Blake, Gramatica... the list will grow

[SECTION 11]

We had Burke, Davis, KVB, Wakefield, Tosi, and Bell.


I was blinded by Bryant's six solo tackles in 2002. I must have missed his explosive, #12 pick worthy, 1.5 sacks against the 36 year old Rodney Peete.

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by kerouac9
It's not possible to compare the contributions of an end and a tackle in any system. Compare KVB's first three games as a rookies to any three games in Ted Washington's career and KVB looks like Simeon Rice, Dwight Freeney, and Jevon Kearse combined.

Yeah, go figure.


Isn't Bryant a DE/DT? He played defensive end as a senior at Wisconsin. He must have forgotten all of those pass rush moves.
Maybe his stand up comedian career should take a back seat to tackling somebody.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
Yeah, go figure.


Isn't Bryant a DE/DT? He played defensive end as a senior at Wisconsin. He must have forgotten all of those pass rush moves.
Maybe his stand up comedian career should take a back seat to tackling somebody.

I don't know. How many DE/DTs are there on the good teams in the NFL? I sure can't think of many. Maybe Chris Hovan/Kevin Williams in Minny, but when was the last time they were in the playoffs?

We picked Bryant to play DT. That's where he got his sacks. Perhaps that's where we should try letting him play, focus, and prove himself. At least KVB has had 19 starts at his position to prove that he shouldn't be starting and maybe not even be playing in the NFL.

Bryant should push himself away from the domino table and play better. But I think that you should be the one to tell him so. I didn't want him when he was drafted; I wanted Albert Haynesworth. It's probable that Mac took a guy that wasn't even the best player at his position in Bryant because he was a high-character player. Kind of like KVB. Maybe neither of them belong in the league, but I've seen enough of KVB to know that he doesn't belong in the starting lineup.

 

[SECTION 11]

Maybe Bryant will be a player. Maybe he'll be a bouncer.

Either way if they both wash out, I'd rather have the guy that actually tried in my corner, because at this point Bryant appears to be doing nothing more than giggling his way to the bank.

If you'd rather have an expensive, underachieving, lazy comedian than an overachieving football player, that's all you.

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by kerouac9
Bryant should push himself away from the domino table and play better. But I think that you should be the one to tell him so. I didn't want him when he was drafted; I wanted Albert Haynesworth. It's probable that Mac took a guy that wasn't even the best player at his position in Bryant because he was a high-character player. Kind of like KVB. Maybe neither of them belong in the league, but I've seen enough of KVB to know that he doesn't belong in the starting lineup.

Is Haynesworth all that good either? I know he's been better than Wendell but he's got 42 tackles and 3.5 sacks in 2 years. in 28 games on a very good defense. I didn't see him that much last year is he really good against the run or something?

Wendell has 27 tackles and 1.5 sacks in 26 NFL games but that includes several where he barely played. I'd say if you looked at numbers of plays, Bryant has probably made as many tackles as Haynesworth. But again I didn't see him a lot this year it may be hes' one of those guys who draws so much attention he makes everyone else better, Bryant certainly hasn't been for us.

I had major concerns about Haynesworth pre draft both his reputation and reports of a back injury.

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by Russ Smith
Is Haynesworth all that good either? I know he's been better than Wendell but he's got 42 tackles and 3.5 sacks in 2 years. in 28 games on a very good defense. I didn't see him that much last year is he really good against the run or something?

Wendell has 27 tackles and 1.5 sacks in 26 NFL games but that includes several where he barely played. I'd say if you looked at numbers of plays, Bryant has probably made as many tackles as Haynesworth. But again I didn't see him a lot this year it may be hes' one of those guys who draws so much attention he makes everyone else better, Bryant certainly hasn't been for us.

I had major concerns about Haynesworth pre draft both his reputation and reports of a back injury.

Haynesworth was dominant in the last six games of last year. We'll see if he picks up where he left off.

Bryant "barely playing" tells you all you need to know about his ability, heart, desire and any other catchy phrase you can staple to an NFLer.

