Couple of good Cardinal Articles on SI.com

[bg7brd]

But you're not going to consistently get wins posting a 68 QB RATING.

As bad as Kolb was, the offense averaged more points. That's an objective fact. The defense improved, lowering the PPG by 10. That can't be ignored in this debate.

Ignoring the fact that John Skelton came through in the clutch, Kevin Kolb was more productive. I mean, I appreciate Skelton's work in the clutch, but if he doesn't improve, we can't win 4 OT games every year.

Additionally, football is a team game. 7-2 is nice, but Skelton didn't do it alone. The defense played dramatically better, and I don't think that had anything to do with Skelton. The defenders finally learned the scheme, they said as much. The offensive line improvement DID have something to do with Skelton, but even with that improvement, he was still less productive.

Whether it's Kolb or Skelton, both need to improve dramatically.

Why would you want to ignore the fact that Skelton came through in the clutch? I think that's more important than QB rating.

 

[kerouac9]

Patrick Peterson was the worst defender on our roster last year for most of the season. As bad as AJ and Lenon were, PP21 was worse.

According to PFF's Madden rating. No one who watched games last season would say that Peterson was worse than A.J. Jefferson. Peterson was so much better at the end of the year than he was at the beginning, and he was facing other teams' best WRs.

A.J. Jefferson was looking bad against some of the most godawful WRs in the NFL.

 

[Krangodnzr]

According to PFF's Madden rating. No one who watched games last season would say that Peterson was worse than A.J. Jefferson. Peterson was so much better at the end of the year than he was at the beginning, and he was facing other teams' best WRs.

A.J. Jefferson was looking bad against some of the most godawful WRs in the NFL.

He gave up more yards (than any other Cards pass defender), had more missed tackles (than any other DB), and more penalties (four more than the next guy, Mike Adams).

I'm not comparing him to AJ Jefferson; Patrick Peterson was statistically our worst defender, and was one of the worst CBs in the league.

This isn't PFF analysis, this is plain ole' Patrick Peterson led the Cardinals IN NEARLY EVERY DUBIOUS STAT.

Now if you want to compare the two, he also had less "stops" (tackles that constitute an offensive failute) than AJ Jefferson while playing 300 more snaps. But AJ Jefferson was worse...LOL.

Peterson was playing well the last four games, but man he was awful during the first half of the season.

 

[Duckjake]

He gave up more yards (than any other Cards pass defender), had more missed tackles (than any other DB), and more penalties (four more than the next guy, Mike Adams).

I'm not comparing him to AJ Jefferson; Patrick Peterson was statistically our worst defender, and was one of the worst CBs in the league.

This isn't PFF analysis, this is plain ole' Patrick Peterson led the Cardinals IN NEARLY EVERY DUBIOUS STAT.

Now if you want to compare the two, he also had less "stops" (tackles that constitute an offensive failute) than AJ Jefferson while playing 300 more snaps. But AJ Jefferson was worse...LOL.

Peterson was playing well the last four games, but man he was awful during the first half of the season.

But you just can't ignore how he came through in the clutch scoring two game winning TDs.

 

[kerouac9]

He gave up more yards (than any other Cards pass defender), had more missed tackles (than any other DB), and more penalties (four more than the next guy, Mike Adams).

I'm not comparing him to AJ Jefferson; Patrick Peterson was statistically our worst defender, and was one of the worst CBs in the league.

This isn't PFF analysis, this is plain ole' Patrick Peterson led the Cardinals IN NEARLY EVERY DUBIOUS STAT.

Now if you want to compare the two, he also had less "stops" (tackles that constitute an offensive failute) than AJ Jefferson while playing 300 more snaps. But AJ Jefferson was worse...LOL.

Peterson was playing well the last four games, but man he was awful during the first half of the season.

You EXPLICITLY compared Peterson to A.J. Jefferson. C'mon, Krang.

I don't really care about total yards between a guy who was benched for 8 games and a guy who started 16 against the top WR on every team that we faced. What about YPC? Or YPA?

Who do you think had more penalties on a per-play basis: Patrick Peterson or Mike Adams?

 

[kerouac9]

I'll stick my neck out and say that I think if one of the QBs emerges, we definitely win the NFC West.

"Emerges" being a Top 10 quarterback, or "emerges" from "Among the worst 5 starters in the NFL" to "One of the middle 10".

I think you're really underestimating the strength of Seattle and San Francisco. Yes, if Kolb or Skelton suddenly become elite quarterbacks, we'll likely win the NFC West. But we both know that isn't going to happen, don't we? John Skelton and Kevin Kolb both strive to be as good as Tavaris Jackson, and would have to make two quantum leaps to be as good as Alex Smith.

