I'm sick of the Cardinal stereotypes

[gusmahler]

This is an offshoot of the Simmons thread. In the past three days, I've read three NFL previews that basically say the same thing: the Cardinals are going to suck. Reason: they've always sucked.

I HATE that reasoning. Those some people are picking the Bengals to make the playoffs. Do they realize that, from 98 to 02, the Bengals won 2, 4, 4, 6, and 2 games? Do they realize that the Panthers were a truly terrible team in 2001?

Of course not, they realize that what a team did in 2001 has no bearing on how a team will do in 2006. They don't give credit to the 49ers because they won 5 Super Bowls. They look at the talent (or lack thereof) on the team and evaluate them.

But too many pundits just say, "Cards? They always suck." Without giving us a fair shake.

I'll be so happy if the Cards prove them all wrong and make the playoffs this year.

 

[devilfan02]

Those stereotypes won't and shouldn't change until we prove something. Until then, the "Their gonna suck cause their the Cardinals" is justified. Other then the posters here, there aren't many Cardinal believers out there. Bottom line is when we start winning the respect will come. That's how it should be

 

[JPlay]

I remember the Bengals were overhyped two years ago and went 8-8. They were even worse than the CArds and ended up as a great team with arguably the best QB in the league. I can see the same for us. Going 8-8 with Warner, then letting Leinart take over to get over that hump.

 

[RedViper]

This is an offshoot of the Simmons thread. In the past three days, I've read three NFL previews that basically say the same thing: the Cardinals are going to suck. Reason: they've always sucked.

I HATE that reasoning. Those some people are picking the Bengals to make the playoffs. Do they realize that, from 98 to 02, the Bengals won 2, 4, 4, 6, and 2 games? Do they realize that the Panthers were a truly terrible team in 2001?

Of course not, they realize that what a team did in 2001 has no bearing on how a team will do in 2006. They don't give credit to the 49ers because they won 5 Super Bowls. They look at the talent (or lack thereof) on the team and evaluate them.

But too many pundits just say, "Cards? They always suck." Without giving us a fair shake.

I'll be so happy if the Cards prove them all wrong and make the playoffs this year.

Youre absolutely right. Most of these pundits are totally uncreative, unimaginitive. A big friggin bore. My prediction though; If the Cardinals breakthrough this year, these pundits are going to find some other way to tick you off. They won't get any better.

 

[JeffGollin]

Actions speak louder than words. I hope we speak loudly on Sunday.

 

[blindseyed]

I'm not sick of it at all. I LOVE it. I want every team to underestimate us and think we suck.It will make it that much sweeter to say "Told ya so" after the season and we're in the play-offs! (I hope)

 

[lobo]

Actions speak louder than words. I hope we speak loudly on Sunday.

most of us could do as well or better than most of the hacks who write or on the air...guys like phil simms tell it like it is and do a great analytical job of letting us know whats going on...most of the other guys are in it for a good meal...comments like the cardinals always suck are as insightful as the corned beef sandwich most of them are waiting for!!

 

[gusmahler]

most of us could do as well or better than most of the hacks who write or on the air...

Totally agree. I've seen more insightful analysis of the Cards on this board than I have anywhere else. That's the problem with the pundits. They are supposed to be experts on 32 teams, but most only seem to care about the good teams (or the local teams if they are local writers).

While I couldn't even try to make an insightful analysis of e.g., the Houston Texans, I also don't immediately say that they suck. I honestly say I don't know. But the pundits can't say that. So they say, "same old Cards."

It would actually be pretty cool if ESPN, for example, had an "expert" for each team. Somone like one of us: a fan of a particular team who knows the team very well. Problem is, that's supposed to the be the local writer's role. And I know what most of your guys's opinions of the AZ Republic writers are.

 

[Pariah]

Until we start winning, those attitudes are completely justified.

 

[Lloydian]

Until we start winning, those attitudes are completely justified.

Why bother predicting if you're not going to predict something before it happens?

One thing I hate is when commentators will throw out stupid statistics during games: "You know, when their running back runs for over 100 yards in a game, the team usually wins." Or one from the last basketball season where I heard that the Suns do extremely well when they score over 100 points, not so well when they don't. Or on a recent Diamondbacks game, I heard about teams that have their leadoff batter walk often score a run during that inning.

So let's add, if the Cardinals start winning, I think they won't be losing.