 

[Renz]

Originally posted by kerouac9
I don't know. How many DE/DTs are there on the good teams in the NFL? I sure can't think of many. Maybe Chris Hovan/Kevin Williams in Minny

Is there a more overrated D-Lineman than Chris Hovan? The guy is mentioned all the time with good/great players and he even gets on a Pizza Hut commercial. Why? Because he wears make-up and has long hair. Hovan played in all 16 games last season and responded with a whopping 27 tackles and 2 sacks!

 

[Redheart]

Re: Re: Re: Get over yourselves, people: KVB Blows

Originally posted by kerouac9
I'm sorry, I guess when I point to Starks's production, I can point to his 10 starts, 48 solo tackles, and two picks in 10 games as a starter for the Cards as a #1 cornerback with no help from the worst pass-rush in the NFL. ...

In that SAME year Barrett started 14 games had 57 solo tackles, 16 assists, 3 interceptions, and 7 passes defended. Starks had only 6 passes defended.

in 2003, Barrett had 68 solo tackles, 11 assists, 1 interception, and 9 passes defended. Oh, he also started ALL 16 games.

In that SAME year Hill started 14 games had 59 solo tackles, 4 assist, 1 sack, 2 interceptions, and 6 passes defended. Hill had better numbers than Starks.

In 2003 Hill had 47 solo tackles, 11 assists, 2 sacks, 5 interceptions, 10 passes defended, and a TOUCHDOWN. He also started 14 games.

Looking at the stats would say Starks wasn't even our 2nd best CB in the one year he managed to suit up. Based on stats comparrison, Barrett was our #1 CB in 2002 and Hill was our #1 in 2003. Most of all, both played and Starks sat with his "nagging" hamstring.

For 2002 Starks cost more than $8.6 million. Both Barrett and Hill TOGETHER cost less than $800 K!

For 2003, Starks base salary was $3.6 million. Both Barrett and Hill's base was less than $675 K.

How about that for a football point? How about that for a Business point?

The question is...when will you finally accept the point he is a over-priced 30 year-old (shy two months, sheesh!) FA-bust who has to come back from a ACL (AKA "creaky reconstructed knee that won't be stronger").

CUT STARKS! Take his money and get the best CB possible in FA.

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by Renz
Is there a more overrated D-Lineman than Chris Hovan? The guy is mentioned all the time with good/great players and he even gets on a Pizza Hut commercial. Why? Because he wears make-up and has long hair. Hovan played in all 16 games last season and responded with a whopping 27 tackles and 2 sacks!

He must be good. Those are Wendell Bryant type numbers.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
He must be good. Those are Wendell Bryant type numbers.

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by kerouac9

Couldn't resist...

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
He must be good. Those are Wendell Bryant type numbers.

Hovan WAS good, but not last year. That's how it goes sometimes, guy gets a lot of hype and people don't notice he's not playing nearly as well as he did his first 3 years in the NFL when he put up reasonable numbers. He was never a "great player" but he was pretty good the first 3 years. I have no idea why he fell off this year.

 

[BuckeyeCardinal]

Yeah

Originally posted by SECTION 11
We had Burke, Davis, KVB, Wakefield, Tosi, and Bell.


I was blinded by Bryant's six solo tackles in 2002. I must have missed his explosive, #12 pick worthy, 1.5 sacks against the 36 year old Rodney Peete.

Here we go with the old underachiever/overachiever crap again.

Bryant is the better athlete......from at least below the heart on down.

If he (Bryant) continues to play like he has he will continue to suck.

IF KVB stays healthy he will play better than a sucky Bryant.

IF Bryant wakes up then of course all bets are off.

 

[Russ Smith]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Get over yourselves, people: KVB Blows

Originally posted by Redheart
In that SAME year Barrett started 14 games had 57 solo tackles, 16 assists, 3 interceptions, and 7 passes defended. Starks had only 6 passes defended.

in 2003, Barrett had 68 solo tackles, 11 assists, 1 interception, and 9 passes defended. Oh, he also started ALL 16 games.

