Heart of Hearts

[john h]

In your heart of hearts will we be better this year than last? Not based on a pre-season game but on what you really think. Personally, I do not know enough to even make an educated guess. I read over and over we are short on depth. That is sort of scary as in the NFL you do need depth.

 

[cgolden]

Heart of hearts this team is miles better than it was last year. For one, they're healthy right now. Considering that the only guys who they lost are Holt, Pace and Al Johnson (at this point), I'd have to say that they have a guy who can be just as good if not better taking their spots. This team will be better.

 

[Mulli]

Ask me a couple games into the season.

 

[joeshmo]

Heart of Hearts I think healthy or not healthy it doesnt matter we are still an 8-8 team. Did we get more talented without a doubt, But I still think special teams and penalties are going to be heart breakers for us this year again. Plus I think we have a brutal east coast schedule and I am still not confident in our road game just yet.

 

[Mitch]

It's funny, John, but last night on ESPN Bertrand Berry told Michelle Tafoya that this was the deepest team he's every played on---and he said "by far." She asked, "Even on those playoff Bronco teams you played on?" Berry said, "Yes. This is the most talented roster I have ever been on."

Now...one must believe that Berry was referring to the defense more than the offense...but still, for him to make that remark, it's impressive.

All this said, Berry talked more about the players "buying into the coaching"...and thus far he generally believes they have, but he sounded a little hesitant on that one...not that he doesn't have faith in Whiz and the coaches---that faith was clear---but the innuendo was that some of the players just don't get it yet...perhaps alluding to guys like Branch and perhaps even Dockett and Boldin, because of their absences at the voluntary minicamps. (remember: Berry took a pay cut to remain a Cardinal...which says a lot--and he's always been a good leader ever since he signed here)

In my heart of hearts...I think the roster is very talented, but I still question the overall focus and dedication of the players...like Berry, I am hesitant to say whether enough of the players have REALLY bought into the program...who are the real leaders on this team? I think Berry and Wilson are on the defense, although Wilson is a little reckless at times.

On offense...to me, the best leader is Kurt Warner...but the coaches want Leinart to start. Leinart was good last night...but can he make the throws that Warner can? (Jaws doesn't think so, and he's a pretty darned good QB evaluator) Furthermore, can Leinart instill the confidence that Warner can? Or the leadership?

Is Edge a true leader? By example he is...and he's been mentoring Hightower very impressively...but does Edge get in guys grills and exert his leadership? On the field it seems Edge keeps to himself a lot.

Who is the leader of the offensive line? Anyone have a clue? Eventually it will be Levi Brown, hands down. But he's likely still a tad too young and inexperienced for that role.

And after all the acrimony Boldin has created, can he be still considered a leader?

Fitz's leadership seems to be growing, which is great.

The leadership IS coming from the coaches...but, until it trickles down to more of the players, as Berry suggests, we really don't know how well this team will stand up to the pressure and the tougness of this year's schedule.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

It's funny, John, but last night on ESPN Bertrand Berry told Michelle Tafoya that this was the deepest team he's every played on---and he said "by far." She asked, "Even on those playoff Bronco teams you played on?" Berry said, "Yes. This is the most talented roster I have ever been on."

Now...one must believe that Berry was referring to the defense more than the offense...but still, for him to make that remark, it's impressive.

All this said, Berry talked more about the players "buying into the coaching"...and thus far he generally believes they have, but he sounded a little hesitant on that one...not that he doesn't have faith in Whiz and the coaches---that faith was clear---but the innuendo was that some of the players just don't get it yet...perhaps alluding to guys like Branch and perhaps even Dockett and Boldin, because of their absences at the voluntary minicamps. (remember: Berry took a pay cut to remain a Cardinal...which says a lot--and he's always been a good leader ever since he signed here)

In my heart of hearts...I think the roster is very talented, but I still question the overall focus and dedication of the players...like Berry, I am hesitant to say whether enough of the players have REALLY bought into the program...who are the real leaders on this team? I think Berry and Wilson are on the defense, although Wilson is a little reckless at times.

