I'm convinced the Cardinals will/should draft OTs back to back in the draft

[Garthshort]

I agree with Pacman, that there probably won't be a first round worthy QB on the Board when we pick. My hope is that we go OT in the first because I think one good one will be avaiable. We do need a TE, but it seems that starting TE's are available lower in the Draft. That said it's obvious that a QB must be selected within the first three rounds.

 

[Mulli]

In the 2nd and 3rd round, I am down.

 

[Russ Smith]

You still pick the best player but in this draft there's a reasonable chance the best player will also be at a position of need for us.

I'm still not clear on Massie, he had a solid 2nd half of the season and Arians has buried him. I'm not sure if he'll be the starting RT next season, or off the roster. Winston played ok early but has not been good for weeks now, I see no reason why Massie shouldn't get some work the rest of the season to prove if he can or can't be the RT.

 

[cardinalsfan]

I'm hoping Bridgewater has some questionable games to finish the season, thus allowing him to drop to us. If not I'd be just as excited with Murray.

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

I am on the fence about the whole "A good QB will fix all your problems".

It can take you far, and sometimes win you a Super Bowl in the case of Peyton Manning.......once.

But, a good team is going to beat a great QB without a good supporting cast more times then not, and history has dictated so.

Perfect example is Tom Brady losing last week to the Jets. Tom Brady is a great QB who can make a team, like the Pats, look so much better than the talent that is on the field, but in the end, wins are wins, and losses are losses.

Tom Brady does not have a Larry Fitzgerald and it is hurting him.

Tom Brady does not have a good defense, and it is hurting him.

Tom Brady has an offensive line that is very average, and it is hurting him.

We have all seen what Brady can do if he has one out of those three supporting situations.

Thus, I don't agree with getting a QB at all costs, because if it costs too much then you can't support the investment.

True enough Hirschel...

A good QB, in the right system, makes all the difference. But, without an adequate supporting cast a team will not win a championship.

However...I believe that, unless you have a successful system with the right players already, a franchise must start with the QB first in today's game.

 

[Denny Green Fan]

I'm hoping Bridgewater has some questionable games to finish the season, thus allowing him to drop to us. If not I'd be just as excited with Murray.

Murray doesnt have the arm to run Arians vertical attack. Thats why we

wont draft him imo.

 

[kerouac9]

Worked for the Jags!

 

[Vermont Maverick]

We don't need a tight end. There are a lot more holes to look after before we worry about who our tight end is....

Yes we do. I like Nick O'Leary fron FSU. He's been making plays for 3 years.

 

[Chopper0080]

I am on the fence about the whole "A good QB will fix all your problems".

It can take you far, and sometimes win you a Super Bowl in the case of Peyton Manning.......once.

But, a good team is going to beat a great QB without a good supporting cast more times then not, and history has dictated so.

Perfect example is Tom Brady losing last week to the Jets. Tom Brady is a great QB who can make a team, like the Pats, look so much better than the talent that is on the field, but in the end, wins are wins, and losses are losses.

Tom Brady does not have a Larry Fitzgerald and it is hurting him.

Tom Brady does not have a good defense, and it is hurting him.

Tom Brady has an offensive line that is very average, and it is hurting him.

We have all seen what Brady can do if he has one out of those three supporting situations.

Thus, I don't agree with getting a QB at all costs, because if it costs too much then you can't support the investment.

My counter to this is that when your team is bad enough to get a top QB, it is because the roster has holes. If you prioritize improving your roster and then drafting the QB, you won't be in position to do so.

Now, I am not stating we should take a QB just to take a QB, but if there is one available that our staff prefers, they should take him and then work to improve his supporting cast.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I am on the fence about the whole "A good QB will fix all your problems".

It can take you far, and sometimes win you a Super Bowl in the case of Peyton Manning.......once.

But, a good team is going to beat a great QB without a good supporting cast more times then not, and history has dictated so.

Perfect example is Tom Brady losing last week to the Jets. Tom Brady is a great QB who can make a team, like the Pats, look so much better than the talent that is on the field, but in the end, wins are wins, and losses are losses.

Tom Brady does not have a Larry Fitzgerald and it is hurting him.

Tom Brady does not have a good defense, and it is hurting him.

Tom Brady has an offensive line that is very average, and it is hurting him.

