How many pennies does it take...

[Chopper0080]

The thought that, in effect, the story is written about a player's future after one season, even two, is beyond my comprehension.

I find it funny that you insert yourself into a conversation about our organizations willingness to play young players and tolerate their mistakes compared to another franchise and then shift it to by stating that posters are making career statements on players after one year.

A bit ironic that your statement is about making big judgements based upon little info all while you are making a judgement on the conversation without taking the time to diagnose it's actual content.

 

[Chopper0080]

Well, other than various people saying Moore is a WR4 at best and Collins is a bust that can't beat out Vallejo then no, nobody has wrote them off...

You are the only one saying this. If you would actually read what others are saying you would understand that the conversation is the realistic expectation of players filling in roles that they have never shown the ability to fill.

You are stating that we drafted Collins to be the starter so you don't understand the concern of Collins being the starter. People are responding to you that the concern is that when Collins was given the opportunity to fill that role last year, the coaching staff chose less talented players like Tanner Vallejo and Joe Walker over him. The question they are asking is what magically changed that we should have confidence that the same coach who played Vallejo over Collins won't continue to play Vallejo over Collins.

Same with Moore. You are stating that Moore was drafted to replace Kirk and what people are responding with is that Moore and Kirk had very different roles and workloads last year. We have no proof that Moore can succeed in that different role and Moore got dinged up in his limited reps so they is concern that increasing his workload might lead to more minor injuries.

So, you are correct that both Collins and Moore were drafted to replace Hicks and Kirk and that is what looks like the plan is. That said, it is also valid for people to be concerned that the plan is dependent on players being successful in far greater roles than they previously had despite a small sample of similar circumstances.

 

[Krangodnzr]

It's absolutely ridiculous.

There's a whole fabricated narrative now that Collins couldn't beat our Vallejo and Walker and that Vance is having his hand forced with Hicks cut. It's crap.

It's more likely that Vance just didn't want a rookie out there with Simmons who was still having some struggles in year 2 and it was considered a vet presence was more appropriate.

But the amount of fans writing off the young talent we have is sad. And when proven wrong they will just say "Well I was just going off what I'd seen so far..."

These same people are going to complain if the Cardinals let Simmons walk when he has one good season at the end of his rookie contract.

The impatience on this board at times is hilarious. They bash the team all offseason and wait for an inkling of bad fortune to jump back to their complaining ways.

 

[Chopper0080]

You just said yourself that this org has a culture of preferring vets over starting rookies. There's no evidence of Collins mistakes. I certainly don't recall any obvious ones and his stats and PFF grades back that up.

They haven't stripped the roster of talent to force a change. That's a complete fabrication.

They always intended Collins to replace Hicks. they haven't seen anything in practice to make them think otherwise and now they are making the switch based on talent.

Yes. Vance prefers veterans over rookies because Vance is risk averse and is willing to sacrifice talent for experience. So, that is why other players got game reps over Collins, because in practice and his limited snaps he was making mistakes in Vance's eyes and Vance was not willing to accept those at a higher volume which would have come with increased snaps.

and in terms of stripping the roster...Simmons could not get snaps over Campbell and so the team did not re-sign Campbell. Campbell then goes to the Packers, plays a ton of snaps, and is rewarded with a nice contract extension while Simmons played 32% of snaps in our playoff game while Vallejo played 63%. Collins is drafted and announced as the starter before training camp. Hicks then becomes team captain, plays over 90% of defensive snaps. Collins meanwhile starts off the season playing over 30 snaps 5 out of the first 7 games but then, as the season goes on, his snaps are reduced to 38 combined snaps over the last 8 games of the year. So, as Collins gained experience his DC played him less snaps. Now Hicks is cut in the offseason.

 

[BritCard]

You are the only one saying this. If you would actually read what others are saying you would understand that the conversation is the realistic expectation of players filling in roles that they have never shown the ability to fill.

Yes, and I pointed out that actually both performed well in limited roles and that their roles were limited not due to ability but due to vets ahead of them. They both showed the ability to play bigger roles, they were simply hamstrung by an organisational ethos that has held back young players here for years.

There was no valid excuse for playing Vallejo and Walker over Collins. I think the majority of this board made that argument last year and in general we were all puzzled as to why. His tackling and coverage stats were as good as or better than Hicks. Collins had 7% missed tackles. Vallejo had 31%!

Zaven Collins had a 69.3 PFF grade. Tanner Vallejo had 35. There were no mistakes from Collins. PFF are grading each play and if there were similar mistakes to those Simmons made as a rookie we would have seen a similar sub 35 grade to that Simmons had early.

