Getting the first pick

[Evil Ash]

Though a few of those teams that are considered "weak" are better than anticipated namely Tampa Bay and St. Louis.

I was just going by winning pecentage. As of last weak our opponents had a winning percentage of .450 and that time no other schedule was worse than .500

 

[Mulli]

While I would be happy if the Cards get the first, second, or third pick overall, I still couldn't hope for them to lose yesterday.

I actually thought they were going to win. Then the second half started.

 

[Shane]

While I would be happy if the Cards get the first, second, or third pick overall, I still couldn't hope for them to lose yesterday.

I actually thought they were going to win. Then the second half started.

As soon as we gave them the ball back with a 1st down with 12 men on the field I knew we were going to lose. When we almost did it again 3 plays later it confirmed it.

 

[earthsci]

While I would be happy if the Cards get the first, second, or third pick overall, I still couldn't hope for them to lose yesterday.

This. It's like the QB situation. I wanted to see Skelton play QB but I didn't want Scud or The Mighty Mormon to get hurt for it to happen.

 

[kerouac9]

While I would be happy if the Cards get the first, second, or third pick overall, I still couldn't hope for them to lose yesterday.

I actually thought they were going to win. Then the second half started.

I can't cheer for a loss. As disastrous as the win against the Vikings was, I was cheering until the very end. That doesn't mean that I was happy after the win.

When this team goes down two scores (not even 2 TDs, two scores), the game is effectively over. And our opponents knew it. That's why they were running on 3rd and 7 throughout the rest of the game.

Against any other team in the NFL except Carolina, a 10 point lead is not safe. Against this offense, which hasn't scored a meaningful TD since the first quarter of the Seattle game(!), it's as secure as can be.

 

[football karma]

First off the only team that its even possible will by pass Luck out of the current top 5 is Detroit. You don't pass on Andrew Luck for Jimmy freaking Clausen or Ryan Fitzpatrick. End of story.


I will say this. At the end of the year, bad teams usually end up getting 1 or 2 wins where everyone is like WTF? Especually the last week of the season. We gotta hope one of those upsets takes place.

Two mitigating factors: Harbaugh staying and thus Luck staying for one more run. OR Andrew/Oliver Luck pulling a Eli/Archie Manning and forcing a play somewhere else. Don't laugh. It could happen.

Good post

I totally agree on paragraph 1 above. Carolina wants to sell tickets. Passing on a franchise QB and taking a position player is asking fans to buy another season of the Jimmy Clausen show.

Para 2: its like clockwork. Even with teams that have nothing to play for beating a team that desperately needs a win for the playoffs: like the Cards beating the Vikes.

Para 3: I know we are all down, but I really believe the organization has moved past all that. Notwithstanding this crappy year -- this is a good city, a good stadium that will have been sold out 53 times in a row, a coach that took the team to the SB in the recent past, and some good offensive skill people.

 

[football karma]

I can't cheer for a loss. As disastrous as the win against the Vikings was, I was cheering until the very end. That doesn't mean that I was happy after the win.

When this team goes down two scores (not even 2 TDs, two scores), the game is effectively over. And our opponents knew it. That's why they were running on 3rd and 7 throughout the rest of the game.

Against any other team in the NFL except Carolina, a 10 point lead is not safe. Against this offense, which hasn't scored a meaningful TD since the first quarter of the Seattle game(!), it's as secure as can be.

Frankly -- I think the Cardinal defense knows it too before the ball is even kicked off. Not to say it explains all their putrid play -- but I think they know that they have to score a TD to give the team a chance to win.

 

[kerouac9]

Frankly -- I think the Cardinal defense knows it too before the ball is even kicked off. Not to say it explains all their putrid play -- but I think they know that they have to score a TD to give the team a chance to win.

Yup. And that's a lot of pressure on these guys. 19 points should be enough to secure a home win, but the offense couldn't muster anything. Guys are pressing to get turnovers on every play and take every run back to the house. No wonder fundamentals are breaking down.

 

[Mulli]

God forbid the Cardinals D suck it up and play a defensive FG battle. The Ravens and the Steelers were killing each other yesterday the whole game. Somehow decent defences avoid getting tired and giving up 40 points on a regular basis.

 

[kerouac9]

God forbid the Cardinals D suck it up and play a defensive FG battle. The Ravens and the Steelers were killing each other yesterday the whole game. Somehow decent defences avoid getting tired and giving up 40 points on a regular basis.

Isn't that what happened yesterday? The problem was the offense brought a bunch of three-and-outs to a field goal battle.