We have all seen what Brady can do if he has one out of those three supporting situations.

Thus, I don't agree with getting a QB at all costs, because if it costs too much then you can't support the investment.

Tom Brady is still 5-2. so WITH all those problems, he still has one of the best records in the league.

 

[ajcardfan]

The worst part of this thread is we've been having this discussion (QB vs. OT vs. Pass Rusher) for the 10, 11, 12 and 13 drafts. Yet, we couldn't manage one damn answer for any of those spots, free agency or drafts.

Why is 14 going to be any different?

 

[cardpa]

The worst part of this thread is we've been having this discussion (QB vs. OT vs. Pass Rusher) for the 10, 11, 12 and 13 drafts. Yet, we couldn't manage one damn answer for any of those spots, free agency or drafts.

Why is 14 going to be any different?

Because it gets us closer to 20. After 20 they run out of fingers and toes to count so they draft a good one by mistake.

 

[Totally_Red]

My counter to this is that when your team is bad enough to get a top QB, it is because the roster has holes. If you prioritize improving your roster and then drafting the QB, you won't be in position to do so.

Now, I am not stating we should take a QB just to take a QB, but if there is one available that our staff prefers, they should take him and then work to improve his supporting cast.

I don't agree with this totally. You seem to be saying a team has to have a very high draft pick to get an elite quarterback. It may be easier that way, but Aaron Rodgers was taken in the 20s. Joe Flacco was taken in the 20s. Tom Brady was taken in the sixth round. Drew Brees was taken at the top of the second round. Kurt Warner was a free agent. {More recently, Russell Wilson was taken in the third round.]

I hope the Cardinals take best player available whether it's a QB, left tackle or pass rusher. But all else being equal, I'd take the left tackle because they are very hard to find after the first round IMO.

 

[Mulli]

I don't agree with this totally. You seem to be saying a team has to have a very high draft pick to get an elite quarterback. It may be easier that way, but Aaron Rodgers was taken in the 20s. Joe Flacco was taken in the 20s. Tom Brady was taken in the sixth round. Drew Brees was taken at the top of the second round. Kurt Warner was a free agent. {More recently, Russell Wilson was taken in the third round.]

I hope the Cardinals take best player available whether it's a QB, left tackle or pass rusher. But all else being equal, I'd take the left tackle because they are very hard to find after the first round IMO.

I am pretty sure this discussion has been had 500 times on here, but I seem to recall LT's being easier to find than QB's after the first.

Could be wrong, of course.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I am pretty sure this discussion has been had 500 times on here, but I seem to recall LT's being easier to find than QB's after the first.

Could be wrong, of course.

not only that, but how important are LT versus. elite QBs.

Aaron Rodgers doesn't have a good LT. Offense is always good-great.

Peyton and Russel Wilson are both playing without their starting LT AND RT. Offenses are still elite.

Pittsburg's never had a great LT. Up until the last two years, Roth has always been good-great.

The Colts don't have a good LT and Luck takes a beating...and he's still elite and so is the offense.

I mean, even Jay Cutler, who's not great, but has had an awful O-line has still been decent and put up numbers.

Meanwhile, how much did Jake Long do for the myriad of Dolphins QBs who have been terrible since he was drafted/how did he help Sam Bradford? How has Joe Thomas helped push the Cleveland offense forward? These are two of the best LTs in football, but they make very little impact on the game because they've never had a QB who could take advantage of their skills.

Bottom line, IMO...a good O-line can't make a bad QB good, but a good QB can make a bad O-line better. As a Cardinals fan, if Kurt Warner wasn't proof of that, I don't what is.

 

[crisper57]

Can we just give Massie a chance to show what he's got first? Please, BA? He can't be any worse than the starters we've thrown out there so far.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

I am on the fence about the whole "A good QB will fix all your problems".

It can take you far, and sometimes win you a Super Bowl in the case of Peyton Manning.......once.

But, a good team is going to beat a great QB without a good supporting cast more times then not, and history has dictated so.

Perfect example is Tom Brady losing last week to the Jets. Tom Brady is a great QB who can make a team, like the Pats, look so much better than the talent that is on the field, but in the end, wins are wins, and losses are losses.

Tom Brady does not have a Larry Fitzgerald and it is hurting him.