On offense...to me, the best leader is Kurt Warner...but the coaches want Leinart to start. Leinart was good last night...but can he make the throws that Warner can? (Jaws doesn't thik so, and he's a pretty darned good QB evaluator) Furthermore, can Leinart instill the confidence that Warner can? Or the leadership?

Is Edge a true leader? By example he is...and he's been mentoring Hightower very impressively...but does Edge get in guys grills and exert his leadership? On the field it seems Edge keeps to himself a lot.

Who is the leader of the offensive line? Anyone have a clue? Eventually it will be Levi Brown, hands down. But he's likely still a tad too young fand inexperienced or that role.

And after all the acrimony Boldin has created, can he be still considered a leader?

Fitz's leadership seems to be growing, which is great.

The leadership IS coming from the coaches...but, until it trickles down to more of the players, as Berry suggests, we really don't know how well this team will stand up to the pressure and the tougness of this year's schedule.

Remember that the paycut wasn't a voluntary one. He had to, or he would have been cut from the team.

He does get credit for recognizing he needed to take a paycut, but you also have to look at the other side of it as well.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

I would say we are one or two wins better than last year.

The youth and depth we brought in this year is going to help. Haggans, LaBoy, Campbell, DCR, Kenny Iwemeba, Hightower, Kieth, and Tuman are going to help this team.

We have what looks like a "tough" schedule, but I believe this team will be competitive.

If I were to fine tooth comb the situation, and really look hard at the season before us. I believe we will be in the playoffs by winning our division. Everyone in our division still has to play the NFC East, and AFC East, and I believe we are the best suited team to deal with it.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

On offense...to me, the best leader is Kurt Warner...but the coaches want Leinart to start. Leinart was good last night...but can he make the throws that Warner can? (Jaws doesn't think so, and he's a pretty darned good QB evaluator) Furthermore, can Leinart instill the confidence that Warner can? Or the leadership?

But do they need Leinart to make those throws in this offense ?

That is the question.

 

[PACardsFan]

I would say we are one or two wins better than last year.

The youth and depth we brought in this year is going to help. Haggans, LaBoy, Campbell, DCR, Kenny Iwemeba, Hightower, Kieth, and Tuman are going to help this team.

We have what looks like a "tough" schedule, but I believe this team will be competitive.

If I were to fine tooth comb the situation, and really look hard at the season before us. I believe we will be in the playoffs by winning our division. Everyone in our division still has to play the NFC East, and AFC East, and I believe we are the best suited team to deal with it.

If that's the case (1 or 2 additional wins), I'd be very happy with that. That would mean the Whisenhunt regime takes a team from 5 wins to 9 or 10 wins in 2 seasons. That would be eye opening for this franchise. The last coach to do something like that was Don Coryell in the 70's. We may have a toughter schedule, but we may not. In the NFL, it's way too hard to predict where a team may be from year to year. An easy schedule in July can turn into a brutal one in November. The same can be said in reverse. Injuries will dictate how successful we are this year. And that can be said for 95% of the teams in this league.

 

[Brighteyes]

Aside from the roster - how much does the coaching affect the wins this year?

Having all the same coaches, and all of them having a full year experience together now, plus a much better handle on who they're coaching, should have some positive effect, right?

 

[ShadowGBQ]

This team was 8-8 last year with catastrophic injuries. Boldin, Fitz, Leinart, Warner, 3 positions on the OL, Wilson, Dansby, Berry, Okeafor all missed several games or were severely crippled. We were down to a waiver-wire QB at one point and an undrafted rookie at center and safety. If you consider us "still an 8-8 team, unimproved" then your logic must either that we were incredibly lucky last year (hard to believe considering the two 9'ers games) or that the Cardinals' starters this season are no better than the backups that were in last year. You can't say we have no depth when the 2nd and 3rd string played half the season last year and were competitive. You CAN argue that we were lucky to be 8-8 or that our stars are overrated.

I agree with Berry that the roster is getting scary-deep, especially in the defensive front seven. A lot of crowing about OL depth and TE make me think: if our two biggest problems are 2nd string center and TE, we're massively improved as a team overall. Would we have sat around three years ago and nervously wrung hands over the 2nd string OL not standing out in camp?