 

[Pariah]

Why bother predicting if you're not going to predict something before it happens?

Because you start to look folish after predicting the Cardinals will be good year after year and then it turns out that they stink year after year.

Or, to put it another way, if you want to be right in your predictions, you should probably predict the cards will be closer to 6 wins than 11--if you'd done that over the last 50 years your record would be pretty good.

I'll say it again, until the cards PROVE that they're a better team, the barbs in the media are completely justified.

 

[Russ Smith]

Because you start to look folish after predicting the Cardinals will be good year after year and then it turns out that they stink year after year.

Or, to put it another way, if you want to be right in your predictions, you should probably predict the cards will be closer to 6 wins than 11--if you'd done that over the last 50 years your record would be pretty good.

I'll say it again, until the cards PROVE that they're a better team, the barbs in the media are completely justified.

Especially in the national media. If a local writer predicts 11 wins we're not going to remember it other than to think hey he supports the Cards. If a national writer does it and we go 4-12, he's going to get blasted nationally the way we all rip Peter King for picking Plummer MVP 2 years in a row preseason.

If you're a national writer why in the world would you go out on a limb with a franchise that ALWAYS loses?

We need to win, even Green is saying it we can't keep saying we're turning things around, and then go 5-11, we have to win before the rest of the country is going to see what Cards fans are seeing.

 

[football karma]

I understand how history makes anyone leary of picking the Cardinals to do much -- (although, a fair number of national types are picking the Cardinals to do well -- Colin Cowherd, Marshall Faulk, Rod Woodson)

That being said, if you hold yourself out to be an NFL expert, I want insight. Its like a "stock market expert" waiting until a stock goes way up to tell us that its a good stock. Well no kidding.

If they wait until after the Cardinals go 10-6 to tell us they are a good team, well how much insight is that?

Another pet peeve is with the local media:

1. A whole bunch of them are picking 6 wins for this team. Are you kidding me? What they are saying is that this team is no better than last years team. Thats crazy.

2. "The Cardinals havent proven they can run the ball in the preseason", with its fraternal twin "Edge hasnt done anything in the preseason".

Its like the Chicago game never happened. In the so called "most important pre-season game", the Cards ran the ball very effectively with their second and third string running backs against most of Chicago's well regarded first string defense.

As for Edge, he has never done anything in preseason, and I would put more stock in six years of film showing what he can do.

While I dont think this proves conclusively that the Cards will have a great running game, it does make me think that it can be at least average, and with an average running game, the offense will be very, very potent.

 

[black]

If the Detroit Tigers can turn it around, so can the Cards. If the LA Clippers can turn it around, so can the Cards. If the Chicago Cubs can ......oops.(lol)



The stadium issue is finally solved and the Cards have more revenue now. Years of playing in another teams stadiums has hurt the Cards, and the Bidwills have taken alot of heat for our losses thoughout the years. I know a new stadium doesn't mean we're winners, but it sure couldn't hurt us.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Another pet peeve is with the local media:

1. A whole bunch of them are picking 6 wins for this team. Are you kidding me? What they are saying is that this team is no better than last years team. Thats crazy.

we won 5 games last year - 6 wins IS better than last year's team. Now you combine that with the fact that our O-line is STILL being re-arranged and THAT was THE biggest factor in us sucking last year, well, I can't slam people for believing at this point that things will be all that much different. The entire team depends on O-line play and we saw one somewhat decent half against the Bears - and THAT WAS IT for the entire pre-season. Not exactly a performance I'd hitch your wagon to and proclaim we're ready to roll.

I'm not sick of the stereotypes - I'm sick of the stereotypes BEING TRUE - hopefully that changes this season.

 

[Cheesebeef]

This is an offshoot of the Simmons thread. In the past three days, I've read three NFL previews that basically say the same thing: the Cardinals are going to suck. Reason: they've always sucked.

I HATE that reasoning. Those some people are picking the Bengals to make the playoffs. Do they realize that, from 98 to 02, the Bengals won 2, 4, 4, 6, and 2 games? Do they realize that the Panthers were a truly terrible team in 2001?

Of course not, they realize that what a team did in 2001 has no bearing on how a team will do in 2006. They don't give credit to the 49ers because they won 5 Super Bowls. They look at the talent (or lack thereof) on the team and evaluate them.

