ESPN Position Rankings: Cardinals

[Mitch]

It's been very interesting to read where ESPN (Scouts, Inc.) rated the Cardinals by positions. Here are the rankings:

QB: 17

RB: 30

WR: 2

TE: 24

OL: 15

DL: 16

LB: 17

DB: 21

ST: 31

Here are my thoughts:

QB: 17. Uncertainty over Leinart, makes this ranking a notch below the top half (16). It would have been very interesting what the ranking would have been if the Cardinals had projected Warner as the starter. Warner still gets a great deal of respect around the league and his 27 TDs last year and red zone efficiency still generate a buzz from the analysts. My guess is that if Warner had been tabbed, the ranking would be somewhere between 9-11.

RB: 30. Everyone was expecting the Cardinals to add a speed back, to compliment Edge's 4 yards and a cloud of dust style. Unless J.J. Arrington steps up big-time this year in a complimentary role---the door is wide open for him right now and he's been progressing---expect this ranking to stay about the same.

WR: 2. This ranking is a tad generous and is based on Pro Bowl appearances, rather than sheer talent. To be #2, the Cards will have to have someone like Jamaica Rector emerge as a deep threat. Otherwise, the Cards are still a talented group of possession-type receivers, who can be jammed and shadowed in bumps and runs...but not a unit that strikes deep fear into opposing defenses.

TE: 24. Not sure what last year's ranking was...had to be in the 30s...so to be moving up the ladder here is good. If Tuman is indeed the blocker the team has lacked, and Pope and Patrick keep making highight reels, this unit actually could be a top ten by the time the playoffs start.

OL: 15. This is a surprise, isn't it? The ranking reflects two things: (1) the confidence people around the league have in Russ Grimm and (2) the expectation that the continuity (and improvement from the younger players, Lutui and Brown) will pay handsome dividends this year. One thing to worry about though is the team's o-line depth. The coaches still regret not having been able to re-sign Keydrick Vincent.

DL: 16. Not a great deal of respect here for the trio of Dockett--Watson--Smith. If Dockett has another good year...if Alan Branch or Watson emerges as a stalwart in the middle...if Smith plays lights out in his contract year, this unit might be a top ten...and the depth is there with Bryan Robinson, Calais Campbell, Kenny Iwebema, and Keilen Dykes.

LB: 17. The scouts here do not exactly rave about the Hayes/Dansby tandem in the middle, but they like the pass rushing potential of the quartet of Okeafor, Haggans, Berry and LaBoy. One would think that Dansby, a franchise tagged player, would make the ranking here more stellar. Interesting, indeed.

DB: 21. This seems about right, in light of the question marks regarding Wilson's health, Rolle's switch to safety, and the effectiveness of Eric Green and Rod Hood as starting corners. Pendy's soft coverage schemes don't help here either. Hopefully, Pendy will demand tighter, more aggressive coverage this year, particularly as the pass rush gets stronger.

ST: 31. It's surprising the Cards aren't ranked 32 here. The scouts question Dirk Johnson's consistency, Racker's accuracy (particularly under pressure), and the team's overall ability to defend kickoffs and punt returns. They do single out Monty Beisel and Michael Adams, however, as "feisty" tacklers. In any event, it will be interesting to see what improvements the Cards make on special teams this year, especially now that the roster is the deepest it's been in years. The decision to not sign any other punters or placekickers heading into training camp remains a head scratcher...not only for competition purposes, but for injury insurance.

We should try to return to these ranking at the mid-season and see how accurate they are then. The average of the Cardinals' rankings is 19...which would translate into a sub .500 record. Of course, good coaching and teamwork are the intangibles that turn potential talent into winners.

 

[Stout]

If we get just average play out of our O-line, we'll be in the playoffs easily.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

WR: 2. This ranking is a tad generous and is based on Pro Bowl appearances, rather than sheer talent. To be #2, the Cards will have to have someone like Jamaica Rector emerge as a deep threat. Otherwise, the Cards are still a talented group of possession-type receivers, who can be jammed and shadowed in bumps and runs...but not a unit that strikes deep fear into opposing defenses.

They are a tad generous, but those "possession-type receivers, who can be jammed and shadowed in bumps and runs..." as you say, were fifth in the NFL in plays over 20 yards.

 

[General Chaos]

I think our LB unit is much stronger than that ranking. Who cares though, it's just a ranking.

 

[justAndy]

Rankings, schmankings - We'll see what's what on Sundays.

 

[Skkorpion]

Thanks, Mitch. Those rankings accurately reflect our 8-8 record and shortcomings from last year. No real surprises.

Most of us believe the people we have, barring a run of injuries, will perform better next year and produce a better record. If that happens, various rankings will reflect the improvement.