In that SAME year Hill started 14 games had 59 solo tackles, 4 assist, 1 sack, 2 interceptions, and 6 passes defended. Hill had better numbers than Starks.

In 2003 Hill had 47 solo tackles, 11 assists, 2 sacks, 5 interceptions, 10 passes defended, and a TOUCHDOWN. He also started 14 games.

Looking at the stats would say Starks wasn't even our 2nd best CB in the one year he managed to suit up. Based on stats comparrison, Barrett was our #1 CB in 2002 and Hill was our #1 in 2003. Most of all, both played and Starks sat with his "nagging" hamstring.

So in 2002 on those occasions where we lined up man to man, who was covering the #1 WR Starks, Barrett or Hill? We all know it was Starks, so the next question is why, because he made the most money, or because the coaching staff felt he was our best CB even if he was playing with a groin pull much of the year?

That year teams figured out Starks was hurt and picked on him, we talked about it on this board all along.

So yes we have paid him a lot, and yes he hasn't been healthy, but in 2002 IMHO he was still our best CB. I thought our CB's were better then than they were last year and the primary difference was no Starks.

Cutting him only makes sense if it saves us money, and if we can replace him with either a better player, or a comparable player who makes less money. I haven't looked at his contract I don't know the cap implications of cutting him.

 

[kerouac9]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Get over yourselves, people: KVB Blows

Originally posted by Redheart
In that SAME year Barrett started 14 games had 57 solo tackles, 16 assists, 3 interceptions, and 7 passes defended. Starks had only 6 passes defended.

in 2003, Barrett had 68 solo tackles, 11 assists, 1 interception, and 9 passes defended. Oh, he also started ALL 16 games.

In that SAME year Hill started 14 games had 59 solo tackles, 4 assist, 1 sack, 2 interceptions, and 6 passes defended. Hill had better numbers than Starks.

In 2003 Hill had 47 solo tackles, 11 assists, 2 sacks, 5 interceptions, 10 passes defended, and a TOUCHDOWN. He also started 14 games.

Looking at the stats would say Starks wasn't even our 2nd best CB in the one year he managed to suit up. Based on stats comparrison, Barrett was our #1 CB in 2002 and Hill was our #1 in 2003. Most of all, both played and Starks sat with his "nagging" hamstring.

For 2002 Starks cost more than $8.6 million. Both Barrett and Hill TOGETHER cost less than $800 K!

For 2003, Starks base salary was $3.6 million. Both Barrett and Hill's base was less than $675 K.

How about that for a football point? How about that for a Business point?

The question is...when will you finally accept the point he is a over-priced 30 year-old (shy two months, sheesh!) FA-bust who has to come back from a ACL (AKA "creaky reconstructed knee that won't be stronger").

CUT STARKS! Take his money and get the best CB possible in FA.

Dude, we all get that you irrationally hate Duane Starks. Get over it.

Are you really comparing one player's performance over 10 games to two other guys' over 16? Does that even make sense to you? Starks was on pace to have far better numbers than either player over 16 games.

If we release Starks and sign two top-flight free agents, it'll cost somewhere between $16 and $22 million in signing bonuses (which the Cards probably can't afford to pay) as well as about $12 to $16 million per season in salary. That's a lot to pay as well as absorbing the accelerated bonus of Starks. Also, if you do that, you probably won't be able to recruit any high-profile pass-rushing free agents.

Barrett's gone. Starks will be here. Starks coming back will probably be one of the top 4 corners in the division. Were I Graves, I'd target Winfield, Bryant, and maybe Plummer or someone along those lines in free agency in the hopes of getting one. At the same time, I'd draft corners in rounds two or three and sometime on the second day, as well as giving Hill an extention for three to five years. The first-day corner should offset the loss of Barrett, as well as the second-day corner would give us a developmental prospect along the lines of Hill. This just seems to me to be a more responsible way to use the franchises limits of both liquid cash assets (signing bonuses), the talent already on hand, and the salary cap limitations.

 

[SECTION 11]

I'm gonna miss Billy Gramatica.

