Gut Check Time???

[Cheesebeef]

That's not exactly true. 2004-2006 they reverted to your father's Cardinals. Mediocre teams that just kept finding a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. But not getting beat every week 34-10 like during the Disaster Dave Mcginnis years.

just because they weren't the biggest abortion on the face of the planet (which is what the Mackage was) doesn't mean they were mediocre. They were BAD.

The 2004 team was actually fairly good. They just couldn't win. For one reason they had no real QB. Highest ranked defense in 10 years though.

Fairly good... only a pre-Wiz Cardinals era. They were 6-10 and lost TWICE to the Niners who otherwise were 0-14... 0-14! That team was mediocre AT BEST, not fairly good.

In 2005 both Fitz and Q had over 1400 yards receiving and the Cards ranked #1 in passing offense. Sadly they also ranked 32nd in rushing.

This team was just flat out awful. 5-11... they lost the opener of the season by 23, they lost another game by 25, another game by 21, another game by 14, they lost to the Lions (who were ATROCIOUS) by 8, another game by 11 and lost to ALL of the Colts second string in the last game of the season. Come on... that team was just as horrific as ANY Mackage.

2006 I think the team was just got some horrible breaks. Warner drops the ball vs the Rams, the KC debacle, the monday night meltdown and they just quit for awhile. They actually won 4 of their last 7 games.

2006 got some horrible breaks? Warner should have never even had to chance to fumble the ball if not for the complete GIFT that Steve Jackson gave us first when he pulled a Tim Hightower with under 2 minutes left and the lead. The KC debacle... a bad break? His team lead 14-0 and then went into a complete shell... we got ALL the breaks we could possibly want against the Bears... six turnovers and an unbelievably solid game from a rookie QB and his team STILL couldn't hold a 20 point late 3rd quarter lead. And then, yeah... they just quit for a while.

Uh... how were those teams not terrible?

 

[Perfectionist]

I agree, but one game can go along way in changing how a team is viewed league wide. If we win a game like this with out a couple of cogs we are saying hey we did this and we have put in place a standard that we want to be known as. A 4-1 start this year goes along way with perception. Not the standard "Weakest division winner" label we have been given.

It will take more than a 4-1 start for the "Weakest division winner" label perception to go away. First, the division as a whole has to improve their records outside the West.

I have been a Cards fan for so long that it is still hard for me to realize that we actually went to a Super Bowl. That had been my dream for as long as I can remember. Rats, I understand what you are saying but for me Whis has already proven himself.

This game, just like every other Cards game, will have me yelling at the TV in praise or in disgust but I just can't get myself to say fire the coach and let me be the man (has I had sooo many times in the past). In agreeing with what you have laid out, if Whis can have a strong winning season again this year, he and the organization might finally having the media look at the Cards as a changed franchise. But I doubt it would change the perception of the "Weakest Division Winner label.

I must say I have really enjoyed this thread! Great input from everyone.

 

[Cardiac]

Let me break this down for you. To many people take things out of context. They cherry pick one sentence and try and depose what you mean. Look, I agree we were competitive but he simply did it with a team that had already been assembled by his predesessor. There is no dishonesty in that. He now has his group and lets see what he has with it. He inherited the makings of a great team. Acknowledge or don't I could give a rats butt but don't call names and ingage in an attack...I am done with this keep your own opinion.

At his opening presser as the new HC for the Cardinals Whiz stated that we needed to add to the depth on the team. This statement raised some eyebrows but turned out to be just one of thousands of brilliant thoughts from the mind of Whiz. It also backs up what you have been saying, Whiz did inherit a team with some very good talent.

A talented team that DG could not get to win. A team that had a culture of how to lose, not how to win.

Most teams in the NFL have a lot of talent. It's the coaching that makes the difference in winning or losing on 70% of the teams. Whiz did such a good job or acquiring talented coaches that one has gone on to be a HC and he took a couple with him. After his second year (we went to the SB btw) Whiz had to keep this team from not only getting past the SB curse but had to transisition the team with changes at OC and DC. We win 5 games on the road and have our best W-L record in like 4 decades.

So yes I'm a proud member of the pucker pack.

 

[Duckjake]

2006 got some horrible breaks? Warner should have never even had to chance to fumble the ball if not for the complete GIFT that Steve Jackson gave us first when he pulled a Tim Hightower with under 2 minutes left and the lead. The KC debacle... a bad break? His team lead 14-0 and then went into a complete shell... we got ALL the breaks we could possibly want against the Bears... six turnovers and an unbelievably solid game from a rookie QB and his team STILL couldn't hold a 20 point late 3rd quarter lead. And then, yeah... they just quit for a while.

Uh... how were those teams not terrible?

No they weren't terrible. Regardless of how it happened in 2006 the Cards had the chance to run the clock down and kick a FG and beat the Rams. They had a chance to kick a FG to beat the Chiefs and they had a chance to kick a FG to beat the Bears. Horrible teams don't come that close to going 9-7.

The 2008 and 2009 Cards had big leads and let the opponents get back in the game numerous times and couldn't protect the lead in the biggest game of all and let no name running backs have career rushing days.

The 2008 team also got hammered 4 times! 56-35,48-20,35-14 and 47-7. Were they terrible?
The 2009 team gave up 31 points to PManning. 78 points to Rodgers and 45 points to Brees. Were they terrible?

No.

This is terrible:

Cards points 210 Opponents 443
Cards points 225 Opponents 452
Cards points 262 Opponents 417

 

[MrYeahBut]

No need for Rats to bump this just yet, but it looks like our boys are taking a gut punch instead of a gut check

 

[Rats]

No need for Rats to bump this just yet, but it looks like our boys are taking a gut punch instead of a gut check

HUGE FAIL!!! Pretty gutless performence. They were not prepared to play this week. How do you have that many penalties and make that many mistakes on both sides of the ball. It starts at the top.