IMO: Whisenhunt's "Impact Player" statement means immediate impact (No QB)

Cbus cardsfan

Back to Back ASFN FFL Champion
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
21,463
Reaction score
7,632
One question. How are the Cardinals going to be able to afford this? Gabbert will cost $30-50 million guaranteed. Bulger, if K9 is right, will cost another $10-12 million. Would the Cards be willing to invest that much money in one position? How big would the signing bonuses be? That money has to be paid right away. The Bidwills don't have the deep pockets of a Dan Snyder.
Marc Bulger signed a deal for 3.8 mill that could max out at 5.3 mill last year. I don't see what he did by not playing that would cause his salary to double this off season.
 

Brian

PANEM ET CIRCENSES
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Posts
8,022
Reaction score
280
Location
With the mob
I think Brooks Reed is being way overrated. People want to compare him to Clay Matthews and I think that is a long reach. Other than having long hair, there's nothing I see that compares to Matthews. He' not nearly as fluid or explosive as Matthews is. I'd take him in round 3. To me, he has Bobby Carpenter written all over him.

Agree to disagree. 17 sacks and 107 tackles. The guy is NOT overrated IMHO. He will never last to round 3. Hell, he may go in the first. Jets maybe.
 

Cbus cardsfan

Back to Back ASFN FFL Champion
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
21,463
Reaction score
7,632
Agree to disagree. 17 sacks and 107 tackles. The guy is NOT overrated IMHO. He will never last to round 3. Hell, he may go in the first. Jets maybe.
I agree he won't last until round 3. That's when I would take him. Another reason I am leery of him is because before the combine he was considered about a 3rd rounder. Guys who suddenly raise their stock because of combine workouts are risky to me.
 

Cardiac

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
12,062
Reaction score
3,329
One question. How are the Cardinals going to be able to afford this? Gabbert will cost $30-50 million guaranteed. Bulger, if K9 is right, will cost another $10-12 million. Would the Cards be willing to invest that much money in one position? How big would the signing bonuses be? That money has to be paid right away. The Bidwills don't have the deep pockets of a Dan Snyder.

The Bidwills don't have deep pockets but they did save a bunch of money last year. I also think they (Michael) knows that the QB position HAS to be fixed in the short and long term.

The bigger issue is that if we draft Gabbert will Bulger (or any FA vet QB) want to sign with us since he will have immediate expensive competition.

While were on the Bulger topic Mike Lombardi in an interview with Doug and Wolf said that he knows that Bulger wants to play for the Cards and he knows the Cards want him. This is the same Lombardi who called that ML would be cut last year.
 

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Conner
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
36,490
Reaction score
34,465
Location
Charlotte, NC
I think Brooks Reed is being way overrated. People want to compare him to Clay Matthews and I think that is a long reach. Other than having long hair, there's nothing I see that compares to Matthews. He' not nearly as fluid or explosive as Matthews is. I'd take him in round 3. To me, he has Bobby Carpenter written all over him.

Agreed.

I'm not impressed with Brooks Reed either, especially if we use a pick that's very close to being a late first rounder (#38). I'd rather take a player that belongs in the first who fell out. IMO taking Reed is a huge reach to fill a need, and Reed is more of a round three through round four guy.
 

Chopper0080

2021 - Prove It
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
28,283
Reaction score
40,297
Location
Colorado
I agree he won't last until round 3. That's when I would take him. Another reason I am leery of him is because before the combine he was considered about a 3rd rounder. Guys who suddenly raise their stock because of combine workouts are risky to me.

I like Brooks Reed, and think that he would be a great pick in the 2nd. A couple points of note, Brooks Reed was a projected 3rd rounder after a solid senior season that showed him playing in a two point stance and registering 6.5 sacks and 10 TFL. It was at the Senior Bowl that he stood out, and made scouts look back at his college film to see that he could be an impact edge player. Following that impressive display, Reed showed very good athleticism at the Combine which shot him up to the 2nd round.

As far as comparisons to Clay Matthews, they are pretty valid. One thing that you have to consider is that Reed has had more time starting at the collegiate level, though less of it as a stand-up outside linebacker. Clay had to focus putting on weight while Brooks Reed will have to work at slimming down to transition to a 3-4 OLB.

Bottom line is that like Clay, Brooks will have a transition to make from college to the pros. Also like Clay, Brooks seems to have a great work ethic and knowledge of the game, and will bring top effort to the field every play.

