BR thinks it a Bad Idea adding Palmer

[WildBB]

tghere is no guarantee he will even deliver 8 wins but I can guarantee you this:

He will deliver more wins than stanton.

I want wins now. We can agree to disagree. I dont see winning more now as a detrament to our future. Sorry.

Probably......two more, maybe.

 

[Duckjake]

Probably......two more, maybe.

If Stanton is the starter the Cards would qualify for a Jim Rome tour show.

0-16. The 2008 Detroit Lions would look like a powerhouse compared to Arizona.

Sign Palmer. 2-14 is much better.

 

[JeffGollin]

Probably......two more, maybe.

But if Stanton could win 3 more games on annual basis (elevating us to 8), two more courtesy of Palmer would put us in playoff contention.

 

[WildBB]

If Stanton is the starter the Cards would qualify for a Jim Rome tour show.

0-16. The 2008 Detroit Lions would look like a powerhouse compared to Arizona.

Sign Palmer. 2-14 is much better.

OK, we'll concede Bridgewater or Johnny Football to Oakland I guess.

 

[WildBB]

But if Stanton could win 3 more games on annual basis (elevating us to 8), two more courtesy of Palmer would put us in playoff contention.

I was thinking Stanton could deliver 7-9 or 8-8 the first year, so you got me. Maybe.

 

[devilalum]

I don't understand why anybody thinks being bad next year helps us get better the year after??? Its not the NBA, we can't tank and draft LBJ. In the NFL you can draft and rebuild with the 16th slot just as easy as the 5th. All you have to do is evaluate talent and select the right players. The Packers and Patriots etc. have been doing it for years.

IMO the best approach to turning the team around is put the guys on the field that give us the best chance of winning. Period. The best QB available gives the Cards the best chance of winning.

 

[JeffGollin]

I was thinking Stanton could deliver 7-9 or 8-8 the first year, so you got me. Maybe.

Yup. That's why we play the games. Things may look one way "on paper" but turn out differently "on grass."

 

[WildBB]

I don't understand why anybody thinks being bad next year helps us get better the year after??? Its not the NBA, we can't tank and draft LBJ. In the NFL you can draft and rebuild with the 16th slot just as easy as the 5th. All you have to do is evaluate talent and select the right players. The Packers and Patriots etc. have been doing it for years.

IMO the best approach to turning the team around is put the guys on the field that give us the best chance of winning. Period. The best QB available gives the Cards the best chance of winning.

That's the question. I don't see Palmer leading us to the playoffs....so I don't see us gaining much of anything.

 

[JeffGollin]

That's the question. I don't see Palmer leading us to the playoffs....so I don't see us gaining much of anything.

I have a different take.

I think the right QB (& it could be Palmer) could win us an extra 5 games (assuming the OL doesn't remain pitiful). Our remaining supporting cast is that good.

It brings to mind a BA story on another thread about Andrew Luck throwing his first pass in practice and a Colt veteran exclaiming "We're back!"

IMO the turnaround in AZ could be that abrupt.

(I'm not saying it WILL be - I'm just raising the possibility).

 

[Totally_Red]

Let me get this straight - a Forty-Niner fan doesn't like it. Why would he? It makes the Cardinals competitive in the division. Would he like it better if we coughed up a second-rounder for Smith?

I should write an article about awful the Anquan Boldin trade was for the Whiners.

 

[Totally_Red]

I don't understand why anybody thinks being bad next year helps us get better the year after??? Its not the NBA, we can't tank and draft LBJ. In the NFL you can draft and rebuild with the 16th slot just as easy as the 5th. All you have to do is evaluate talent and select the right players. The Packers and Patriots etc. have been doing it for years.

IMO the best approach to turning the team around is put the guys on the field that give us the best chance of winning. Period. The best QB available gives the Cards the best chance of winning.

Agreed! What has being a lousy team ever got this franchise in the past?
I don't want the Cardinals to be the NFL equivalent of the Washington Generals.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

...Things may look one way "on paper" but turn out differently "on grass."

Says John Stewart's character in "half baked."

 

[RugbyMuffin]

So signing players who can help you win games sets your franchise back longer term?

Ok. Whatever you say.

No matter what little tidbit you put on the end of the statement, what is being discussed IS FAR from black and white. If it is for you, that's fine, but for me and others it is not as simple as you seem it to be.

- Since when is signing a player in April ensure success in September ? If Carson Palmer is 100%, going to improve this team, and that is a fact then you have someone there. But, NO ONE, knows what the end result will be.

- When was the last time "signing players who can help you win games sets your franchise back longer term" ? See the Redskins, the Raiders, and look no further then the Eagles letting all those players they sign in March/April to "help them win games" that they are no letting go, and starting over.

- Let's stay on the Eagles. The eagles were a few players from being a top the NFC east. They signed a bunch of players to "help them win games" and it has set their franchise back at least 3 years.

So, yeah, there's that big chunk of logic and reasoning that you might want to think about in your black and white assessment.

Warner sure set us way back when we weren't a playoff team right?

What in the heck are you talking about ? We are talking about setting your franchise back....the future. What Warner was doing at the time is not relevant to conversation or the topic. It is just some sort of ridiculous statement made to push a narrow view of a situation.