The depth problem is a moot point because our OL is not good enough to sustain three injuries and still win 11 games. If we have two capable backups I am happy because those are the guys who will likely see time in a non-paranormal injury year. If three starting OLinemen go down for the season then you can kiss a playoff spot goodbye, whether or not the backups are improved from last year. Neither of our QB's is a scrambling genius and our RB's are slower north-south types who can be bottled up if the blocking breaks down. This OL just has to stay healthy for the Cardinals to win. Cross your fingers.

I think we are weak at CB until Cromartie develops, but everything else looks either very strong or at least very promising. The schedule is a schedule, you have to wait until the season gets going to find out how tough it is...I got into it with someone on another thread about this...saying the schedule is this and that is just like saying you can predict the season each team will have. New England or Seattle could both conceivably have bad years, but what if a Miami jumps up and plays us tough?

The key might be within our division...I am hoping against hope that Martz will implode without a proven QB in San Francisco, and that the Rams continue to be the Rams. Those 4 wins could come in handy. Good chance to win 10 or 11 games though. In my gut I think we've got an above-average outfit.

 

[joeshmo]

If you consider us "still an 8-8 team, unimproved" then your logic must either that we were incredibly lucky last year

Considering you play different opponents each year and other teams can get better overall it is very easy to say you can be improved and still go 8-8. Pretty simple logic.

The schedule is a schedule, you have to wait until the season gets going to find out how tough it is...I got into it with someone on another thread about this...saying the schedule is this and that is just like saying you can predict the season each team will have. New England or Seattle could both conceivably have bad years, but what if a Miami jumps up and plays us tough?

The key might be within our division...I am hoping against hope that Martz will implode without a proven QB in San Francisco, and that the Rams continue to be the Rams. Those 4 wins could come in handy. Good chance to win 10 or 11 games though.

You predicting 4 wins in the division and a good chance of a 10 or 11 win season is just like people predicting how tough a schedule is or will be. Both are predictions based on historical data and other factors. So I dont see what the difference is or how you can say people cant predict a tough schedule but then turn around and predict wins and loses.

Its all based on historical data and historically even last year we are a bad traveling team. Historically teams that travel cross country have a lower chance of winning a football game. Predicting a tough schedule is just as valid as you predicting a good chance at 10 or 11 wins. So to put one down over another is very hypocrytical.

 

[JeffGollin]

When you wake up in the middle of the night with feelings of terror - consider this:

We were 8 & 8 last year (and lost a couple of heart breakers due to things like fumbles in the end zone and missed field goals). Don't you feel this team is better than a year ago?

But there are a few red flags -

- Penalties

- Poor special teams coverage play

- Lack of depth at O-line and DB.

But it's only Game #1 of preseason, and we still have time to fix these.

 

[artp]

How are we measureing "better"? stats? potential? Today, my heart of hearts says this team is better. But, we may not have a better won-loss record. So, are we better or not?

 

[CarterAZ]

It’s hard to say since we’ve just started, and maybe I’m expecting too much… but I’m guessing I’m probably in the minority by saying I was wholly underwhelmed with yesterday’s performance.

It was OK, but I was hoping for much better.

 

[ShadowGBQ]

Joe snow

I did not predict our record this year. I said "those 4 wins could come in handy" and "chance to win 10 or 11 games." I think we have a chance to win 10 or 11 games and it would be great to win our divisional games. That is not a prediction.

If you want a prediction I can give you one, but I would not base it on "historical data." Every year is a new deal for every team.

You know that saying something in the context of a self-evaluation of one's own team and going "still an 8-8 team" implies that you are making a statement about that team's strength in relationship to the overall strength of the league. People have always said "this is a 500 team" in sports meaning that "this team is average." If you really meant to say "We are improved, but so are the other 31 teams and we play different opponents this year who based on my predictions will be tougher overall," then you could come right out and say it & of course I wouldn't reply the way I did. I really think that you're looking for a way to argue & "sound good" here as opposed to using common sense.

If you're going to make this personal at least know about the words you're using. I am only being hypocrytical in iour ymagynatyon.

 

[joeshmo]

I did not predict our record this year. I said "those 4 wins could come in handy" and "chance to win 10 or 11 games."

Post your whole sentance not just a part of it. Saying you have a GOOD chance is a prediction. Your prediciting your chances are you not. Saying something will be good or bad before it happens is a prediction.