You're not going to win me over with "Vallejo and Walker beat out Collins". That's obviously not the case. That was a weak decision from Vance showing bias towards vets. Neither of which played nearly as well as Collins. The worst decision from Vance last season.

Moore was restricted by the role he was asked to play, but what he did in that role was very good. He finished the year with a PFF grade of 71.2.

Is it really too much to ask fans to see that both players played well in their limited opportunities and to extrapolate from that that both have the ability to fill larger roles? How dull the league would be if everyone was just what they showed us and we had no imagination to see the potential.

How will Moore or Collins ever get the chance to show us if we will their roles with vets?

 

[BritCard]

These same people are going to complain if the Cardinals let Simmons walk when he has one good season at the end of his rookie contract.

The impatience on this board at times is hilarious. They bash the team all offseason and wait for an inkling of bad fortune to jump back to their complaining ways.

The only draft picks allowed are those that come in year one and are instant pro bowlers.

If we drafted Micah Parsons last year does anyone really think we don't do exactly the same thing we did to Collins? It would have been identical.

 

[TRW]

The only draft picks allowed are those that come in year one and are instant pro bowlers.

If we drafted Micah Parsons last year does anyone really think we don't do exactly the same thing we did to Collins? It would have been identical.

Nobody knows that, not even you.

 

[Chopper0080]

Yes, and I pointed out that actually both performed well in limited roles and that their roles were limited not due to ability but due to vets ahead of them. They both showed the ability to play bigger roles, they were simply hamstrung by an organisational ethos that has held back young players here for years.

There was no valid excuse for playing Vallejo and Walker over Collins. I think the majority of this board made that argument last year and in general we were all puzzled as to why. His tackling and coverage stats were as good as or better than Hicks. Collins had 7% missed tackles. Vallejo had 31%!

Zaven Collins had a 69.3 PFF grade. Tanner Vallejo had 35. There were no mistakes from Collins. PFF are grading each play and if there were similar mistakes to those Simmons made as a rookie we would have seen a similar sub 35 grade to that Simmons had early.

You're not going to win me over with "Vallejo and Walker beat out Collins". That's obviously not the case. That was a weak decision from Vance showing bias towards vets. Neither of which played nearly as well as Collins. The worst decision from Vance last season.

Moore was restricted by the role he was asked to play, but what he did in that role was very good. He finished the year with a PFF grade of 71.2.

Is it really too much to ask fans to see that both players played well in their limited opportunities and to extrapolate from that that both have the ability to fill larger roles? How dull the league would be if everyone was just what they showed us and we had no imagination to see the potential.

How will Moore or Collins ever get the chance to show us if we will their roles with vets?

I get you feel Collins outplayed Vallejo but Vance obviously didn't. Also, Vance is still the coach so why would the situation change? What will cause Vance to suddenly play Collins over Vallejo during a time when no games are being played and the last time practice was the determining factor, Collins did not win out?

 

[Stout]

These same people are going to complain if the Cardinals let Simmons walk when he has one good season at the end of his rookie contract.

The impatience on this board at times is hilarious. They bash the team all offseason and wait for an inkling of bad fortune to jump back to their complaining ways.

Yes, complaining about complaining is far more noble than folks expressing concern about the team. Hilarious.

 

[Chopper0080]

These same people are going to complain if the Cardinals let Simmons walk when he has one good season at the end of his rookie contract.

The impatience on this board at times is hilarious. They bash the team all offseason and wait for an inkling of bad fortune to jump back to their complaining ways.

This is a bad faith argument IMO. It is not unreasonable for people to be concerned with expecting Simmons to be anything better than Tanner Vallejo when in playoff games, Vallejo is playing instead of Simmons. Same with Collins and Vallejo/Joe Walker. That is what we have to go off of.

I have personally been roasted by the overly optimistic crowd because I feel the issue is with Vance and all I heard is look at the results and trust in Vance. Now those same people are telling me to ignore Vance and believe that Simmons and Collins are these great players ready to flourish in a greater role when Vance is still the coach. It is contradictory at best.

 

[QuebecCard]

I find it funny that you insert yourself into a conversation about our organizations willingness to play young players and tolerate their mistakes compared to another franchise and then shift it to by stating that posters are making career statements on players after one year.

A bit ironic that your statement is about making big judgements based upon little info all while you are making a judgement on the conversation without taking the time to diagnose it's actual content.

What part of this statement (content) did I ironically misunderstand?

Yes, those players can be good but they are more likely to be what they have shown so far or marginally better/worse.

 

[BritCard]

I'm lost. What do fans want?

There are only 3 choices.

