFL draft. They traded up from the 27th overall pick in that draft in getting him. What is the foundation for your argument that you must be the worst team in the NFL in order to start competing?

The Cleveland Browns went 4-37 over three seasons and chose first overall in consecutive years in 2016 and 2017. They have one winning record, one playoff win, and zero finishes above 3rd in their division to show for it.

There are a lot of ways to build a winner in the NFL. Just because you understand and agree with how the Cards are doing it doesn't make it the right or lowest-risk option available.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

In 2003 we had the third overall pick in the draft and took Larry Fitzgerald, a hall of famer. What is your argument supposed to be?

The Kansas City Chiefs drafted perhaps the top franchise altering player in the NFL for the next decade with the 10th overall pick in the NFL draft. They traded up from the 27th overall pick in that draft in getting him. What is the foundation for your argument that you must be the worst team in the NFL in order to start competing?

The Cleveland Browns went 4-37 over three seasons and chose first overall in consecutive years in 2016 and 2017. They have one winning record, one playoff win, and zero finishes above 3rd in their division to show for it.

I already explained what it was. The higher your draft pick, the higher your degree of drafting franchise altering talent.

Besides, I don't think the discussion we are talking about (how this team didn't spend much in free agency) is the net delta between the 1st and 3rd overall picks. If it is, it makes even more sense to not spent a lot on free agency.

There are a lot of ways to build a winner in the NFL. Just because you understand and agree with how the Cards are doing it doesn't make it the right or lowest-risk option available.

Of course there are. Including what the Rams did by trading away a lot of draft capital and spending oodles of money. Even then, they still had to hit on draft picks to make it all work. It all also came crashing down. (granted, some would argue that it would be worth it to win one time. Like the 2000 Diamondbacks)

 

[Cheesebeef]

Exactly.

I already explained what it was. The higher your draft pick, the higher your degree of drafting franchise altering talent.

Besides, I don't think the discussion we are talking about (how this team didn't spend much in free agency) is the net delta between the 1st and 3rd overall picks. If it is, it makes even more sense to not spent a lot on free agency.

Of course there are. Including what the Rams did by trading away a lot of draft capital and spending oodles of money. Even then, they still had to hit on draft picks to make it all work. It all also came crashing down. (granted, some would argue that it would be worth it to win one time. Like the 2000 Diamondbacks)

LOL... yeah, after 5 straight winning seasons, 4 playoff appearances, 2 Super Bowl appearances and 1 Super Bowl win.

All runs come to an end. Crashing down implies nothing they did work. Reality is, their plan ran it's course after successfully completing it.

 

[Garthshort]

Why? If the people who are making the decisions are the ones who will be in charge for the foreseeable future, why do you feel this is a good strategy?

1. Because most experts say we won't be good this year.
2. So, in all probability in order to sign decent FA's we'd probably have to 'overpay'. Affecting our CAP going forward.
3. Your strategy might be better in the short term, but I like mine longterm.
4. Only time will tell.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

LOL... yeah, after 5 straight winning seasons, 4 playoff appearances, 2 Super Bowl appearances and 1 Super Bowl win.

And there was a LOT more to their run than just spending a whole bunch in free agency, which is the crux of my point.

All runs come to an end. Crashing down implies nothing they did work. Reality is, their plan ran it's course after successfully completing it.

Crashing down also implies that they were the team with the worst record in history the year after winning the SuperBowl. That would qualify as a crash at least in my eyes.

 

[Stout]

So, the justification for showing our bellies in FA is that we get to roll moar cash over to next year's FA for a giant spending spree. When has that ever been a good idea, going on a giant FA spending spree? I thought we just got rid of Dan Snyder from the NFL and now you want to bring him back @dreamcastrocks?

 

[Stout]

What would have been wrong with spending moderately in FA this year and next year instead of pinning hopes on a big FA spending spree in one year?

Also, I've yet to hear a good explanation for how a rebuild progresses by getting worse in talent year to year.

 

[Garthshort]

What would have been wrong with spending moderately in FA this year and next year instead of pinning hopes on a big FA spending spree in one year?

Also, I've yet to hear a good explanation for how a rebuild progresses by getting worse in talent year to year.

You made your point and you might be right. Time will tell but it seems you're overdoing it. JMO.

 

[Stout]

You made your point and you might be right. Time will tell but it seems you're overdoing it. JMO.

I'm answering a poster who continually insists there was nothing to be done in FA. Does he represent your position then? If he didn't, you'd think he was overdoing it and not simply comment on my opinion. JMO.

 

[Chopper0080]

I already explained what it was. The higher your draft pick, the higher your degree of drafting franchise altering talent.

Besides, I don't think the discussion we are talking about (how this team didn't spend much in free agency) is the net delta between the 1st and 3rd overall picks. If it is, it makes even more sense to not spent a lot on free agency.