What I like best about Brooks Reed and what he would bring to the Cardinals is a toughness and leadership that I feel we lack. Brooks Reed is a guy who is relentless and will bring it every snap of every game. This is guy who no matter who the opponents is, Reed will come out of the tunnel ready for a knock down, drag out fight. This is precisely what this defense needs.
 

splitsecond

ASFN Addict
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Posts
5,582
Reaction score
1,536
Location
Chandler, AZ
I agree he won't last until round 3. That's when I would take him. Another reason I am leery of him is because before the combine he was considered about a 3rd rounder. Guys who suddenly raise their stock because of combine workouts are risky to me.

I watched every single game Brooks Reed played last year. He is the real deal. If he played in the Big Televenwelve you would be saying the same thing, almost guaranteed. When you think guys who will develop perfectly in the 3-4 zone blitz scheme, you need guys with extreme discipline, high motor, and athletic ability. Reed has all three. It is a bit of a stretch to take him at the top of the 2nd round, but not at the bottom of the second round. But our pick is at the top of the 2nd, and we need a pass rushing OLB. It is what it is.
 

Crazy Canuck

ASFN Icon
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
10,077
Reaction score
0
I watched every single game Brooks Reed played last year. He is the real deal. If he played in the Big Televenwelve you would be saying the same thing, almost guaranteed. When you think guys who will develop perfectly in the 3-4 zone blitz scheme, you need guys with extreme discipline, high motor, and athletic ability. Reed has all three. It is a bit of a stretch to take him at the top of the 2nd round, but not at the bottom of the second round. But our pick is at the top of the 2nd, and we need a pass rushing OLB. It is what it is.

Given what they say about Reed on the NFL Network it's highly doubtful he'll be around much beyond our 2nd round pick.
 

Redsz

We do this together
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Posts
4,875
Reaction score
2,393
Blaine Gabbert: I put him here just because of the position he plays. Very smart guy, but played in a spread system and will need a ton of work on learning to play under center. I really like Gabbert and would not be opposed to us taking him, but I don't think he meets the immediate impact criteria.

For that very reason I think he would be a strong fit here.

When we went to the Super Bowl we passed from the shotgun 68% of the time. I'd say we are the closest thing to a spread system in the NFL.
 

LoyaltyisaCurse

IF AND WHEN HEALTHY...
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Posts
53,873
Reaction score
19,668
Location
CA
I am not making a statement endorsing or not endorsing QBs, but don't the Cards basically run out of spread offense? So Gabbert or Newton would have to take 6 or 7 snaps under center each game...big deal IMO...

If Miller and Peterson are both off the board at #5 and Newton or Gabbert are there I think they have to take em...
 

Gee!

BirdGang
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Posts
26,222
Reaction score
25
Location
Gee From The G
Yep, me too. Then pray like hell Brooks Reed falls to the second. That kid is a beast.

I hope we get Miller but if we can get Peterson I wouldnt be upset at all.. And I have been looking over mocks to see if we could get Reed in the second cuz that would be a great 1,2 punch to start the draft.. Reed is a beast, been watching him for a few years now at UofA..
 

Gandhi

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Posts
2,018
Reaction score
2,863
Location
Denmark
I hope we get Miller but if we can get Peterson I wouldnt be upset at all.. And I have been looking over mocks to see if we could get Reed in the second cuz that would be a great 1,2 punch to start the draft.. Reed is a beast, been watching him for a few years now at UofA..

I think the value of Reed in the second is better than the value of Quinn in the first.

I've read more than one who believe that Reed will fall to the third round. I think that's hard to imagine.
 

DoTheDew

Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Posts
2,967
Reaction score
0
Immediate impact player simply means that he is an year 1 upgrade over anyone on your roster. Let's not forget just how bad we were at QB last year. Gabbert, Newton and probably some of the other QBs would be impact players on this roster unless you think Skelton is going to take a huge leap.

Immediate impact doesn't always mean no QB. Just look at the immediate impact Bradford had on the Rams last year. Or what Ryan had on the Falcons a few years back. It's been proven that rookie QBs can be immediate impact players if the position is bad enough.
 

NashDishesDimes

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Posts
1,872
Reaction score
627
If the Cardinals have any plans to take a QB via the draft, it's best to take one and get the process started.

If a first tier QB is available when you're drafting, then you take your shot if you like him. Later round guys work out sometimes but it's clear that in recent years it's been about the top 1 or 2 guys and then a huge risk with everyone else.

