Cardinals : AJ green signed

[Solar7]

I didn't say YOU said he had plenty left in the tank but the general feeling was. And you yourself were positive about the move and you advocated for it when he was released with the caveat of "If he can stay healthy".

It's like the single AJ Green signing completely changed your view about everything.

Honestly, I didn't realize how much money we were going to give Watt. But I really like him as a player and at least it's fun. I'm not even lamenting AJ Green that bad. If we added him, kept Arnold/signed Hunter Henry/added a solid option at RB, I wouldn't really care about the signing and could wait and see. But we subtracted from the offense as a whole and only added a question mark to upgrade him.

So our starting ILB, Simmons at age 22 doesn't make the grade or a 23-year-old Byron Murphy who played over 70% of the defensive snaps or Zack Allen, also 23, who takes regular snaps at D-end and yet the Lawrence/Fotu tandem do? And why would you not include Kirk at 24?

Simmons hasn't proven much of anything, so he's not a "quality" starter as per BritCard's request, but I'll admit I didn't realize we didn't still have DeVondre Campbell, so I'll cede that. Byron Murphy only started 7 games last year despite being healthy, and is still a nickelback, so no, I'm not counting him as a "starter," because he's not an unquestioned starter in the base defense. We just handed out a $31 million deal with $23 million guaranteed to replace Zack Allen, so no, I'm also not considering him a starter. He is now a rotational lineman who will work out the rest of his contract as a backup barring injury. I don't include Kirk because he is no longer a starter. We just paid $8 million to replace him and relegate him to WR #3.

I'll reply to BC's next post in its own reply.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

You can't say "we are too old, we need to get younger" when we sit right between the two superbowl teams in average age and barely any different to either. That just throws the age argument out the window.

You can argue for better quality players, but the age argument is BS.

Bears, Titans, Saints, Bills all older than us last year. All made the playoffs.

All this hand wringing over AJ Green being 33 is a bit weird to be honest. He's on a 1 year deal.

There are 2 deals I'd rather have made. For sure, Curtis Samuel for $11.5m. Maybe Marvin Jones, but a 3 year deal for a 31 year old WR isn't a deal I'd really want.

I'm fine with AJ for 1 year. Loads of upside, no downside.

First, do you even recognize your hypocrisy in this post? I’ll help you:

“the age argument is BS”
and
“a 3 year deal for a 31 year old WR isn't a deal I'd really want”

also, you completely missed the point. Using entire roster age is a faulty argument, or at least it’s a weak argument.

The following two teams have roughly the same average age. Same number of pro bowlers (“quality” as you claim). But one has a much brighter future and greater likelihood of continuity:

Age 32+:10 starters (2 pro bowlers), 5 backups
Age 27-31: 8 starters (2 pro bowlers), 15 backups
Age 23-26: 4 starters, 15 backups

age 32: 2 starters (no pro bowlers), 13 backups
Age 28: 14 starters (3 pro bowlers), 9 backups
Age 24: 6 starters (1 pro bowler), 9 backups

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I said he played significant snaps!

Maybe in terms of #, but certainly not in terms of actual significance impacting the game. I can trot out a corpse and they can “play” significant snaps.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

What do you think other teams rosters are? Show me another franchise that has 8 quality starters under 25. Or 6. I doubt you could barely scrape 4.

This is pure "grass is greener" stuff.

Why is 25 the arbitrary number? That’s actually a terrible benchmark as it would be an incredibly green team. The better threshold would be 27-28. Those are seasoned vets that are in their prime.

 

[Harry]

Give it a rest guys; proof will be when the season is played. We’ve heard your points. The empirical answer will happen in the fall.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I didn't say YOU said he had plenty left in the tank but the general feeling was. And you yourself were positive about the move and you advocated for it when he was released with the caveat of "If he can stay healthy".

It's like the single AJ Green signing completely changed your view about everything.

You can like a move in a vacuum and like it less, or even dislike it, when looking at the entirety of the whole.

To take your limited example:

I am on the fence with jJ watt. I like the talent, I am concerned with the injury history.

I like the Hudson trade.

I dislike the aj green signing.

now if this was math it would be like an average reaction. But when I see adding three 32 year old players, bringing back aged and old Alford, letting young TE walk, the aggregate is we are getting old and we have moved more towards injured players. In the aggregate those moves cut against my thoughts about better roster construction.