 

[Redheart]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get over yourselves, people: KVB Blows

Originally posted by kerouac9
Dude, we all get that you irrationally hate Duane Starks. Get over it.

Are you really comparing one player's performance over 10 games to two other guys' over 16? Does that even make sense to you? Starks was on pace to have far better numbers than either player over 16 games.

If we release Starks and sign two top-flight free agents, it'll cost somewhere between $16 and $22 million in signing bonuses (which the Cards probably can't afford to pay) as well as about $12 to $16 million per season in salary. That's a lot to pay as well as absorbing the accelerated bonus of Starks. Also, if you do that, you probably won't be able to recruit any high-profile pass-rushing free agents.

Barrett's gone. Starks will be here. Starks coming back will probably be one of the top 4 corners in the division. Were I Graves, I'd target Winfield, Bryant, and maybe Plummer or someone along those lines in free agency in the hopes of getting one. At the same time, I'd draft corners in rounds two or three and sometime on the second day, as well as giving Hill an extention for three to five years. The first-day corner should offset the loss of Barrett, as well as the second-day corner would give us a developmental prospect along the lines of Hill. This just seems to me to be a more responsible way to use the franchises limits of both liquid cash assets (signing bonuses), the talent already on hand, and the salary cap limitations.

So much for you arguing a football point or a business one.

Dude, I don't "irrationally hate" Starks. I just rationally think it is stupid to pay another $3.6 million for undersized, 30 year-old CB coming back from a ACL.

What IS irrational is you thinking that he is going to be in the top four of this division. He will be lucky to play next year. What is your love-affair with this over-paid CB anyway?

Quit making assinine suggestions about spending all our cap on "two top-flight" CB's. No one suggested that but you, at least I didn't. Making irrational suggestions to color Starks better won't help. You can offer your opinions, but it is clear that they are not the facts.

I want a winning team, taking the $1 million dollar cap hit for cutting him and use Stark's salary to pick up a FA CB that will contribute and we will be much better off.

 

[kerouac9]

Redheart

So, is your contention that Starks isn't going to contribute at all in 2004? And/or that anyone would be able to contribute more than Starks in 2004?

The problem with calling for "anyone else" is that you don't really know what that "anyone" is going to bring.

Barrett's gone. You won't be able to take Starks' $3.5 or whatever and sign Barrett to a long-term deal. That money might cover half his signing bonus. Hill is going to recieve a middle tender offer, of about $1.5 or something for 2004. He should get a long-term deal after the 2004 season if not something in this offseason. I'm a little surprised that Graves didn't move to re-sign him during 2003.

It doesn't make a lot of either football or business sense to cut someone without knowing what you're getting to replace him. Finish the second half of your plan and maybe I'll consider supporting it, but until you put forth some alternative that you actually could sign with Starks's money, than you're just looking to jettison some guy that you don't like, and I don't have a lot of respect for that position.

I believe that this team needs another starting cornerback to pair with Starks, and move him back to the #2 cornerback position where he excelled in B-more. If we release Starks, to me, we'll need two starting-quality cornerbacks. I don't think that it's a good policy to hitch your wagon to rookie corners, since Buchanon wasn't able to do it, Jammer is still struggling in SD, Trufant shuttled in and out of the starting lineup in Seattle, and Sheppard hasn't cracked the starting roster in Philly.

Maybe we agree, and you're just not articulating your position very well. I just think that releasing Starks and hoping that we can get someone as good or better in free agency is as inane a strategem (if you can indeed call it a strategem) as releasing your top three wideouts and hoping that a bunch of nobodies steps up and seizes the opportunity and leads the team to more than, say, four victories.

 

[Redheart]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get over yourselves, people: KVB Blows

Originally posted by Russ Smith
So in 2002 on those occasions where we lined up man to man, who was covering the #1 WR Starks, Barrett or Hill? We all know it was Starks, so the next question is why, because he made the most money, or because the coaching staff felt he was our best CB even if he was playing with a groin pull much of the year?