1. We can sign vets on starter money that are obviously going to start
2. We can give the rookies we have that show promise starter roles
3. We can bring in mediocre vets to "compete" for those roles which both wastes cap space and undermines the trust we show in the youngsters.

If we do 1 some fans complain about not giving rookies a shot. If we do 2 some fans complain about the risk of banking on youth. If we do 3 most fans complain about one aspect of it or another.

We have been doing 1 and 3 for years and it hasn't worked. Maybe we should give 2 a shot?

 

[Chopper0080]

What part of this statement (content) did I ironically misunderstand?

Yes, those players can be good but they are more likely to be what they have shown so far or marginally better/worse.

Maybe take the entire post along with the post it was in response to...

###

Only if you believe Collins, Simmons, Moore, Wilson etc can't be good this year. I believe they can.

Rams won the SB with a bunch of young players starting, especially on D. None of which were stars.

Ok..but can is a lot different than has shown. Yes, those players can be good but they are more likely to be what they have shown so far or marginally better/worse. I don't believe it is fair or realistic to expect Collins to go from 15% snaps to 100% snaps and not expect the same number or more mistakes. Same with Moore and Wilson. Simmons had his role reduced by our DC last year and you are expecting him to take on a greater role?

Rams are not a great option because their coaches believe in playing young players and dealing with the mistakes. We do not have that type of culture.

###

Both posts are discussing the Rams as an example for BritCard's view/proposal that we are/should be letting our young players play.

 

[Chopper0080]

I'm lost. What do fans want?

There are only 3 choices.

1. We can sign vets on starter money that are obviously going to start
2. We can give the rookies we have that show promise starter roles
3. We can bring in mediocre vets to "compete" for those roles which both wastes cap space and undermines the trust we show in the youngsters.

If we do 1 some fans complain about not giving rookies a shot. If we do 2 some fans complain about the risk of banking on youth. If we do 3 most fans complain about one aspect of it or another.

We have been doing 1 and 3 for years and it hasn't worked. Maybe we should give 2 a shot?

I think fans want the Cardinals to be like most successful franchises that are able and willing to use all of the tolls available.

When we have a QB on a rookie contract that we are aggressively utilizing all tools available to add to the talent level of our roster.

We are proactively extending our players so that we are not in the position where we are in a bidding war with other franchises for our drafted players who produce.

We are utilizing premium resources on premium positions.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

These same people are going to complain if the Cardinals let Simmons walk when he has one good season at the end of his rookie contract.

The impatience on this board at times is hilarious. They bash the team all offseason and wait for an inkling of bad fortune to jump back to their complaining ways.

Wait, posters complain when something goes wrong?!? That’s crazy!


Btw, I still think Simmons is going to be an impact player. May eat crow in that, but I don’t think he’s as terrible as he’s made out to be on the board.

 

[BritCard]

t believe it is fair or realistic to expect Collins to go from 15% snaps to 100% snaps and not expect the same number or more mistakes

What mistakes? There's no evidence of mistakes. His stats are clean and it's not like Simmons rookie year where there were obvious errors. And there's no evidence of mistakes in his PFF grades which assess each play.

He was playing 40%+ snaps until the GB game. He hurt his arm and left the game and that was pretty much it.

 

[BritCard]

I think fans want the Cardinals to be like most successful franchises that are able and willing to use all of the tolls available.

When we have a QB on a rookie contract that we are aggressively utilizing all tools available to add to the talent level of our roster.

We are proactively extending our players so that we are not in the position where we are in a bidding war with other franchises for our drafted players who produce.

We are utilizing premium resources on premium positions.

These tools aren't compatible. You can choose 1.

We can ride with Moore, Collins, Simmons, Wilson etc or we can spend money on vets to replace them. It's a binary choice when it comes to our young players.

Whether they sign vets to replace CJ and Green is another question but when it comes to our young talent we either waste the potential or we try harness it.

 

[Stout]

What mistakes? There's no evidence of mistakes. His stats are clean and it's not like Simmons rookie year where there were obvious errors. And there's no evidence of mistakes in his PFF grades which assess each play.

He was playing 40%+ snaps until the GB game. He hurt his arm and left the game and that was pretty much it.

No evidence to your untrained eye; how many times were plays missed because he was maybe out of position? The point is we don't know. You don't know. Just like we don't know yet how he'll perform now that he's the anointed starter. I agree with you that he has to start now, but that doesn't mean he'll be good at it.

 

[Stout]

Wait, posters complain when something goes wrong?!? That’s crazy!


Btw, I still think Simmons is going to be an impact player. May eat crow in that, but I don’t think he’s as terrible as he’s made out to be on the board.