You do realize that the above post just completely proves your own theory WRONG. What the above shows is that the media DOES change it's perception and will give props to teams once they've actually accomplished something. The above shows that the media aren't stuck in the mud, but need to be given a reason, a helping hand if you will, from those previously woeful franchises to get out of the mud and that can only happen ON THE FIELD. We haven't done that yet - we had a pretty good offseason, but bottom line is that our greatest weakness - the O-LINE - STILL looks like our greatest weakness and until we prove otherwise on the field, there's no reason for the media to believe otherwise.

 

[Rats]

You do realize that the above post just completely proves your own theory WRONG. What the above shows is that the media DOES change it's perception and will give props to teams once they've actually accomplished something. The above shows that the media aren't stuck in the mud, but need to be given a reason, a helping hand if you will, from those previously woeful franchises to get out of the mud and that can only happen ON THE FIELD. We haven't done that yet - we had a pretty good offseason, but bottom line is that our greatest weakness - the O-LINE - STILL looks like our greatest weakness and until we prove otherwise on the field, there's no reason for the media to believe otherwise.

While I agree with you on this Cheese, I think that the Oline was made better by the additions we have made recently and the draft picks. The addition of the Edge also will make the line better. To say it is the same old Cards is just not correct. They have set about trying to fix there Oline problems with what has been available. We could have added Bentley in the offseason and look how that has turned out for the Browns. I think we are on the right track. The media should state that rather than there usual same old Cards routine.

 

[Cheesebeef]

While I agree with you on this Cheese, I think that the Oline was made better by the additions we have made recently and the draft picks. The addition of the Edge also will make the line better. To say it is the same old Cards is just not correct. They have set about trying to fix there Oline problems with what has been available. We could have added Bentley in the offseason and look how that has turned out for the Browns. I think we are on the right track. The media should state that rather than there usual same old Cards routine.

you know what the media sees? They see we already lost our starting RT and the only O-line addition came from an offensive line that was worst than ours. Most of the pundits all say Loney is a good coach, but he still needs the talent. And bottom line, until that O-line looks better on the field - and it hasn't save one okay half against Chicago - it's better to be safe than sorry.

No one's saying it's the same old Cards (except for guys like Simmons who aren't true analysts) - all over the board, the media expect improvement - just not the kind of improvement that most of the homers on this board ALWAYS DO.

 

[Duckjake]

the media expect improvement - just not the kind of improvement that most of the homers on this board ALWAYS DO.

We would be remiss in our duties as die hard Cardinal fans if we did otherwise.

However, even most of the die hards had no expectations for the 2003 team. That's the most negative I ever remember us homers being in preseason.

 

[Lloydian]

If the Cards don't win the division, they have not lived up to my expectations. This team is clearly better than St. Louis and San Francisco, and I don't see where claiming Seattle is better could be well supported. If a so called prognosticator sees the things that have changed with this team then calls them losers because they've always been losers, then that person has zero credibility to me.

Anyone who refuses to apply intelligent analysis should get out of the analysis business.

 

[gusmahler]

You do realize that the above post just completely proves your own theory WRONG. What the above shows is that the media DOES change it's perception and will give props to teams once they've actually accomplished something. The above shows that the media aren't stuck in the mud, but need to be given a reason, a helping hand if you will, from those previously woeful franchises to get out of the mud and that can only happen ON THE FIELD. We haven't done that yet - we had a pretty good offseason, but bottom line is that our greatest weakness - the O-LINE - STILL looks like our greatest weakness and until we prove otherwise on the field, there's no reason for the media to believe otherwise.

I have no problem with a pundit saying the "Cards will win 6 games because they have O-line problems." Or because we have special teams problems, or because we have a fragile QB and a rookie backup.

I do have a problem with a pundit saying "Cards will win 6 games because they are the Cards." And I've read several articles that say precisely that.

I was pointing out the double standard. "The Cards suck because they are the Cards. But we'll do a real evaluation of CIN and CAR even though they sucked in the past also."

 

[gusmahler]

One thing I hate is when commentators will throw out stupid statistics during games: "You know, when their running back runs for over 100 yards in a game, the team usually wins."

The one I hate is, "Team X hasn't won in {insert name of city} since 1999." I think it's irrelevant because most teams have had nearly complete turnover in their personnel since 1999. That kind of stat is relevant in baseball, where teams play each other a dozen times each year. But in football, where you may not play a team in years, such a stat is practically useless. Even intra-division, such a stat doesn't say much.