That year teams figured out Starks was hurt and picked on him, we talked about it on this board all along.

So yes we have paid him a lot, and yes he hasn't been healthy, but in 2002 IMHO he was still our best CB. I thought our CB's were better then than they were last year and the primary difference was no Starks.

Cutting him only makes sense if it saves us money, and if we can replace him with either a better player, or a comparable player who makes less money. I haven't looked at his contract I don't know the cap implications of cutting him.

5 year contract, (per the Snakester) $5 million signing bonus,
$3.6 million base Salary. If you figure 1 million a year for the signing bonus, that would be 3 million accelerated with cutting him this year and saving 3.6 in salary / cap-hit. That simple look (and I could be ALL wrong) about it says we save $.6 million in cap space by cutting him.

I am thinking he won't be ready to play, even at the average level he did his first year. But signing a FA CB will cost us Cap and Salary; the goal of course is picking up a CB who will be able to contribute by practising and playing.

Starks may have matched up agains other team's #1 receivers but the results were NOTHING to brag about. 6 passes defended. Barret had more passes defended and Hill had the same number in the only season Starks suited up.

Cutting Starks this year and he still earned over $12.2 MILLION dollars for only 10 games played. No, I guess I won't shed any tears for him; I would say he has been paid well for his time and injury.

 

[Redheart]

Re: Redheart

Originally posted by kerouac9
So, is your contention that Starks isn't going to contribute at all in 2004?...

It doesn't make a lot of either football or business sense to cut someone without knowing what you're getting to replace him. Finish the second half of your plan and maybe I'll consider supporting it, but until you put forth some alternative that you actually could sign with Starks's money, than you're just looking to jettison some guy that you don't like, and I don't have a lot of respect for that position...

My opionion is no, nothing from Starks in 2004.

Fair enough on your second point to which I will admit that I am not qualified nor do I have enough information to say who the replacement is. I will, however, assert that the FA CB who will fit a reasonable signing bonus/salary/cap hit AND be able to contribute by playing and practising is in the following list:

Champ Bailey, Washington
David Barrett, Arizona
William Bartee, Kansas City
Juran Bolden, Atlanta
Fakhir Brown, New Orleans
Ralph Brown, New York Giants
Fernando Bryant, Jacksonville
Terrell Buckley, Miami
Clifton Crosby, Indianapolis
Mario Edwards, Dallas
Michael Hawthorne, Green Bay
Reggie Howard, Carolina
Darrius Johnson, Kansas City
Tommy Knight, Baltimore
Clarence Love, Oakland
Chris McAlister, Baltimore
Emmanuel McDaniel, Arizona
Todd McMillon, Chicago
David Macklin, Indianapolis
Ahmed Plummer, San Francisco
Lewis Sanders, Cleveland
Terrance Shaw, Oakland
Dainon Sidney, Buffalo
Jason Simmons, Houston
Otis Smith, Detroit
Jimmy Spencer, Denver
Shawn Springs, Seattle
Kato Serwanga, New York Giants
Bobby Taylor, Philadelphia
Fred Thomas, New Orleans
Kiwaukee Thomas, Jacksonville
James Trapp, Baltimore
Troy Vincent, Philadelphia
Fred Weary, St. Louis
Jason Webster, San Francisco
Willie Williams, Seattle
Antoine Winfield, Buffalo
Charles Woodson, Oakland
Jimmy Wyrick, Detroit

I know you will recognize this list from the last time we tangled on this subject. If I were Graves, I would be looking for a young, healthy, affordable CB that would fit with my FA DE or DT search.

PS. Skip Tommy Knight, been there done that.

 

[kerouac9]

Yes, but who else do you want to replace Barrett, or take Hill's place if he moves into Barrett's spot.

My point is if you're going to get rid of Starks, you're going to need at least two starting-quality cornerbacks in free agency.

Personally, I look down that list, and aside from the people that I already want (Bryant or Winfield) and the guys that have no chance of reaching free agency (McAllister, Bailey), and I don't see many people much better than Starks.