I agree.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

The only draft picks allowed are those that come in year one and are instant pro bowlers.

If we drafted Micah Parsons last year does anyone really think we don't do exactly the same thing we did to Collins? It would have been identical.

I guess Simmons just laying two years ago year doesn’t count. Or Wilson playing last year doesn’t count. Or all the rookie dlinemen that have played over the past three years didn’t count. The claim that vance won’t play rookies is a myth. Collins obviously couldn’t gain Vance’s trust like other rookies have. It has to be due to mental errors that vance saw in practice and games. Errors that you have ZERO knowledge of not being privy to game plans, different defensive schemes, individual responsibilities, etc.

At times I may be frustrated with Vance’s schemes or defensive play calls but I’ve never had the hubris to believe I know better what actually happened on the field or what a player should have done on any given play than a well respected defensive coordinator who has had success in the league. That’s just laughable imo.

 

[BritCard]

No evidence to your untrained eye; how many times were plays missed because he was maybe out of position? The point is we don't know. You don't know. Just like we don't know yet how he'll perform now that he's the anointed starter. I agree with you that he has to start now, but that doesn't mean he'll be good at it.

You can't just say "You don't know". If you're going to say there were mistakes you're going to have to show me mistakes.

None of which are evident in his statistics or PFF grade.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I think fans want the Cardinals to be like most successful franchises that are able and willing to use all of the tolls available.

When we have a QB on a rookie contract that we are aggressively utilizing all tools available to add to the talent level of our roster.

We are proactively extending our players so that we are not in the position where we are in a bidding war with other franchises for our drafted players who produce.

We are utilizing premium resources on premium positions.

Exactly. Brit’s 1, 2, and 3 aren’t, and needn’t be, mutually exclusive of one and other. I want the team to leverage all of them in the most effective manner possible. And I don’t believe there’s a “don’t use rookies” mantra with the team. We’ve seen plenty of rookies get significant snaps over the years. Have they been crushing it? No, but I thinknwe see in their subsequent years that may be for a reason too . . .

 

[QuebecCard]

I guess Simmons just laying two years ago year doesn’t count. Or Wilson playing last year doesn’t count. Or all the rookie dlinemen that have played over the past three years didn’t count. The claim that vance won’t play rookies is a myth. Collins obviously couldn’t gain Vance’s trust like other rookies have. It has to be due to mental errors that vance saw in practice and games. Errors that you have ZERO knowledge of not being privy to game plans, different defensive schemes, individual responsibilities, etc.

At times I may be frustrated with Vance’s schemes or defensive play calls but I’ve never had the hubris to believe I know better what actually happened on the field or what a player should have done on any given play than a well respected defensive coordinator who has had success in the league. That’s just laughable imo.

Other than the gratuitous last sentence. Agree.

 

[BritCard]

I guess Simmons just laying two years ago year doesn’t count. Or Wilson playing last year doesn’t count. Or all the rookie dlinemen that have played over the past three years didn’t count. The claim that vance won’t play rookies is a myth. Collins obviously couldn’t gain Vance’s trust like other rookies have. It has to be due to mental errors that vance saw in practice and games. Errors that you have ZERO knowledge of not being privy to game plans, different defensive schemes, individual responsibilities, etc.

At times I may be frustrated with Vance’s schemes or defensive play calls but I’ve never had the hubris to believe I know better what actually happened on the field or what a player should have done on any given play than a well respected defensive coordinator who has had success in the league. That’s just laughable imo.

What now?

Simmons barely played as a rookie. The young linemen that have played didn't start. Fotu and Lawrence played 30% of snaps last year and less as rookies. Zach Allen played 144 snaps his rookie year.

There are only 2 rookies in recent history that played more than 50% of snaps I can recall.

Jalen Thompson. Even then he barely got a chance until game 10 as Swearinger took those snaps.

And Marco Wilson last year. Which you could argue was only because we gave Vance no option outside Alford and they surely didn't trust him to stay healthy in a full time roll.

You have ZERO evidence that there were errors in practice. In fact it's illogical to think that his errors increased as the season went on when he was playing 40%+ in the first 7 games.

Or do we think between playing 52% vs the Niners in Week 5 and 57% vs Texans in Week 7 that he suddenly started sucking in practice?

We do however have evidence that he trusts vets over rookies.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

You can't just say "You don't know". If you're going to say there were mistakes you're going to have to show me mistakes.

None of which are evident in his statistics or PFF grade.

Dude PFF is guessing just like you are. We’ve prettt firmly established that they don’t possess game plans, know individual assignments, etc either.

There’s no proof either way . . . other than the fact the coach didn’t trust him. That’s an obvious fact.