If you want a prediction I can give you one, but I would not base it on "historical data." Every year is a new deal for every team.

What else would you base it on? Pull names out of hat?

You know that saying something in the context of a self-evaluation of one's own team and going "still an 8-8 team" implies that you are making a statement about that team's strength in relationship to the overall strength of the league. People have always said "this is a 500 team" in sports meaning that "this team is average."

How does 8-8 team imply that I am making a statement about the teams strengths in relationship to the overall strength of the league. Doesnt imply that at all for one simple reason. The whole league doesnt play the same schedule. Because of that an 8-8 team can be more talented then a 9-7 team just that the 8-8 team played tougher opponents.

Famous Football quote: "It is easy to go from 4-11 to 8-8 the hard part is going from 8-8 to 10-6"

If you really meant to say "We are improved, but so are the other 31 teams and we play different opponents this year who based on my predictions will be tougher overall," then you could come right out and say it & of course I wouldn't reply the way I did. I really think that you're looking for a way to argue & "sound good" here as opposed to using common sense.

I stated all of that except for the 31 teams thing.

Did we get more talented without a doubt(we are improved), But I still think special teams and penalties are going to be heart breakers for us this year again. Plus I think we have a brutal east coast schedule and I am still not confident in our road game just yet.(we play different opponents this year who based on my predictions will be tougher overall)"

If you're going to make this personal at least know about the words you're using. I am only being hypocrytical in iour ymagynatyon.

Just like my response is only personal in your own imagination. Saying an arguement is hypocritcal isnt personal it only means I think your arguements dont match. But what ever.

 

[green machine]

I think the team is better but, because of the difficulty in the schedule, the win/loss record may not show it.

 

[ShadowGBQ]

waaay too much fun at this point

"Your prediciting" I would change to, "You're predicting." I guess you can "predict" good chances, though I would need to smoke a bowl to figure out exactly what that means. I didn't know we were debating formal logic and semantics, but football. I did not *intend* to make any hard predictions. I think we can likely win 10+ games. Might be wrong, hope not.

"Names out of hat" I would certainly change to, "names out of a hat." I would base my prediction off of each team's roster and situation heading into this year in the present time. The Jets have had some hapless seasons in the 00's. But the Jets game scares me this year because they signed 61 free agents, including one of our guys. For instance.

I would use a ? when asking a question. But yeah, "a 500 team" or "an 8-8 team" to me always meant a statement of that team's general ability & not a detailed look at their strength of schedule, because the use of the words "a" and "team" indicate a more general "teams such as this one tend to have 500 records." When you go to a preseason hockey game and say "These Blue Jackets look like a 500 team" it generally is not taken to mean "You know, Calgary and Anaheim have improved goaltending this season." I accept now that you came up with a brand new way to say it that means something totally different, and I apologize for not understanding it. By the way, if I ever say "I burned a bridge" it literally means I burned down a bridge and I expect you to know that.

It would, in fact, be very hard to go 4-11 and then 8-8. You would have to cancel a game in the first season of the two, and it's my understanding the league frowns on that. That aside, if it's so easy to go 8-8 why have the Cardinals had such a hard time going 8-8?

"Did we get more talented without a doubt(" I would change to, "...talented? Without a doubt." Everyone should know this stuff.

I kind of like "arguements." There is no reason the poor "e" has to come out of "argument," I will grant that. Whatever is a compound word, not two words though. Anyway, my problem with the strength of schedule angle is that it's great in hindsight during/after the season but fruitless as a training camp pastime. I am not smart enough to know exactly how tough a team will be to play come week 12, what injuries they will have and how much effort they put out. I don't think anyone else is smart enough, or you would all be rich like Biff. Call me a football agnostic.

 

[Renz]

I see us getting killed by penalties and 3rd down conversions on defense. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[ShadowGBQ]

You could be right about the 3rd downs. Our CB simply do not have the physical tools to stop certain throws to certain guys, unless the coaches are ready to throw DRC in there. One has to hope our front seven can cloud up the passing lanes and cover us a bit in those situations. Progress would be to stop the teams we're supposed to stop, and not let any struggling offenses pass for 400 yards again, such as the 49'ers last season.