Same thing happened in Seattle. Cards D allowed one touchdown on a two-yard drive. The entire game.

 

[football karma]

Yup. And that's a lot of pressure on these guys. 19 points should be enough to secure a home win, but the offense couldn't muster anything. Guys are pressing to get turnovers on every play and take every run back to the house. No wonder fundamentals are breaking down.

Again -- there are clearly talent and scheme issues at play on the defense

but at this point -- I think its fair to say the defensive play is an awful mix of the above, playing to get stats for the next contract, and playing to avoid an injury (I am looking at you DRC).

 

[DoTheDew]

Isn't that what happened yesterday? The problem was the offense brought a bunch of three-and-outs to a field goal battle.

Same thing happened in Seattle. Cards D allowed one touchdown on a two-yard drive. The entire game.

Aren't you the guy who had a thread titled "ITDS: It's the defense, stupid"? Guess this just confirms it's everything, stupid.

 

[john h]

If you look, it's really Buffalo, Carolina, Detroit and Cincy that are the problem.
We have the same record as Dallas but we play them and will lose, so we should finish ahead of them in the pick race. Same thing with Denver same record but we will lose to them. We play Carolina but they are 1-10 so they have to win at least twice for us to have a chance to get ahead(depending on tie breakers). Buffalo, Detroit and cincy all have 2 wins and do not play us so they have to win at least one more game each and again dependent on tiebreakers.

I do not think Cincy would go for a QB and maybe not even Detroit. I think we have a good shot of one of the top three (Luck, Mallet, or Newton). In what order I do not know. The pros may have an entirely different take on these guys as we approach the draft. I worry as much about us drafting one even if available. We have had some strange picks over time and when we talk about a top rated QB and the money it will take I am double worried with us spending the money. If we did not take a QB we would be the laughing stock of the league.

 

[john h]

If you look, it's really Buffalo, Carolina, Detroit and Cincy that are the problem.
We have the same record as Dallas but we play them and will lose, so we should finish ahead of them in the pick race. Same thing with Denver same record but we will lose to them. We play Carolina but they are 1-10 so they have to win at least twice for us to have a chance to get ahead(depending on tie breakers). Buffalo, Detroit and cincy all have 2 wins and do not play us so they have to win at least one more game each and again dependent on tiebreakers.

So it would appear to be VERY unlikely we're going to end up with the first pick.

What you have to hope for is we get a pick high enough that coupled with other picks we can entice the team with the first pick to trade. That means we need a team that has a QB they like, and is concerned about the finances of paying a QB the first pick money.

Seems like a longshot but I really think the best chance we have is to trade for that pick.

If in the Cards minds they do not have much separation between the top three they are not going to trade away players to get one QB that might not be any better than the other two. When did they last trade up for anyone?

 

[Evil Ash]

If in the Cards minds they do not have much separation between the top three they are not going to trade away players to get one QB that might not be any better than the other two. When did they last trade up for anyone?

The last draft. We traded up to get Daryl Washington

 

[Zeno]

The last draft. We traded up to get Daryl Washington

and traded up for Skelton.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Not to pile on you, but Kerouac is 100% correct on this.

THe NFLPA does NOT want a rookie payscale, since it would deflate overall salaries and the franchise tag number across the league.

Back-to-back years we've had rookie QBs that were nearly the highest paid players in the league. This raises the average of all salaries and gives proven veterans leverage when it comes time to renegotiate contracts or are free agents.

Now, a rookie payscale would benefit the Paris Lenons, and other fringe players across the league, but as with everything else in the world, the rich and powerful have the loudest voices.

....

Yahoo! Sports has obtained a document - a correspondence from Executive Director DeMaurice Smith and President Kevin Mawae(notes) to the NFL's Management Council and Commission Roger Goodell dated February 18, 2010. In part, the letter read as follows:

The players are also still willing to restrain the compensation committed to rookie players before they have proven their performance, by limiting rookie contract length. The NFLPA previously proposed that rookie contracts be limited to three-year terms, which would have substantially restricted rookie pay. In response to the expressed concern of the owners that such a contract length is too short, the NFLPA is prepared to stand by its proposal, but to adjust the maximum permitted rookie contract to four years if that's what the owners prefer.

Still wanna say he is 100% correct?

 

[football karma]

....



Still wanna say he is 100% correct?

note the players are restraining rookie comp by contract length rather than amount of annual comp --

big difference, and one where, surprise -- rookies become free agents faster. I am sure the owners hardly consider this a concession.