Tom Brady does not have a good defense, and it is hurting him.

Tom Brady has an offensive line that is very average, and it is hurting him.

We have all seen what Brady can do if he has one out of those three supporting situations.

Thus, I don't agree with getting a QB at all costs, because if it costs too much then you can't support the investment.

Ugh, not this argument again.

The worst part of this thread is we've been having this discussion (QB vs. OT vs. Pass Rusher) for the 10, 11, 12 and 13 drafts. Yet, we couldn't manage one damn answer for any of those spots, free agency or drafts.

We actually didn't have this conversation in '10 because the perception was that the offensive line was good since Warner as well as Wells/THT had a great year. Next year the offensive line argument came up not coincidentally because the QB position completed imploded. That's the case here. We'll never have a good offense as long as scrubs like Palmer/Kolb/DA/etc are running it even if there were 5 Pro Bowlers across the front.

 

[gmabel830]

Can we just give Massie a chance to show what he's got first? Please, BA? He can't be any worse than the starters we've thrown out there so far.

The problem is that, IMO, our two best options at tackle are Massie and Winston. And, on the radio earlier in the week, BA said they are both strictly right tackles when asked about each of them. I think BA thinks that Winston isn't playing great, but not playing terrible -- so I wonder if Massie is going to get a chance to supplant him.

Meanwhile, that leaves Sowell and Potter as the only LT on the roster. Ugh!

Given that BA says that Massie can't play LT, I wonder if he'll even be around next year if the coaching staff doesn't see him as the starting RT going forward. You'd ideally want to have a guy capable of playing both positions as a backup.

 

[Russ Smith]

I've said this before but it always amazes me how on so many other NFL teams a guy goes down on the OL and someone slides over. RT's move to LT, T to guard etc.

And yet we seem to constantly have guys on our roster who can only play one spot? Winston played LT in college, i know he's been a RT in the NFL but is actually that hard for him to move over and play LT? Is he really going to be worse at LT than Sowell is? And if so, why do we constantly have these types on our roster?

 

[kerouac9]

I've said this before but it always amazes me how on so many other NFL teams a guy goes down on the OL and someone slides over. RT's move to LT, T to guard etc.

And yet we seem to constantly have guys on our roster who can only play one spot? Winston played LT in college, i know he's been a RT in the NFL but is actually that hard for him to move over and play LT? Is he really going to be worse at LT than Sowell is? And if so, why do we constantly have these types on our roster?

I don't know if it happens in-season as much as it sometimes happens in training camp (with other teams).

For us, I think it's hard for a guy like Eric Winston with 7 years in the NFL at RT, or a guy like Bobbie Massie with about as much between college and pro, to just switch over. It's easier to move inside to guard (or outside to tackle), because the muscle memory is largely the same.

When you're moving to the other side of the center, everything is suddenly reversed. Try writing with your opposite hand, or playing golf with your opposite hand. These guys get hundreds if not thousands of reps each preseason on one particular side of the line. Even the initial punch off the line is totally reversed, as well as how your weight is distributed, or whatever else.

 

[Russ Smith]

I don't know if it happens in-season as much as it sometimes happens in training camp (with other teams).

For us, I think it's hard for a guy like Eric Winston with 7 years in the NFL at RT, or a guy like Bobbie Massie with about as much between college and pro, to just switch over. It's easier to move inside to guard (or outside to tackle), because the muscle memory is largely the same.

When you're moving to the other side of the center, everything is suddenly reversed. Try writing with your opposite hand, or playing golf with your opposite hand. These guys get hundreds if not thousands of reps each preseason on one particular side of the line. Even the initial punch off the line is totally reversed, as well as how your weight is distributed, or whatever else.

I guess it's because I grew up watching the 49ers with Bobb McKittrick and it seemed every year they had injuries and just moved guys around and it always worked.

Obviously easier to do that with montana or Young at QB.

When we signed Winston, ESPN was reporting that Massie had practiced some at LT in offseason workouts. I couldn't tell if they meant before or after his rookie season? I'm assuming they meant after, and that's why Arians is so confident he can't play LT, they tried it. Just seems like Winston ought to be able to move over and do better than Sowell just because he's a better athlete and has started his entire NFL career.

We just always seem to have guys on our OL who can't play other positions.

