I guess my argument is that it isn't a position of need yet. We disagree on this being a "trying to win" year, in that I don't think we can win it all. I see our offense poised to take a big step, and two cost-controlled WRs would help get there, while improving our defense over time with a larger financial investment.
Actually right now would be the best time to pay for a big time trade player like Lamb since the Cardinals are paying shekels for their receiver group relative to the rest of the league.
We run 3 WR sets over 60% of snaps. Wilson can develop on 60+% of offensive snaps. MHJ wouldn't care.
This is the best argument against imo. While WR is still a need, it is not as big of a need as EDGE or even DT still. If the Cardinals continue to plan on sitting out FA for the most part, they are probably better off holding onto their 1st rounders.
agree 99%, I wouldn’t have an issue in investing in a proven or young need a chance DT or Edge player. I’d bring in Campbell and draft my stud edge in next year’s draft.
The Cardinals really only have a vested interest in developing two of the receivers on the roster, MHJ and Michael Wilson.
If the Cards were one or two players away, you make that move. We aren't so we shouldn't.
Those are good problems to have and are still 4 or so years away outside of McBride. The Cardinals are going to be in spots where they have to spend to hit the salary cap floor. I can't remember if they failed to hit it last year, but as of now, they are 7 mil under it. Next year, they will need to spend 60 mil to get to it.
Yes. Anyone who is citing financial issues as a problem are telling themselves a story. The only thing limiting AZ in terms of money is AZ.
I completely agree, that why I said to extend other players now to keep future costs down when those more expensive guys come up for extensions. Like you said, I'd rather spend on quality. Versus just spending, which some seem to want us to do.
Would you give up next year's #1, maybe a high '26 pick, Michael Wilson and take on a Big contract? I wouldn't want to have to make that decision, it would be a tough one.
Not really, most "cap flexibility" techniques still end up with the team owing a bunch of players guaranteed money. When an NFL team signs a player and it has guaranteed money in the contract, they are required by the NFL to put that money in an escrow account for future use.
Not going to go into a long response, but you’re not right. Any NFL owner can pay what is needed. They’re flush in money.
Probably not but remember your trading potential talent for proven talent.
No one's buying the "poor Bidwill" excuse any longer. It's not going to fly.
You make a good point, but it seems that our offense will be pretty good even if we don't trade for Lamb. By giving up draft capital we take away from our defense which still needs help. Bottom line, your trade proposal makes more sense if we were closer to being a lock for the playoffs. JMO.
Normally I would agree, but he’s a road grader running back and I’d be more concerned with him wearing down physically than losing speed. If he has a good year this year I could see him getting a 1 or 2 year extension.I'd rather not extend Connor given that he'll be 30 next year and we drafted his potential replacement.
I think Baker's extension depends on how much money he wants. If he wants too much, then I think the Cards are likely to let him walk and not extend him.