Do you really think that if Skeltolb were as good as Alex Smith was last year, that this team runs away with the NFC West? Both Seattle and San Francisco have superior run games to ours, and both have more consistent defenses. Who's more likely to be markably more productive under center this year: Seattle adding Matt Flynn or the Cards praying that Kevin Kolb gets his head on straight?

 

[Duckjake]

"Emerges" being a Top 10 quarterback, or "emerges" from "Among the worst 5 starters in the NFL" to "One of the middle 10".

I think you're really underestimating the strength of Seattle and San Francisco. Yes, if Kolb or Skelton suddenly become elite quarterbacks, we'll likely win the NFC West. But we both know that isn't going to happen, don't we? John Skelton and Kevin Kolb both strive to be as good as Tavaris Jackson, and would have to make two quantum leaps to be as good as Alex Smith.

Do you really think that if Skeltolb were as good as Alex Smith was last year, that this team runs away with the NFC West? Both Seattle and San Francisco have superior run games to ours, and both have more consistent defenses. Who's more likely to be markably more productive under center this year: Seattle adding Matt Flynn or the Cards praying that Kevin Kolb gets his head on straight?

I do. But runs away is a stretch because SF is better. Could we go 13-3. I'll say yes. We could have been 12-4 last season even with Kolbator. On the other hand we could have just as easily been 2-14. But that's the nature of the NFL. If you aren't Pittsburgh or New England, used to include Indy but not now that Peyton's gone, you really don't know what your team can do.

 

[TJ]

I agree completely. W's trump all other stats.

So, by using the "W's trump all other stats" logic, are you saying you would take Skelton (7-2 last season) over the following QBs in the league?

Cam Newton (6-10)
Mike Vick (7-6)
Josh Freeman (4-11)
Ryan Fitzpatrick (5-8)
Carson Palmer (4-5)

And take Alex Smith (13-3 last season) over the following QBs?

Philip Rivers (8-8)
Eli Manning (9-7)
Jay Cutler (7-3)
Ben Roethlisberger (11-4)
Matt Stafford (10-6)
Matt Ryan (10-6)

 

[Fitzy11]

Hakeem Nicks? Torched him.

Steve Smith? Torched him.

Go back and watch film, he was badly beat by both of them and there are quite a few others.

Patrick Peterson led our team in most passing yards given up at 900 attributed to him.

crabtree burnt him the first time too

 

[Duckjake]

So, by using the "W's trump all other stats" logic, are you saying you would take Skelton (7-2 last season) over the following QBs in the league?

Cam Newton (6-10)
Mike Vick (7-6)
Josh Freeman (4-11)
Ryan Fitzpatrick (5-8)
Carson Palmer (4-5)

And take Alex Smith (13-3 last season) over the following QBs?

Philip Rivers (8-8)
Eli Manning (9-7)
Jay Cutler (7-3)
Ben Roethlisberger (11-4)
Matt Stafford (10-6)
Matt Ryan (10-6)

I would. I'd take 13-3 any year over 4-11. Who cares if your QB has an 87 rating instead of a 67 rating if your team is 4-11 and the team with the 67 QB is 10-6 and in the playoffs.

Phillip Rivers is such a great QB that San Diego in the last two seasons has won one game more than they lost. Eli Manning is the luckiest QB on Earth. Winning Super Bowls with regular season records of 10-6 and 9-7. The Giants wouldn't even have been in the playoffs if the refs hadn't cheated us. Cutler has never won anything and was traded for Kyle Orton. Ben R. 11-4 and 13-3 aren't far enough apart for you to even have included him. When was the last time Matt Ryan won a playoff game?

As for the first 5 guys you listed I'll match Double Deuce up against any of them. I know I'd rather have him than Vick or Palmer.

 

[TJ]

I would. I'd take 13-3 any year over 4-11. Who cares if your QB has an 87 rating instead of a 67 rating if your team is 4-11 and the team with the 67 QB is 10-6 and in the playoffs.

Phillip Rivers is such a great QB that San Diego in the last two seasons has won one game more than they lost. Eli Manning is the luckiest QB on Earth. Winning Super Bowls with regular season records of 10-6 and 9-7. Cutler has never won anything and was traded for Kyle Orton. Ben R. 11-4 and 13-3 aren't far enough apart for you to even have included him. When was the last time Matt Ryan won a playoff game?

