Heart of Hearts

[New Mexico]

I don't know. I say yes because we have the same coaches and most of the same players and it makes sense that everybody would be better with an additional year of experience and familiarity with the system.

My main concerns are our piss poor running game which I don't see being much improved and Leinart who I don't think is as good as Kurt at this point, so that's a downgrade at the most important position on the football team.

If we are a better team, I'm not sure our record will reflect it given our schedule.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

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.

They never meet your expectations in the first game. It is impossible. Each year I am so psyched up I can't think right. Heck, I haven't seen a football game in a few months. Those quick flags bring you back to reality real quick.

 

[lobo]

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.

All things being equal IF we can cut penalties by 10-15% this is a playoff team. If anyone has the data to see when and how much we were penalized last year you would be very sick....actually cost us more games than missing some clutch fieldgoals. I researched it.

 

[Redheart]

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.

Nice post.

 

[Pariah]

If your depth is unproven, you have no depth.

Maybe, maybe not. If your depth is unproven, it's simply an unknown. If the Broncos' thought the way you do, they'd never have a decent running back and they'd always be going after the hottest commodity at the position in the offseason.

 

[Chopper0080]

"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? "

This statement is hilarious for a couple reasons. I believe that Leinart can make all the throws that Warner makes but I don't believe that anyone should want him to. The throws that Warner makes creates big plays but also a greater number of turnovers. Warner threw 16 ints as a starter last year while also fumbling the ball 10 times. I don't want Leinart to play like this and Warner's style of play is the reason he isn't a starter somwhere else. Our team isn't good enough to overcome the turnover machine that is Kurt Warner and so we need a more conservative guy at the helm. Whether or not Leinart is the guy, we will see. But, I know that Warner is not.

 

[DaisyCutter]

Maybe, maybe not. If your depth is unproven, it's simply an unknown. If the Broncos' thought the way you do, they'd never have a decent running back and they'd always be going after the hottest commodity at the position in the offseason.

When was the last time the Broncos actually went into the season without a proven running back on their roster? Sure, there's usually a young guy who steps up in training camp or halfway through the season, but they always have an established veteran (like Travis Henry, or Michael Pittman, or Tatum Bell, or Mike Anderson, or Reuben Droughns, etc., etc.) who goes in as the starter.

If your depth is unproven, it's impossible to say that it's solid. That's just wishful thinking. I'd like to have a player that's a known quantity to step in at each of the OL positions as the #2.

 

[Pariah]

When was the last time the Broncos actually went into the season without a proven running back on their roster? Sure, there's usually a young guy who steps up in training camp or halfway through the season, but they always have an established veteran (like Travis Henry, or Michael Pittman, or Tatum Bell, or Mike Anderson, or Reuben Droughns, etc., etc.) who goes in as the starter.

As do the Cardinals. We're not talking about the starter, we're talking about the backups. And, Mike Anderson, Tatum Bell, Mike Bell, Olandis Gary, Rueben Droughns, etc, etc...were all unproven backups who all stepped up to the plate.