I think this supports K9s contention rather than otherwise.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

note the players are restraining rookie comp by contract length rather than amount of annual comp --

big difference, and one where, surprise -- rookies become free agents faster. I am sure the owners hardly consider this a concession.

I think this supports K9s contention rather than otherwise.

How so? It is my contention that both the owners and the NFLPA want a rookie scale. There are documents that prove it.

I didn't say the NFLPA wants to have their players paid less or receive any less compensation. They want a rookie scale. I stated that they need to negotiate money and years of contracts; all appear 'factual' from the document quote I provided. Krang stated that the NFLPA doesn't want a rookie scale and this pretty much refutes it.

 

[Mulli]

Isn't that what happened yesterday? The problem was the offense brought a bunch of three-and-outs to a field goal battle.

Same thing happened in Seattle. Cards D allowed one touchdown on a two-yard drive. The entire game.

No, I don't think that is what happened vs. the Rams. See Stephen Jackson's touchdown. I am thinking the Rams' conservative approach helped the Cards D tremendously.

 

[Zeno]

How so? It is my contention that both the owners and the NFLPA want a rookie scale. There are documents that prove it.

I didn't say the NFLPA wants to have their players paid less or receive any less compensation. They want a rookie scale. I stated that they need to negotiate money and years of contracts; all appear 'factual' from the document quote I provided. Krang stated that the NFLPA doesn't want a rookie scale and this pretty much refutes it.

I really don't see how what you posted refutes it. It only lessens the length of contract doesn't say anything about lessening the annual rookie salaries. The overall contract numbers will LOOK smaller just because less years means less of signing bonus pro-rated over a longer contract but rookies drafted early will still be paid as well as they are now just for 3 yrs versus the typical 5 yr deal they are getting in the first round now.

I haven't seen anything yet from the NFLPA saying they want a true rookie scale...a shorter contract isn't the same thing.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I really don't see how what you posted refutes it. It only lessens the length of contract doesn't say anything about lessening the annual rookie salaries. The overall contract numbers will LOOK smaller just because less years means less of signing bonus pro-rated over a longer contract but rookies drafted early will still be paid as well as they are now just for 3 yrs versus the typical 5 yr deal they are getting in the first round now.

I haven't seen anything yet from the NFLPA saying they want a true rookie scale...a shorter contract isn't the same thing.

More from the same article. It has a tons of information about both sides (owners, NFLPA)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/sh...y-behind-the-rookie-wage-scale?urn=nfl-260642

The main source of unproven players being paid salary out of sync with their long-term performance is long-term rookie contracts negotiated by high first-round draft picks, with large signing bonuses, before those players step on the field. At the same time, rookie players drafted in lower rounds, or undrafted players, are locked into multi-year bargain contracts which often prove to be unfair when the players become major contributors to their teams.

The NFLPA has proposed that this issue be addressed by shortening rookie contracts to a maximum of three years, which should result in NFL clubs saving more than $200 million in committed dollars devoted to high first-round picks each year.

 

[Zeno]

Again that doesn't say anything about a rookie pay scale. Like I said it will only be less dollars up front because the contract lengths are shorter, it doesn't mean those guys won't get the same amount of money annually, it will just be for less time.

So, for example, instead of $50 million over 5 yrs they wil get $30 million over 3--still equals $10 million a year. The owners have to shell out less up front is all that is.

 

[kerouac9]

DCR, there is NOTHING in that article that talks about a rookie pay scale. Zero. The NFLPA is happy to limit rookie contracts to three years, which means that the "balloon" payments are bascially cut out of the deals (like #7's last year, or Fitz's, or Levi Brown's in a couple years).

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Again that doesn't say anything about a rookie pay scale. Like I said it will only be less dollars up front because the contract lengths are shorter, it doesn't mean those guys won't get the same amount of money annually, it will just be for less time.

So, for example, instead of $50 million over 5 yrs they wil get $30 million over 3--still equals $10 million a year. The owners have to shell out less up front is all that is.

DCR, there is NOTHING in that article that talks about a rookie pay scale. Zero. The NFLPA is happy to limit rookie contracts to three years, which means that the "balloon" payments are bascially cut out of the deals (like #7's last year, or Fitz's, or Levi Brown's in a couple years).

You guys are both missing this....

The NFLPA has proposed that this issue be addressed by shortening rookie contracts to a maximum of three years, which should result in NFL clubs saving more than $200 million in committed dollars devoted to high first-round picks each year.