Of course there are. Including what the Rams did by trading away a lot of draft capital and spending oodles of money. Even then, they still had to hit on draft picks to make it all work. It all also came crashing down. (granted, some would argue that it would be worth it to win one time. Like the 2000 Diamondbacks)

What talent in the NFL is "franchise altering"? Great players, maybe, but non-QBs rarely alter a franchise.

Larry Fitzgerald wasn't and is pretty much the most accomplished Cardinals player ever. We didn't go to a Super Bowl until we had Kurt Warner and fell back down to earth once he retired.

The Rams won a Super Bowl with their approach so that is easily deemed a success. Chiefs have been successful a different way. Same with the Eagles. What example is there of a successful NFL franchise (which we all hope the Cardinals will someday become) throwing away a season by not adding talent and letting the talent it had, go, when they had a top QB in place?

 

[Chopper0080]

Spending money on players just to spend is worse than inactivity.

You need to have confidence in the GM/HC to acquire the player talent. Most here didn't think we had the right ones.

Being bad allows you to greatest chance stockpile franchise altering talent.

We went from having the first overall pick to winning 5, 8, 11 games.

You know what's worse than being really bad? Winning 5-6 games every year without the top tier talent to turn things around. Just look at our record in the late 90s into late 2000s.

2000 - 3-13
2001 - 7-9
2002 - 5-11
2003 - 4-12
2004 - 6-10
2005 - 5-11
2006 - 5-11
2007 - 8-8

None of those years were were closing to having the #1 pick and it shows.

1 - Let's acknowledge there is an option between spending on high-dollar FAs (which I agree can be detrimental in a cap era) and spending on vet min guys (which we did).

2 - Our most talented roster in recent history took us to the playoffs with Keim and Kliff running the show. I feel that is clear evidence that talent trumps.

3 - Being bad can potentially result in a higher draft pick which could enable you to add talent. It also can hurt your ability to put players into positions to succeed, undermine your HCs message, prohibit your attractiveness to outside FAs, hurt your ability to retain your own FAs, and create a culture of apathy, selfishness, and losing.

You don't create a winning culture by losing. You create a winning culture by winning.

You don't get players to buy-in by losing. You get them to buy-in by winning.

and winning is not a switch you can just turn on.

 

[Chopper0080]

And there was a LOT more to their run than just spending a whole bunch in free agency, which is the crux of my point.


Crashing down also implies that they were the team with the worst record in history the year after winning the SuperBowl. That would qualify as a crash at least in my eyes.

But they won a Super Bowl. Not an insignificant accomplishment.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

But they won a Super Bowl. Not an insignificant accomplishment.

Absolutely not. I would trade 30 more years of suckage for one SB. We were oh so close...

 

[kerouac9]

And there was a LOT more to their run than just spending a whole bunch in free agency, which is the crux of my point.


Crashing down also implies that they were the team with the worst record in history the year after winning the SuperBowl. That would qualify as a crash at least in my eyes.

The Rams actually didn't spend a ton in free agency. They traded draft picks and re-signed players at strategic positions to take advantage of what they rightly considered their championship window.

And they weren't 5-12 last year because of having to shed talent for cap reasons; they were 5-12 because their two top offensive pieces got injured.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

What would have been wrong with spending moderately in FA this year and next year instead of pinning hopes on a big FA spending spree in one year?

There were no good young building blocks available this year as you liked to call it.

Also, I've yet to hear a good explanation for how a rebuild progresses by getting worse in talent year to year.

You wanted us to tear everything down to the studs. When you do that, you lose talent. When is the last time a team cleaned house, and then were net positive on talent the year after?

 

[dreamcastrocks]

1 - Let's acknowledge there is an option between spending on high-dollar FAs (which I agree can be detrimental in a cap era) and spending on vet min guys (which we did).

There is, of course there is. The debate has always been whether it is worth it to spend that money in the first year of a rebuild.

2 - Our most talented roster in recent history took us to the playoffs with Keim and Kliff running the show. I feel that is clear evidence that talent trumps.

Yes, but it also started out with being really bad, grabbing a franchise QB, and having a coach that started slow, but then started gaining traction after some adjustments were made to his playcalling. It came crashing down due to injuries, missing too much on draft picks, and not being able to make adjustments to those initial adjustments.

3 - Being bad can potentially result in a higher draft pick which could enable you to add talent. It also can hurt your ability to put players into positions to succeed, undermine your HCs message, prohibit your attractiveness to outside FAs, hurt your ability to retain your own FAs, and create a culture of apathy, selfishness, and losing.

Absolutely. If we are still bad and showing no major signs of improvement by the end of next and the start of year 3, the locker room will likely turn.

The locker room didn't turn on Dan Campbell and the Lions when he was hired, they went 3-13-1 in 2021 and then 9-8 in 2022. They are a lot of people's pick to win the division this year.

You don't create a winning culture by losing. You create a winning culture by winning.

You don't get players to buy-in by losing. You get them to buy-in by winning.

and winning is not a switch you can just turn on.

No one is implying that winning is a switch that can be turned on. Again, see my Lions example on what I hope happens to the Cards in their rebuild.