The pre-snap penalties are the ones we need to get out of our system. In-play and post-whistle flags will gradually go down as we win more games and the players get hyped etc.

 

[JeffGollin]

I see us getting killed by penalties and 3rd down conversions on defense. Hope I'm wrong.

When you evaluate our 3rd down conversions on "D", I hope you'll factor in our two 4th & 1 stops (one resulting in a sack and the other holding them out of the end zone on the one).

The penalties do suck though.

 

[Skkorpion]

This is the deepest team since I first purchased season tickets in 1992. Even the offensive line has young but unproven depth. If Carlton Medder can play this year, our inside oline depth may become truly solid.

The weakest link on offense is at center. Injuries decimated the position. On defense, it is nose guard or whatever you wish to call the main run-stuffing anchor lineman.

You know I never liked Leinart, or Warner, for that matter. They are proving me wrong. Now that we have Hightower and a younger uninjured Shipp in Baylark, Edge no longer worries me. Sure, we need a burner RB for more depth.

All along, my hopes were to improve and win 9. Barring catastrophic injury, my hopes are edging upward.

 

[DaisyCutter]

Heart of Hearts I think healthy or not healthy it doesnt matter we are still an 8-8 team. Did we get more talented without a doubt, But I still think special teams and penalties are going to be heart breakers for us this year again. Plus I think we have a brutal east coast schedule and I am still not confident in our road game just yet.

I think the team is better but, because of the difficulty in the schedule, the win/loss record may not show it.

I see us getting killed by penalties and 3rd down conversions on defense. Hope I'm wrong.

Penalties, maybe. But the Cards had a good defense last season that happened to be unsuccessful on third downs. Historically, teams who underachieved on third downs but were otherwise solid tend to improve. The Cards' 2008 season hinges on this history holding up for their franchise.

This is the deepest team since I first purchased season tickets in 1992. Even the offensive line has young but unproven depth. If Carlton Medder can play this year, our inside oline depth may become truly solid.

The weakest link on offense is at center. Injuries decimated the position. On defense, it is nose guard or whatever you wish to call the main run-stuffing anchor lineman.

You know I never liked Leinart, or Warner, for that matter. They are proving me wrong. Now that we have Hightower and a younger uninjured Shipp in Baylark, Edge no longer worries me. Sure, we need a burner RB for more depth.

All along, my hopes were to improve and win 9. Barring catastrophic injury, my hopes are edging upward.

If your depth is unproven, you have no depth. Carlton Medder? He's not even going to get any preseason work--if he makes the roster at all. I'm more interested in Brandon Keith now than I was when he was drafted. I'm intrigued that he's showing up in drills. But the reason that he ended up at Northern Iowa was because he couldn't handle the grind that is a Pro-style football program. We'll see whether that will hold up when John Lott gets in his grill this offseason. We have a bunch of guys that haven't played in the NFL as our OL depth, and Elton Brown. That's not quality depth, IMO.

I think it's easy to underrate the importance of experience in evaluating offensive linemen. With the amount of looks and stunts that opposing defenses can throw at players (if you doubt this, just look at the Cards' defense), you have to have a lot of mental discipline to diagnose in an instant what the opposing player is going to do. The guy lining up right over you can be gone in a blink of an eye.

I thought that Bryan Robinson (the veteran) played very well with the starting group. Hopefully he'll be consistent. With him and Gabe Watson, I'm fairly happy that there can be a productive rotation, even without Alan Branch.

Not being especially explosive on offense is going to be a problem. You can't really overcome killer penalties (like false starts on second-and-seven) if you don't have a back that teams are going to worry about getting the first down. That's why it's essential that Matt Leinart can be an effective game manager. Kurt Warner can bring this team out of the hole sometimes, but he's also going to put the team in the hole, and often too late for them to get out of it.

Ben Roethlisberger was successful his first two seasons because he was told to take what the defenses give to him. This team can be successful the same way. But the paper-thin offensive line has to stay healthy, and Matt Leinart has to play within himself.

 

[black]

Shadow, The cards are going to be ok. Rest easy. I haven't in my whole lifetime been able to say this. The depth issue on the o-line scares me, thats it.