But, since you bring up Warner, Yes. Yes, Warner set us back because instead of the Cardinals developing a QB in house we needed to use a re-tread in his mid-thirties to find success. No doubt the success we had was wonderful, but our franchise became too reliant on the pure luck of Warner's revival and instead of investing to keep that team going and finding a QBOF, and making the team better, the franchised put all their eggs in the Warner basket, didn't invest in QB's, or offensive line in the drafts while Warner was still the man, and dismantled the roster that Warner relied on in the process.

That is setting your franchise back and them some. We are on year 4 of post-Warner, and our team is still not even close to being a playoff team.

If that is not setting your franchise back, I don't know what is.

Is it Warner's fault ? No. Not in the least. It is our franchises fault for horrifically mismanaging the team and the roster.

Thus signing Palmer.....I dunno. You HAVE to do it, but there is a risk involved, IMO. If Palmer retires next year, what would the Cardinals do ?

Start over ? ......uh, that would be a.... you guessed it, set back.

Winning makes people WANTto come here.

No doubt. No doubt about that at all.

And consistently winning makes people want to consistent come here.

Being a flash in the pan, and being touted as a fluke doesn't really instill that the Cardinals are a winning franchise.

The Cardinals had the opportunity to prove that there 2years of success were not a fluke, and failed miserably. I mean they failed so bad that those two years cannot be looked at as anything but a fluke. Numbers don't lie.

Thus, I believe you take your medicine now, to make sure you build a team, and not a fluke.

Whether that involves Carson Palmer or not ? I dunno, but that is the point. It is not as cut and dry as you may see it.

If I were to be put on the spot about it ? I would sign Palmer to a manageable contract, or not at all.

JMHO.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Says John Stewart's character in "half baked."

Funions

 

[BigRedRage]

No matter what little tidbit you put on the end of the statement, what is being discussed IS FAR from black and white. If it is for you, that's fine, but for me and others it is not as simple as you seem it to be.

- Since when is signing a player in April ensure success in September ? If Carson Palmer is 100%, going to improve this team, and that is a fact then you have someone there. But, NO ONE, knows what the end result will be.

- When was the last time "signing players who can help you win games sets your franchise back longer term" ? See the Redskins, the Raiders, and look no further then the Eagles letting all those players they sign in March/April to "help them win games" that they are no letting go, and starting over.

- Let's stay on the Eagles. The eagles were a few players from being a top the NFC east. They signed a bunch of players to "help them win games" and it has set their franchise back at least 3 years.

So, yeah, there's that big chunk of logic and reasoning that you might want to think about in your black and white assessment.




What in the heck are you talking about ? We are talking about setting your franchise back....the future. What Warner was doing at the time is not relevant to conversation or the topic. It is just some sort of ridiculous statement made to push a narrow view of a situation.

But, since you bring up Warner, Yes. Yes, Warner set us back because instead of the Cardinals developing a QB in house we needed to use a re-tread in his mid-thirties to find success. No doubt the success we had was wonderful, but our franchise became too reliant on the pure luck of Warner's revival and instead of investing to keep that team going and finding a QBOF, and making the team better, the franchised put all their eggs in the Warner basket, didn't invest in QB's, or offensive line in the drafts while Warner was still the man, and dismantled the roster that Warner relied on in the process.

That is setting your franchise back and them some. We are on year 4 of post-Warner, and our team is still not even close to being a playoff team.

If that is not setting your franchise back, I don't know what is.

Is it Warner's fault ? No. Not in the least. It is our franchises fault for horrifically mismanaging the team and the roster.

Thus signing Palmer.....I dunno. You HAVE to do it, but there is a risk involved, IMO. If Palmer retires next year, what would the Cardinals do ?

Start over ? ......uh, that would be a.... you guessed it, set back.




No doubt. No doubt about that at all.

And consistently winning makes people want to consistent come here.

Being a flash in the pan, and being touted as a fluke doesn't really instill that the Cardinals are a winning franchise.

The Cardinals had the opportunity to prove that there 2years of success were not a fluke, and failed miserably. I mean they failed so bad that those two years cannot be looked at as anything but a fluke. Numbers don't lie.

Thus, I believe you take your medicine now, to make sure you build a team, and not a fluke.

Whether that involves Carson Palmer or not ? I dunno, but that is the point. It is not as cut and dry as you may see it.

If I were to be put on the spot about it ? I would sign Palmer to a manageable contract, or not at all.

JMHO.

as far as I see it, we need a QB. Palmer is the best QB available to us. So, sign him and win more games. Developing a QB can be done while hes here. Throwing a rookie into the mix isnt always the best idea, I prefer the Aaron rodgers route.

Also, if this QB class sucks, what else do you do? Ride the pine and hope stanton becomes elite? Palmer can propel the offense which CAN lead us to the playoffs. We are a better team with Palmer vs stanton. I see no drawback.

The eagles example: sure it can backfire. Hiring a QB who can actually play is different than signing every player you can get.

 

[Zeno]

The Bleacher Report is crap...it is no better than what is written on any message board.

 

[WildBB]

The Bleacher Report is crap...it is no better than what is written on any message board.

Agree. They have a true bias. Much like here. But they act like balanced reporting, which we know rarely happens any more. Everyone seems to be pushing their own agendas. Some of it's fair I guess, most is just narrowness of thought for the most. Instant gratification.