The Rams played this game for quite a few years passing on Ryan, Sanchez, Freeman, Flacco, etc. and look at the guys they got instead. Jason Smith(solid but at #2 overall?), Chris Long(also not bad but hardly the impact a #2 overall should have).

My point is, making the safe pick doesn't always mean getting an impact player from day 1. And it most certainly means setting back the process of developing a QB if you likely plan to have get one at some point anyway.

I think the Cardinals would be unwise to pass on Gabbart. Gabbert's 6'5", smart, clean personality, loves football, seems to fit what the Cardinals do and is highly marketable. Just can't ask for too much more than that when drafting a QB. That you could get at #5 in a QB hungry draft.

EXACTLY
 

LoyaltyisaCurse

IF AND WHEN HEALTHY...
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Posts
53,873
Reaction score
19,668
Location
CA
Here is an article from a couple of years ago from the Washington Post quoting Greg Cossell and how he thinks Spread System QBs fit in the NFL:

...Greg Cosell of NFL Films and ESPN's State Farm NFL Matchup remains unconvinced that Harrell, or any other straight spread quarterback, can break through the barriers. Cosell watches more coaches' tape than just about anyone who doesn't actually work for a team, and I have talked to him before about the difficulties in transitioning players from the spread to the NFL. At the Combine, I asked Cosell specifically about Harrell and what he said about the fact that the NFL might be implementing more spread-style formations, allowing players like Harrell to have a legitimate chance.

"To incorporate elements of the spread in the NFL on a somewhat consistent basis, you need a quarterback who is incredibly quick processing information," he said. "Particularly if you're talking about a true spread, where there are no tight ends, you have a short corner on both sides and defenses can get someone in clean to the quarterback. They can dictate where you throw the ball. See, that is ultimately the problem in the NFL with the spread, depending on when it's used. Now, if you use it somewhat proactively, I think you can be aggressive with it. But you'll see teams blitz spreads on third-and-9 and third-and-10, the ball comes out for a four-yard gain, and the team punts..."

..."The problem with spread quarterbacks is that they don't do two things which are part and parcel of NFL offenses -- three-step drops, and play action," Cosell said. "Play action, in particular, is criticaql in the NFL." Example: Alex Smith, the first overall draft pick in 2005, enjoyed great success with the shotgun under Urban Meyer at Utah, but struggled mightily with more traditional mechanics with the San Francisco 49ers...

...One player who did find instant success in the NFL after running a lot of shotgun in college was Joe Flacco, who came from Delaware and hit his mark right away with the Baltimore Ravens, Flacco was astoundingly comfortable and proficient with play action from his first preseason, though he didn't use it much in college, and I asked Cosell how Flacco found the password.

"That's why you have to watch each player individually before you make a projection," he said. "Flacco had a couple things going for him when I watched him on film. The arm strength was obvious, and that's a big difference between Flacco and Harrell. What Flacco showed at Delaware, and I know this because I saw it on film, was the ability to throw with timing and anticipation. What that means in simple terms is the ability to throw the ball before receivers come out of breaks. If you can't do that, you can't play quarterback in the NFL. If I don't see that on film (from Harrell), it becomes a significant projection. And I'm not sure you can teach that -- I think it's an instinct. After watching game tape for 20 years, I think that if you don't have the instinct to throw with timing and anticipation, you can't learn it at the NFL level..."

http://views.washingtonpost.com/the...ells-folly-the-spread-offense-in-the-nfl.html
 
Last edited:

LoyaltyisaCurse

IF AND WHEN HEALTHY...
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Posts
53,873
Reaction score
19,668
Location
CA
.

  • To incorporate elements of the spread in the NFL on a somewhat consistent basis, you need a quarterback who is incredibly quick processing information,"
  • The arm strength was obvious...
  • the ability to throw with timing and anticipation. What that means in simple terms is the ability to throw the ball before receivers come out of breaks.
  • I think that if you don't have the instinct to throw with timing and anticipation, you can't learn it at the NFL level..."
Now going on the bolded points from the WAPO article do any of the QBs in this draft (Newton, Gabbert,Locker,Ponder,Dalton,Kaepernick, Mallet, Stanzi, Yates) meet the "Flacco Criteria?"

Tobe clear: I am not saying they project for immediate success like Flacco...
 

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
38,391
Reaction score
29,775
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Marc Bulger signed a deal for 3.8 mill that could max out at 5.3 mill last year. I don't see what he did by not playing that would cause his salary to double this off season.