 

[Mitch]

Thanks, Mitch. Those rankings accurately reflect our 8-8 record and shortcomings from last year. No real surprises.

Most of us believe the people we have, barring a run of injuries, will perform better next year and produce a better record. If that happens, various rankings will reflect the improvement.

I totally agree, Skkorp. Well said.

 

[joeshmo]

They are a tad generous, but those "possession-type receivers, who can be jammed and shadowed in bumps and runs..." as you say, were fifth in the NFL in plays over 20 yards.

I dont get this possesion WR and deep threat talk as well.

Not only 5th in 20 + yard plays but 6th in yards per reception as well.

 

[RON_IN_OC]

I dont get this possesion WR and deep threat talk as well.

Not only 5th in 20 + yard plays but 6th in yards per reception as well.

They may not run for a lot of yards after the catch, but they sure get down field before catching the ball, don't they?

 

[Mitch]

You guys are proving my point that a #2 ranking is a tad generous when you cited that the WR unit was 5th in the NFL in 20+ yard catches and 6th in yards per catch.

 

[cardsfanmd]

If the O-line can block long enough for Fitz to get downfied he can outjump anyone for a bomb, nd Q might not catch the ball 40yds downfield, but he gets there one way or another. I see Doucet really becoming a new Q. Breaston can fly when we need that.

 

[CardinalChris]

You guys are proving my point that a #2 ranking is a tad generous when you cited that the WR unit was 5th in the NFL in 20+ yard catches and 6th in yards per catch.

I have to call shenanigans.That is not the point they were disproving. They were refuting your claim that Boldin and Fitzgerald are possession receivers who can't get deep and those two statistics show that though they lack blazing speed you have become so infatuated you think Rector is the answer to any question other than camp fodder. They use quickness, great hands, and big bodies to make great catches. I can picture him right now, nowhere near beatings his man turn his back to the defender and go get the ball before he does for a 30 yard completion. I'll take lots of those.

But my favorite is the hitch or in to Boldin and watching him run like a madman for another 15 yards, DBs bouncing off of him.

Truth is that despite being 2nd or 3rd or even 4th, they are a top tier team when it comes to receivers. Best of all they are YOUNG and getting better IMO. You make it sound like they are the 15 best tandem in the NFL, and I am sorry but a definite case can be made for their #2 ranking and for their ability to play the position and get yards.

 

[Mitch]

I have to call shenanigans.That is not the point they were disproving. They were refuting your claim that Boldin and Fitzgerald are possession receivers who can't get deep and those two statistics show that though they lack blazing speed you have become so infatuated you think Rector is the answer to any question other than camp fodder. They use quickness, great hands, and big bodies to make great catches. I can picture him right now, nowhere near beatings his man turn his back to the defender and go get the ball before he does for a 30 yard completion. I'll take lots of those.

But my favorite is the hitch or in to Boldin and watching him run like a madman for another 15 yards, DBs bouncing off of him.

Truth is that despite being 2nd or 3rd or even 4th, they are a top tier team when it comes to receivers. Best of all they are YOUNG and getting better IMO. You make it sound like they are the 15 best tandem in the NFL, and I am sorry but a definite case can be made for their #2 ranking and for their ability to play the position and get yards.

I think you are over-reacting to what I said. I never said they (Fitz and Q)weren't an elite tandem...they are, no question about it. What I said was a #2 NFL WR UNIT ranking is a tad generous.

As a tandem they are top three...

However, there have also been games where teams have played press and shadow coverage on Fitz and Q and slowed them down considerably...neither one of them is a burner. Thus, with a deep threat aong side of them, it would be riskier for teams to play press coverage. That's part of the the point.

What's also the point is that beyond Fitz and Q, the unit is very inexperienced...thus making a #2 UNIT ranking again, IMO, a tad generous.

 

[cgolden]

Rankings, schmankings - We'll see what's what on Sundays.

It's almost time strap on the pads and forget about all the offseason fluff.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

You guys are proving my point that a #2 ranking is a tad generous when you cited that the WR unit was 5th in the NFL in 20+ yard catches and 6th in yards per catch.

It's this flourish in you point, that was objected to: "the Cards are still a talented group of possession-type receivers, who can be jammed and shadowed in bumps and runs..."

If the highlighted was true, they'd not have their 5th and 6th. ranking.

PS: It's a rare Sunday when any DB gets a jam on either Boldin or Fitz, and their body positioning nullifies the counter to "bump and run". Shadowing only means that the DB gets a chance to make a tackle after the catch.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I have to call shenanigans.That is not the point they were disproving. They were refuting your claim that Boldin and Fitzgerald are possession receivers who can't get deep and those two statistics show that though they lack blazing speed you have become so infatuated you think Rector is the answer to any question other than camp fodder. They use quickness, great hands, and big bodies to make great catches. I can picture him right now, nowhere near beatings his man turn his back to the defender and go get the ball before he does for a 30 yard completion. I'll take lots of those.