 

[Solar7]

Let's just take the Skins. So 7 under 25.

Daron Payne is an average IDL. (3 sacks, 7 TFL, mid 60's grade last year)
Curtis Samuel you argued here was not a great player and worth a big deal, although granted I like him.
Cole Holcomb has started about 7 games.

Again, this is just Grass is Greener stuff.

Are we short of 25 and under "stars" yeah probably. Compared to these 2 teams you cherry picked.

But Budda is that. Simmons can be that. A year ago half this board thought Jalen Thompson was legit (never saw it myself). Fotu is likely going to start at Nose and has a bunch of potential.

I think what this all boils down to is "We don't have a great young WR". I think if we did your whole perception would change.

There's no doubt Keim sucks ass at drafting. But by the same token it's not like this team is full of geriatrics and has no young talent. I think you will find it's around league average.

You're nitpicking. Daron Payne may be "average," but he's still quality, and of much more quality than Lawrence or Fotu. His stat line is better than theirs combined (1 sack, 5 TFL, 41 grade for Fotu, 47.8 for Lawrence). He's also got a better pedigree and more talent around him, so he's more likely to improve into a legitimate star than they are. Those two will likely remain just guys.

I supported signing Curtis Samuel all offseason and back into before the season ended, so not sure what you're getting at. His deal was a lot steeper than I thought it would be, but that still doesn't disqualify him from being considered a quality starter.

Cole Holcomb has started 25 of his 27 career games. Do you even bother looking this stuff up? He's got a lot more reason to be called a quality starter than Isaiah Simmons does at this point.

It has nothing to do with "grass is greener," it has to do with how easy it is at a glance to see how much other teams have over us on the young talent side of things.

Budda is a star, Simmons isn't anything until he shows he is (even though I like him a lot), Jalen Thompson is a middling starter but nothing special, Fotu's got nothing but potential because he hasn't shown a ton yet. No one would cry foul if we brought back Peters today to start ahead of him.

A young WR has nothing to do with this. I'd prefer a young RB to a young WR. It's all about overall young talent and the fact we have to replace this year's players next year all over again.

Also, I feel like at some point someone said I cherrypicked these teams, but I can't find that line, so I might have imagined it, but I literally just picked the first team that came to mind because they're my dad's team, and then one team you called out as not being particularly young.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Give it a rest guys; proof will be when the season is played. We’ve heard your points. The empirical answer will happen in the fall.

Harry’s right. We should stop discussing anything Cardinals related unless it’s new news until training camp.

 

[BritCard]

First, do you even recognize your hypocrisy in this post? I’ll help you:

“the age argument is BS”
and
“a 3 year deal for a 31 year old WR isn't a deal I'd really want”

also, you completely missed the point. Using entire roster age is a faulty argument, or at least it’s a weak argument.

The following two teams have roughly the same average age. Same number of pro bowlers (“quality” as you claim). But one has a much brighter future and greater likelihood of continuity:

Age 32+:10 starters (2 pro bowlers), 5 backups
Age 27-31: 8 starters (2 pro bowlers), 15 backups
Age 23-26: 4 starters, 15 backups

age 32: 2 starters (no pro bowlers), 13 backups
Age 28: 14 starters (3 pro bowlers), 9 backups
Age 24: 6 starters (1 pro bowler), 9 backups

Where's the hypocrisy?

The age argument is BS when it comes to quality. You contribute or you don't. All that really matters on a year to year basis is that you contribute commensurate to your contract. Which is why I have no problem with Green's 1 year deal.

However, you don't know what Marvin Jones will be at 33 or 34. And I'd say the same of Green if it wasn't a 1 year deal.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Where's the hypocrisy?

The age argument is BS when it comes to quality. You contribute or you don't. All that really matters on a year to year basis is that you contribute commensurate to your contract. Which is why I have no problem with Green's 1 year deal.

However, you don't know what Marvin Jones will be at 33 or 34. And I'd say the same of Green if it wasn't a 1 year deal.

Why? You have no idea what greens play is going to be this year. All recent evidence points to bad. So you don’t know what jones will be at 33, but you do with aj? If your argument is that jones’ 33 is a few years away and you don’t know what might happen to him so you’re afraid of his 33 season we do know what happened to green in those interveneing seasons, missed entire season with injury and play fell off a cliff. But you’re not worried about his play in season 33 but you are with jones. Those don’t compute.

 

[PDXChris]

That Minnesota game should be fun!