 

[Stout]

There were no good young building blocks available this year as you liked to call it.

You wanted us to tear everything down to the studs. When you do that, you lose talent. When is the last time a team cleaned house, and then were net positive on talent the year after?

No, and no. Hard disagree on both. Not one single young player that could've helped us in FA? I strongly disagree with the premise. I wanted us to tear out the rot, keep the good young talent, and add to it. We only did one of those things all the way, and did one of them half-assed (took advantage of the draft but passes on FA). We didn't keep our good young talent. You can opine as to why, but that is a fact--they walked.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

The Rams actually didn't spend a ton in free agency. They traded draft picks and re-signed players at strategic positions to take advantage of what they rightly considered their championship window.

Your right. I should have said spent a ton and left it at that.

And they weren't 5-12 last year because of having to shed talent for cap reasons; they were 5-12 because their two top offensive pieces got injured.

It wasn't just their offense. Their defense was got much worse as well.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

No, and no. Hard disagree on both. Not one single young player that could've helped us in FA? I strongly disagree with the premise. I wanted us to tear out the rot, keep the good young talent, and add to it. We only did one of those things all the way, and did one of them half-assed (took advantage of the draft but passes on FA). We didn't keep our good young talent. You can opine as to why, but that is a fact--they walked.

You can strongly disagree, but you also couldn't be bothered to go through the free agency list to tell us who those players were.

Half of the list were over 30 which isn't a good young player.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

What talent in the NFL is "franchise altering"? Great players, maybe, but non-QBs rarely alter a franchise.

QBs and pass rushers for the most part. That's why a good chunk of the early picks in the draft consist of these two positions, and you have to be bad or spend a lot of draft capital to get them.

 

[Stout]

You can strongly disagree, but you also couldn't be bothered to go through the free agency list to tell us who those players were.

Half of the list were over 30 which isn't a good young player.

Right. Because that's the lazy argument where one poster asserts something, wants another poster to do a bunch of grunt search work for them, or they feel their point is valid. It's pointless to waste my time doing that research because we can't/aren't signing them. Why bother? It will in no way affect your opinion, so it would be a pointless, waste of time exercise for me to do.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Right. Because that's the lazy argument where one poster asserts something, wants another poster to do a bunch of grunt search work for them, or they feel their point is valid. It's pointless to waste my time doing that research because we can't/aren't signing them. Why bother? It will in no way affect your opinion, so it would be a pointless, waste of time exercise for me to do.

A lesser man might be offended by this. I consider myself a person that listens to reason and can fully admit when I'm wrong. I did this just a few posts ago and do it all the time.

To be fair, you were the one that asserted that there was young talent that should have been acquired first. I then went out and looked for that talent. I don't feel that I'm the one being rigid here.

 

[Chopper0080]

There is, of course there is. The debate has always been whether it is worth it to spend that money in the first year of a rebuild.

Yes, but it also started out with being really bad, grabbing a franchise QB, and having a coach that started slow, but then started gaining traction after some adjustments were made to his playcalling. It came crashing down due to injuries, missing too much on draft picks, and not being able to make adjustments to those initial adjustments.

Absolutely. If we are still bad and showing no major signs of improvement by the end of next and the start of year 3, the locker room will likely turn.

The locker room didn't turn on Dan Campbell and the Lions when he was hired, they went 3-13-1 in 2021 and then 9-8 in 2022. They are a lot of people's pick to win the division this year.

No one is implying that winning is a switch that can be turned on. Again, see my Lions example on what I hope happens to the Cards in their rebuild.

1 - Why does it being the first year of a rebuild matter? The goal of rebuilding a roster is to add and develop talent. You need talent around players to be able to develop them. You only have so many ways to add players. Build is in the word rebuild.

2 - Yes, it started by drafting a QB. A QB that we still have. It also started by unintentionally being really bad which came from hiring an unproven HC who put together a questionable staff.

3 - No one wants to be the Lions. Stop.

 

[Chopper0080]

QBs and pass rushers for the most part. That's why a good chunk of the early picks in the draft consist of these two positions, and you have to be bad or spend a lot of draft capital to get them.

What pass rushers have altered a franchise? Rams had to trade for Stafford even with Donald on the roster.

JJ Watt - didn't alter a franchise.

Myles Garrett - nope.

Chandler Jones - nope.

Von Miller - needed Manning.

Clowney...no. Chase thomas...no.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

1 - Why does it being the first year of a rebuild matter? The goal of rebuilding a roster is to add and develop talent. You need talent around players to be able to develop them. You only have so many ways to add players. Build is in the word rebuild.

Because by the time your team is competitive, that player may not be the same player anymore. They may be injured or whatever.

2 - Yes, it started by drafting a QB. A QB that we still have. It also started by unintentionally being really bad which came from hiring an unproven HC who put together a questionable staff.

Okay?

3 - No one wants to be the Lions. Stop.

Why do I bother sometimes? You 100% knew what I meant by that analogy.