But my favorite is the hitch or in to Boldin and watching him run like a madman for another 15 yards, DBs bouncing off of him.

Truth is that despite being 2nd or 3rd or even 4th, they are a top tier team when it comes to receivers. Best of all they are YOUNG and getting better IMO. You make it sound like they are the 15 best tandem in the NFL, and I am sorry but a definite case can be made for their #2 ranking and for their ability to play the position and get yards.

i don't usually agree with mitch, but your hyperbole is ridiculous. nowhere does he state they should be 15th. he just says they're overrated at 2 (which could mean that 3, 4, or 5 is appropriate - which may be right) and that they don't have deep SPEED. and he's right.

the ability to catch a ball downfield is not an indicator of speed. the ability to run after the catch is also not an indicator of speed. speed is what it is, the ability to get from point A to point B fast. the faster you are, the more likely you are to have "deep speed." just b/c a receiver doesn't have "deep SPEED" doesn't mean that they're a bad or mediocre receiver, and NO one is making that argument. but the fact remains, that neither Q nor fitz has that blazing type of speed. and that means defenses can play them differently. the lack of speed doesn't make them worse receivers, or more easy to cover, but it does mean that corners can take shallower drops, thereby making the running and underneath passing lanes more congested. that's why people talk about the need for "deep SPEED," because it has a DIFFERENT impact on the game overall. why can some of you not get this point? it's not a criticism of Q and fitz, but rather a comment on a fact and how that fact translates onto the field.

 

[Mitch]

i don't usually agree with mitch, but your hyperbole is ridiculous. nowhere does he state they should be 15th. he just says they're overrated at 2 (which could mean that 3, 4, or 5 is appropriate - which may be right) and that they don't have deep SPEED. and he's right.

the ability to catch a ball downfield is not an indicator of speed. the ability to run after the catch is also not an indicator of speed. speed is what it is, the ability to get from point A to point B fast. the faster you are, the more likely you are to have "deep speed." just b/c a receiver doesn't have "deep SPEED" doesn't mean that they're a bad or mediocre receiver, and NO one is making that argument. but the fact remains, that neither Q nor fitz has that blazing type of speed. and that means defenses can play them differently. the lack of speed doesn't make them worse receivers, or more easy to cover, but it does mean that corners can take shallower drops, thereby making the running and underneath passing lanes more congested. that's why people talk about the need for "deep SPEED," because it has a DIFFERENT impact on the game overall. why can some of you not get this point? it's not a criticism of Q and fitz, but rather a comment on a fact and how that fact translates onto the field.

Thank you, Ouchie, for understanding the spirit and gist of my comments. I really am happy we have both Q and Fitz...and feel as if once we get a deep threat with them, we will be the #1 WR unit in the NFL.

And you don't usually agree with me, so I thank even more for being objective.

 

[joeshmo]

and that they don't have deep SPEED. and he's right.

the ability to catch a ball downfield is not an indicator of speed. the ability to run after the catch is also not an indicator of speed. speed is what it is, the ability to get from point A to point B fast. the faster you are, the more likely you are to have "deep speed." just b/c a receiver doesn't have "deep SPEED" doesn't mean that they're a bad or mediocre receiver, and NO one is making that argument. but the fact remains, that neither Q nor fitz has that blazing type of speed. and that means defenses can play them differently. the lack of speed doesn't make them worse receivers, or more easy to cover, but it does mean that corners can take shallower drops, thereby making the running and underneath passing lanes more congested. that's why people talk about the need for "deep SPEED," because it has a DIFFERENT impact on the game overall. why can some of you not get this point? it's not a criticism of Q and fitz, but rather a comment on a fact and how that fact translates onto the field.

I think you would have a point if Mitch was talking about Speed. He didnt, mentioned "Deep threat". If he talked about speed this would be a different story, but he talked about deep threat, thus the stats that were brought up to refute that point.

Like you said deep threat doesnt mean speed. So what are we talking about here. Deep threat like in Mitch's original post or speed? As you pointed out two different things.

 

[Mitch]

I think you would have a point if Mitch was talking about Speed. He didnt, mentioned "Deep threat". If he talked about speed this would be a different story, but he talked about deep threat, thus the stats that were brought up to refute that point.

Like you said deep threat doesnt mean speed. So what are we talking about here. Deep threat like in Mitch's original post or speed? As you pointed out two different things.

C'mon Joe, that's weak. You know exactly what I was talking about.

 

[red desert]

I dont get this possesion WR and deep threat talk as well.

Not only 5th in 20 + yard plays but 6th in yards per reception as well.

No doubt due to Q's run after the catch prowess.

 

[justAndy]

MSN has us at #23.