Maybe if you can get Mario Edwards to take second-tier money to come here, you can cut Starks, but I don't see Starks as being lazy or not being a team player. I never heard that before the hamstring this camp (but no one likes to go to camp). I just think that Starks still has something to contribute to the team, even at this present salary level (which was pretty commensurate to a FA deal for a decent/good/gambling CB--and that's what he played like for 10 games with a crappy D-line). I just think that you're spending a lot of money for 10 games. There's value left in the guy.

I guess we just disagree in the quality of play to expect from Starks. If he comes back at 85% of what he was before the injury. I fully expect you to eat your words.

 

[Redheart]

Originally posted by kerouac9
Yes, but who else do you want to replace Barrett, or take Hill's place if he moves into Barrett's spot.

My point is if you're going to get rid of Starks, you're going to need at least two starting-quality cornerbacks in free agency.

Personally, I look down that list, and aside from the people that I already want (Bryant or Winfield) and the guys that have no chance of reaching free agency (McAllister, Bailey), and I don't see many people much better than Starks.

Maybe if you can get Mario Edwards to take second-tier money to come here, you can cut Starks, but I don't see Starks as being lazy or not being a team player. I never heard that before the hamstring this camp (but no one likes to go to camp). I just think that Starks still has something to contribute to the team, even at this present salary level (which was pretty commensurate to a FA deal for a decent/good/gambling CB--and that's what he played like for 10 games with a crappy D-line). I just think that you're spending a lot of money for 10 games. There's value left in the guy.

I guess we just disagree in the quality of play to expect from Starks. If he comes back at 85% of what he was before the injury. I fully expect you to eat your words.

I hope they don't let Barrett go. I know he thinks he needs Starks-like money, but I don't think he is going to find it in FA. I am hoping Green can resign him to a "equitable" arrangement after FA reality sets in.

I will eat crow on Starks if he comes back and is in the top 4 of this division. For his money, nothing else. It really comes down to pay-for-performance. He has already made a HUGE payday on the Big Red; he owes some huge performance.

I was at training camp last year and Starks seemed to be dogging it. I was not the only one who thought so; week after week Mac was making "guys have to practise" comments aimed at Starks. I sure did not sense a fire in Starks; hence no confidence or desire to see more of the same in 2004.

Thanks for the vine.

 

[kerouac9]

All right, let me justify saying that Starks is Top 4 in the NFC West. Here are the starting corners in the NFC West according to Ourlads' Scouting Services (asterisks denote 2004 Free Agents, tildes denote restricted free agents):

ARI:
LCB: Starks
RCB: Barrett*
NCB: Hill~

SF:
LCB: Plummer*
RCB: Webster*
NCB: Rumph

SEA:
LCB: Springs*
RCB: Trufant
NCB: Lucas

STL:
LCB: Butler~
RCB: Fisher
NCB: Groce

Plummer and maybe Webster will leave via FA. Springs might, too. This isn't a very awesome roster, which might explain why there were so many star WRs in the NFC West. In my opinion, Starks even at 80% is about as good as Springs (maybe a little worse), but only Trufant, maybe Plummer, are definitely better. If Starks plays hard and without further injury, he can easily be one of the Top 4 or 5 corners in the NFC West. With an above-average pass rush, he could be one of the top 15 corners in the NFL.

 

[BuckeyeCardinal]

Billy G

Originally posted by SECTION 11
I'm gonna miss Billy Gramatica.

I'm sure he's a nice guy.

I'm also fairly sure that he will turn out to be as good as or better than any kicker we have in the next 5 years.

With that said I won't miss him because of what he did.....getting injured on a celebatory jump after a made kick made all the media over and over and over....the Cards losing personna got amplified for weeks.

The Cards suck so bad look what happened to their kicker.....ahhhhh shut the f up.

 

[ajcardfan]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
I'm gonna miss Billy Gramatica.

Not nearly as much as all of the Yaquis in Guadalupe. I'm sure that those poor Native Americans really "connected" with an Argentinian from a wealthy family. (Great angle kerouac!)