 

[schutd]

not only that, but how important are LT versus. elite QBs.

Aaron Rodgers doesn't have a good LT. Offense is always good-great.

Peyton and Russel Wilson are both playing without their starting LT AND RT. Offenses are still elite.

Pittsburg's never had a great LT. Up until the last two years, Roth has always been good-great.

The Colts don't have a good LT and Luck takes a beating...and he's still elite and so is the offense.

I mean, even Jay Cutler, who's not great, but has had an awful O-line has still been decent and put up numbers.

Meanwhile, how much did Jake Long do for the myriad of Dolphins QBs who have been terrible since he was drafted/how did he help Sam Bradford? How has Joe Thomas helped push the Cleveland offense forward? These are two of the best LTs in football, but they make very little impact on the game because they've never had a QB who could take advantage of their skills.

Bottom line, IMO...a good O-line can't make a bad QB good, but a good QB can make a bad O-line better. As a Cardinals fan, if Kurt Warner wasn't proof of that, I don't what is.

Im in. Winner winner, chicken dinner!

 

[BACH]

I don't know if it happens in-season as much as it sometimes happens in training camp (with other teams).

For us, I think it's hard for a guy like Eric Winston with 7 years in the NFL at RT, or a guy like Bobbie Massie with about as much between college and pro, to just switch over. It's easier to move inside to guard (or outside to tackle), because the muscle memory is largely the same.

When you're moving to the other side of the center, everything is suddenly reversed. Try writing with your opposite hand, or playing golf with your opposite hand. These guys get hundreds if not thousands of reps each preseason on one particular side of the line. Even the initial punch off the line is totally reversed, as well as how your weight is distributed, or whatever else.

Well..

It's not that that difficult to change side in terms of footwork and hands. (speaking of experience) The issue is that you can't compare playing blindside with playing frontside tackle. The job is not the same - neither physically or mentally. Both spots obviuosly pass and run block the same percentage of plays, but the blindside tackle has to be much more focused on the pass. The frontside tackle usually has the TE lining up next to him, slowing down the passrush, but he also has the advantage that the QB can see and move around in the pocket based on the passrush coming from his side. The Blindside cannot.

 

[kerouac9]

Well..

It's not that that difficult to change side in terms of footwork and hands. (speaking of experience) The issue is that you can't compare playing blindside with playing frontside tackle. The job is not the same - neither physically or mentally. Both spots obviuosly pass and run block the same percentage of plays, but the blindside tackle has to be much more focused on the pass. The frontside tackle usually has the TE lining up next to him, slowing down the passrush, but he also has the advantage that the QB can see and move around in the pocket based on the passrush coming from his side. The Blindside cannot.

From Pro experience, or high school and some Div. 1 ball? Because the amount of reps that it takes to make that leap are probably double if not more, once you count minicamp, training camp, and a year of practices.

The opponents are often much more difficult on the left side, yes, but I think that the NFL is increasingly about specialization, and left/right tackles are increasingly specialized.

The Arizona Cardinals run off right-tackle more than just one or two teams in the NFL. I believe that's because (1) Paul Fanika can't pull left and (2) Bradley Sowell can't provide any push at the point of attack.

 

[Cardinal_Rule]

The only way I see this team having any sort of success immediately and over the long run is by drafting two OTs in the first two rounds. There are a lot of good ones available and it'd be really hard for the Cards to make a bad pick. I don't care who else is on the board, they need to build their offensive line now and stop putting a temporary band-aid on it year after year. I dont care what the other holes are on this team after this season and that includes QB. It feels like regardless of who is put at QB they will suck behind that dreadful line. Let's beef up our line in the draft and then see what we got at quarterback regardless of who it is now that they have a capable line blocking for them. Make it happen Keim!

I have been convinced of this since Plummer was the QB. I know they have tried, but until the line issues are fully handled they should be drafting at least 2 in the first 4 rounds. Whether they make it or not. I would say fork up for at least one stud FA if available, but they need to quit with the WR/RB bit until the line is premier. We need AT LEAST 2 exceptional line players if we ever want a running game and pass-pro can improve with experience.

Both the Niners and the Hags spent high picks on OLine players and wouldn't you know it? They run the ball. Heck, the Niners owe their entire recent success because of Iupati, Davis and Staley.