As for the first 5 guys you listed I'll match Double Deuce up against any of them. I know I'd rather have him than Vick or Palmer.

The above was the word I was looking for in any response to my post. Because the 7-2 record posted the last nine games of the season was more a testament of the team coming together and finally figuring it out rather than the unimpressive play of the reserve QB. Ray Horton came out in the middle and remarked that he tried to implement too much of his defense and pared it down significantly so his players could all be on the same page. Afterward, the defense was consistent in allowing less than 20 PPG, even though the offense did not improve (and actually got worse, believe it or not).

Trust me, if I were 100% certain my running game and defense would be upper-echelon, I would take Skelton and his 67 QB Rating and 11TD to 14INT ratio and be happy with the result. But I'm not confident that our top two slated RBs will be 100% by week 1 and who knows if our defense will repeat that elite performance over the final 9 games, so I am looking (hoping) for a significant improvement under center, whether it be from Kolb, Skelton, or Early Doucet (if for some bizarre reason, Whiz wants him there).

If we are grading QBs strictly by Wins-Losses, Vince Young and Shaun Hill would be better than several starting QBs in the league right now. As it stands, football is still the ultimate team sport and QB W/L only paints a very small picture. Hell, when Tim Tebow (7-4 last year) became available in Denver, only a couple of teams made offers and was acquired for little, because individually, he's simply not a very good quarterback.

A QB like Skelton is worthless to his team if the rest of the players play no better than average.

 

[Duckjake]

The above was the word I was looking for in any response to my post. Because the 7-2 record posted the last nine games of the season was more a testament of the team coming together and finally figuring it out rather than the unimpressive play of the reserve QB. Ray Horton came out in the middle and remarked that he tried to implement too much of his defense and pared it down significantly so his players could all be on the same page. Afterward, the defense was consistent in allowing less than 20 PPG, even though the offense did not improve (and actually got worse, believe it or not).

Trust me, if I were 100% certain my running game and defense would be upper-echelon, I would take Skelton and his 67 QB Rating and 11TD to 14INT ratio and be happy with the result. But I'm not confident that our top two slated RBs will be 100% by week 1 and who knows if our defense will repeat that elite performance over the final 9 games, so I am looking (hoping) for a significant improvement under center, whether it be from Kolb, Skelton, or Early Doucet (if for some bizarre reason, Whiz wants him there).

If we are grading QBs strictly by Wins-Losses, Vince Young and Shaun Hill would be better than several starting QBs in the league right now. As it stands, football is still the ultimate team sport and QB W/L only paints a very small picture. Hell, when Tim Tebow (7-4 last year) became available in Denver, only a couple of teams made offers and was acquired for little, because individually, he's simply not a very good quarterback.

A QB like Skelton is worthless to his team if the rest of the players play no better than average.

You forgot something. Skelton and his ability to drive the team to scores in crunch time. As for Tebow. We didn't get beat 40-14 by an eventual 6-10 team with Skelator at QB. But we did get beat 34-10 by an eventual 3-13 team with Kolb at QB.

One big difference between you and me. I am confident that our defense can play all 16 games at an elite level. All they need to do is keep the games close and Double Deuce will win them. Just like he did last year. Running game? We've never had a running game. Didn't keep us from winning before.

 

[kerouac9]

The above was the word I was looking for in any response to my post. Because the 7-2 record posted the last nine games of the season was more a testament of the team coming together and finally figuring it out rather than the unimpressive play of the reserve QB. Ray Horton came out in the middle and remarked that he tried to implement too much of his defense and pared it down significantly so his players could all be on the same page. Afterward, the defense was consistent in allowing less than 20 PPG, even though the offense did not improve (and actually got worse, believe it or not).

Trust me, if I were 100% certain my running game and defense would be upper-echelon, I would take Skelton and his 67 QB Rating and 11TD to 14INT ratio and be happy with the result. But I'm not confident that our top two slated RBs will be 100% by week 1 and who knows if our defense will repeat that elite performance over the final 9 games, so I am looking (hoping) for a significant improvement under center, whether it be from Kolb, Skelton, or Early Doucet (if for some bizarre reason, Whiz wants him there).

If we are grading QBs strictly by Wins-Losses, Vince Young and Shaun Hill would be better than several starting QBs in the league right now. As it stands, football is still the ultimate team sport and QB W/L only paints a very small picture. Hell, when Tim Tebow (7-4 last year) became available in Denver, only a couple of teams made offers and was acquired for little, because individually, he's simply not a very good quarterback.

A QB like Skelton is worthless to his team if the rest of the players play no better than average.