Because--like with the #7 situation--timing is everything. Last year Bulger was released after the draft when teams didn't have a quarterback need and Bulger wasn't sure he still wanted to be a starter anyway (this latter was reported by Jurecki). The market for Bulger just wasn't there.

Fast forward 15 months or so and you have a bunch of teams in desperate need of a starting quarterback and Marc Bulger being the "best" free agent option at the opening of free agency (Personally I believe that Alex Smith is the best, hence the quotation marks, but whatever).

You can't hire a starting QB for less than $8 million, and you're not going to get the top one in a free agent market for likely less than $10 million.

What Marc Bulger did this season was watch Alex Smith get benched, watch Kurt Warner retire, watch Brett Favre retire, watch Chad Henne regress, watch Carson Palmer self-immolate, watch Charlie Whitehurst not be good, watch Jimmy Clausen be Jimmy Clausen, etc., etc. Timing is everything.
 

Shane

Comin for you!
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
69,057
Reaction score
38,974
Location
Las Vegas
Because--like with the #7 situation--timing is everything. Last year Bulger was released after the draft when teams didn't have a quarterback need and Bulger wasn't sure he still wanted to be a starter anyway (this latter was reported by Jurecki). The market for Bulger just wasn't there.

Fast forward 15 months or so and you have a bunch of teams in desperate need of a starting quarterback and Marc Bulger being the "best" free agent option at the opening of free agency (Personally I believe that Alex Smith is the best, hence the quotation marks, but whatever).

You can't hire a starting QB for less than $8 million, and you're not going to get the top one in a free agent market for likely less than $10 million.

What Marc Bulger did this season was watch Alex Smith get benched, watch Kurt Warner retire, watch Brett Favre retire, watch Chad Henne regress, watch
Carson Palmer self-immolate, watch Charlie Whitehurst not be good, watch Jimmy Clausen be Jimmy Clausen, etc., etc. Timing is everything.


There is no way in hell Bulger sees 10 million per year. Unless he has playoff and SB bonuses he reaches. No way no how! If you think so I want some of what your smoking!
 

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
38,391
Reaction score
29,775
Location
Gilbert, AZ
There is no way in hell Bulger sees 10 million per year. Unless he has playoff and SB bonuses he reaches. No way no how! If you think so I want some of what your smoking!

We'll see. Derek Anderson got more than $8 million guaranteed as a starting quarterback last year for not even the whole season. Do you think that Marc Bulger is 20% better than Derek Anderson?
 

Cbus cardsfan

Back to Back ASFN FFL Champion
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
21,463
Reaction score
7,632
There is no way in hell Bulger sees 10 million per year. Unless he has playoff and SB bonuses he reaches. No way no how! If you think so I want some of what your smoking!
I agree. The only way he makes that much is if he hits incentives. Of course, you never know, and you have to factor in the Rod Graves effect, who inexplicably bid against himself last year to way overpay for Joey Porter.
 

Shane

Comin for you!
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
69,057
Reaction score
38,974
Location
Las Vegas
We'll see. Derek Anderson got more than $8 million guaranteed as a starting quarterback last year for not even the whole season. Do you think that Marc Bulger is 20% better than Derek Anderson?

No he didn't. He signed a 2 year 7.25 million dollar contract a little more than 3 million guaranteed. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5003121

He could get as much as 18 million total in added bonuses. I'm sure he may have hit a few of the bonuses last year. But none the less he wasn't guaranteed more than 8 million.
 

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
38,391
Reaction score
29,775
Location
Gilbert, AZ
No he didn't. He signed a 2 year 7.25 million dollar contract a little more than 3 million guaranteed. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5003121

He could get as much as 18 million total in added bonuses. I'm sure he may have hit a few of the bonuses last year. But none the less he wasn't guaranteed more than 8 million.

He was guaranteed with playing time incentives to make $8 million this year. Why do you assume that the bonuses have to do with Pro Bowl and Super Bowl appearances? Do you have any evidence to that effect?

The other question is why Marc Bulger would do the Arizona Cardinals a favor by accepting less money. He'll have starting opportunities elsewhere, even if he (reportedly) wants to play here. He knows that the Cards don't have a backup plan if Bulger doesn't decide to come; why would he take less than Derek Anderson to do so?
 

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
553,589
Posts
5,408,553
Members
6,319
Latest member
route66
Top