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Krangodnzr]

So replace Keim, don't keep trying to patch the sinking ship with duct tape.

I'm with you here.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

There is no need to get personal or just be argumentative

 

[Harry]

Harry’s right. We should stop discussing anything Cardinals related unless it’s new news until training camp.

Ha! I love sarcasm. My point is/was much of this and several other threads have degenerated into one person saying “Yes he is” and another saying, “No he isn’t”. It’s okay to say that one time. It’s better to present some new material if you want to say it again.

 

[QuebecCard]

Honestly, I didn't realize how much money we were going to give Watt. But I really like him as a player and at least it's fun. I'm not even lamenting AJ Green that bad. If we added him, kept Arnold/signed Hunter Henry/added a solid option at RB, I wouldn't really care about the signing and could wait and see. But we subtracted from the offense as a whole and only added a question mark to upgrade him.


Simmons hasn't proven much of anything, so he's not a "quality" starter as per BritCard's request, but I'll admit I didn't realize we didn't still have DeVondre Campbell, so I'll cede that. Byron Murphy only started 7 games last year despite being healthy, and is still a nickelback, so no, I'm not counting him as a "starter," because he's not an unquestioned starter in the base defense. We just handed out a $31 million deal with $23 million guaranteed to replace Zack Allen, so no, I'm also not considering him a starter. He is now a rotational lineman who will work out the rest of his contract as a backup barring injury. I don't include Kirk because he is no longer a starter. We just paid $8 million to replace him and relegate him to WR #3.

I'll reply to BC's next post in its own reply.

The day Nickel is not in fact the base, which it is; we trot the same front 3 on "D" line and we strictly run a passing offence with two wideouts, this will make complete sense.

 

[Ronin]

I'm with you here.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Solar7]

The day Nickel is not in fact the base, which it is; we trot the same front 3 on "D" line and we strictly run a passing offence with two wideouts, this will make complete sense.

If nickel was "in fact the base," Murphy would be listed as a starter for more than 7 games. Not sure what else to tell you. If the team doesn't assign him a starter, I'm not going to call him a starter.

Even if we include him, our young talent is still poor compared to other teams. Especially since in addition, he's just not that great of a player. He's adequate. He doesn't have to cover the opposing team's best WR. Until he proves something different, I'm going to consider him completely replaceable.

 

[BritCard]

Why is 25 the arbitrary number? That’s actually a terrible benchmark as it would be an incredibly green team. The better threshold would be 27-28. Those are seasoned vets that are in their prime.

Because the league average roster age is 26.

So everyone under 26 is pulling your average down. Anyone over is pushing it up.

The conversation was about young talent.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Because the league average roster age is 26.

So everyone under 26 is pulling your average down. Anyone over is pushing it up.

The conversation was about young talent.

Got it

 

[QuebecCard]

If nickel was "in fact the base," Murphy would be listed as a starter for more than 7 games. Not sure what else to tell you. If the team doesn't assign him a starter, I'm not going to call him a starter.

Even if we include him, our young talent is still poor compared to other teams. Especially since in addition, he's just not that great of a player. He's adequate. He doesn't have to cover the opposing team's best WR. Until he proves something different, I'm going to consider him completely replaceable.

Let's not confuse charts based on 11 with reality.

Teams recognize that their Nickel CB is a de facto starter.

 

[juza76]

Murphy is a starter cause he play at least 80% of the snaps

 

[DVontel]

Murphy is a starter cause he play at least 80% of the snaps

Yup. Might not be a starter in a technical sense, but he has played the majority of snaps.

 

[Stout]

Yup. Might not be a starter in a technical sense, but he has played the majority of snaps.

Absolutely. Even if he hadn't, CB3 is important enough to count as a starter in reality.

 

[cardncubfan]

I'm not the only one that thinks AJ just didn't want to be there anymore.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Russ Smith]

If nickel was "in fact the base," Murphy would be listed as a starter for more than 7 games. Not sure what else to tell you. If the team doesn't assign him a starter, I'm not going to call him a starter.

Even if we include him, our young talent is still poor compared to other teams. Especially since in addition, he's just not that great of a player. He's adequate. He doesn't have to cover the opposing team's best WR. Until he proves something different, I'm going to consider him completely replaceable.

I thought Murphy both missed games in the Covid protocols and earlier in the year was hurt?

From memory maybe I'm wrong.