Vince Young and Shaun Hill are better than several starting QBs in the league right now. I'd rather have either of those guys than Christian Ponder, Matt Moore, and Blaine Gabbert, at least. Probably our guys, too.

 

[Phrazbit]

So, by using the "W's trump all other stats" logic, are you saying you would take Skelton (7-2 last season) over the following QBs in the league?

Cam Newton (6-10)
Mike Vick (7-6)
Josh Freeman (4-11)
Ryan Fitzpatrick (5-8)
Carson Palmer (4-5)

And take Alex Smith (13-3 last season) over the following QBs?

Philip Rivers (8-8)
Eli Manning (9-7)
Jay Cutler (7-3)
Ben Roethlisberger (11-4)
Matt Stafford (10-6)
Matt Ryan (10-6)

Did any of those guys go 2-6 on the same roster Skelton went 6-2 with?

 

[187]

He gave up more yards (than any other Cards pass defender), had more missed tackles (than any other DB), and more penalties (four more than the next guy, Mike Adams).

Seeing as you have to be in the same zip code as the WR you are covering to draw a penalty, it's not surprising that AJ didn't take that honor. It's also hard to lead the team in yards given up when your piss poor play earns you a seat on the bench in the second half of the season.

 

[Goldfield]

But you're not going to consistently get wins posting a 68 QB RATING.

As bad as Kolb was, the offense averaged more points. That's an objective fact. The defense improved, lowering the PPG by 10. That can't be ignored in this debate.

Ignoring the fact that John Skelton came through in the clutch, Kevin Kolb was more productive. I mean, I appreciate Skelton's work in the clutch, but if he doesn't improve, we can't win 4 OT games every year.

Additionally, football is a team game. 7-2 is nice, but Skelton didn't do it alone. The defense played dramatically better, and I don't think that had anything to do with Skelton. The defenders finally learned the scheme, they said as much. The offensive line improvement DID have something to do with Skelton, but even with that improvement, he was still less productive.

Whether it's Kolb or Skelton, both need to improve dramatically.

agree Skelton was not productive enough. But he does have some very good intangibles. If Kolb stops running as round in the pocket he is the better QB imo.

 

[Duckjake]

agree Skelton was not productive enough. But he does have some very good intangibles. If Kolb stops running as round in the pocket he is the better QB imo.

But Skelton is getting better. His first 4 games of 2011 his QB rating was 64.4. His last 4 it improved to 77.6.

Kolb meanwhile was going backwards. His first 4 games his QB rating was 86.98. His last 4 games it dropped to 74.62.

So according to the numbers Skelton is already the better QB.

 

[john h]

I'll stick my neck out even further and say one of them doesn't even have to emerge. All they have to do is suck less.

Our QB's last year lost us games. Incompletions and punting would have been a serious improvement over what they did. I'm not being facetious or tongue-in-cheek either, they actually lost games. When you give up as many sacks as we did or throw interceptions it totally flips field position, gives up points, and loses games. It winds our defense, tires them out, demoralizes them. It's amazing they could play with so much energy toward the end of the year, given what they had to deal with on offense.

I said this last year and I believe it holds true this year: If our QB(s) can play even mediocre ball we'll have a winning record. Even if all we do is punt instead of taking those sacks and throwing INT's, and make teams drive 70 or 80 yards instead of 40 or 50 that's a huge improvement. We wonder why our D had so few turnovers, and I believe it's because they were defending a shortened field so much of the time. You make teams drive 70/80 yards, you'll see more turnovers. More opportunities=more turnovers.

(Edit: and I forgot to mention time of possession. We should view that more as a positive for our D than the offense, because we're going to pass and pass, like we always do, but the longer we can sustain drives, the more rest our D gets. You combine that with making teams actually drive the length of the field on this defense, with a refreshed defense, and we'll get more turnovers, which translates into more opportunities for our Offense. It all comes down to turnovers: less on offense, more on defense. And it starts and ends, for us, at QB)

Last year I think we set a new record in overtime victories with three. I doubt we will be so lucky this year. That would be hard to duplicate so we better put up winning numbers early.

 

[john h]

Wasn't that 2010? Our QBs won us more games last year than they lost. 4 OT wins, 7 of our last 9. 70 and 80 yards drives to win or tie. Every teams QBs lose them games. It's when it's like the Cards in 2010 and they are losing you 7,8,9 a season that you have trouble. We weren't in that situation last season.

Our QB situation isn't great but it's not as bad as you are painting it. Put a little more Kool-Aid Red on your Palette.

I agree with this post.