Jake Plummer was one win from the Super Bowl

[kerouac9]

http://home.earthlink.net/~ob1gui/nflsbar/nflrnk98.htm

1998 - Inside The Numbers
Tired of arguing about why your team is better or why some other team is overrated? Just how weak is the NFC West this year? Get all the facts you need on one concise sheet! A computer ranking of all the teams in the NFL based on performance AND strength of schedule and more...


A statistical analysis of the NFL with rankings based on team performance. Unlike most computer rankings, this chart takes ALL the following factors into account to produce an accurate ranking of true team strengths and weaknesses:

I don't know what all that was, but here's the article I was talking about.

1998 also brought us one of the greatest fluke teams of all time, the 1998 Arizona Cardinals, who went 9-7 despite getting outscored by their opponents 378-325. They rank 25th in DVOA below three different 4-12 teams. One of those teams is the St. Louis Rams, so we can finally answer the question: Was there any indication that the Rams were going to burst from out of nowhere to win the next year’s Super Bowl?

...

The 1998 Arizona Cardinals are discussed in depth in an essay in Pro Football Prospectus 2005, so I don’t want to write too much about them here. But they were a colossal fluke, despite the fact that they managed to win a playoff game in a huge upset over Dallas. The article in the book says the Cardinals were ranked 21st in DVOA for 1998, but since we turned in the final manuscript I fixed some mistakes in my 1998 data and the Cardinals now rank even lower, 25th. The Cardinals went 6-3 over their final nine games, but all six wins came against teams that were 6-10 or worse, and all six wins came by either two or three points. The next year, they were back to 6-10, and they haven’t been in the playoffs since.

Obviously, you'll have to drop by your nearest Barnes & Noble to read the full book article, but anyone who says that that 1998 team wasn't a total and silly fluke doesn't know what they're talking about. It was a cinderella season, and, possibly, one of the worst long-term things to happen to the franchise.

 

[CardShark]

I don't know what all that was, but here's the article I was talking about.



Obviously, you'll have to drop by your nearest Barnes & Noble to read the full book article, but anyone who says that that 1998 team wasn't a total and silly fluke doesn't know what they're talking about. It was a cinderella season, and, possibly, one of the worst long-term things to happen to the franchise.

It just goes to show you that it depends on how you look at the numbers. But the article you refer to seems to have some bias against the Cards, just like you. For you to say that the Cards '98 season was detrimental to the team in the long term was idiotic. It was a season that was a bright spot since the Cards moved here and really since Bill Bidwill has owned the team. It was the management of Bill Bidwill Jr. that was the worst thing for this team.

First he gave Jake a bigger contract than what he and his agent were even looking for. Then he refused to pay Lomas Brown left tackle money, citing he wouldn't give that much to a player that old. Who cares about his age if the player is getting the job done as he's supposed to. Jake even offered to take less money if it meant keeping the team intact. Then Jr. started letting key members of the team go ie.; Miller and Centers. Jr. could barely even negotiate without having Michael step in more and more as time went on. The other key components to the teams failures were injuries (including to Jake), poor free agency and draft decisions, poor coach hirings, the overall cheapness that the Cards exuded, and the inability to adapt to how things were done in the NFL.

If you remember the '99 season at all, Jake hurt his throwing hand, yet the coaches continued to let him play. Then he hurt his groin or leg, I can't remember. He should've been sidelined until he healed, but they were paying him so much money and was the biggest draw for the team that they weren't about to do that. This was also the year that Wadsworth was essentiallly lost. Swann was done in by injuries. Moore was lost in Minnesota as the headliner of all the players that were injured in a meaningless preseason game. This is the season that the Cards never recovered from. The Cards never had a receiving tandem like they had in '98 until they had Boldin and Fitzgerald.

As I recall, sports writers and prognosticators were expecting the Cards to be true contenders in this year. Usally when writers or the like are proven wrong they tend to get out the poison pen. That's more what I attribute to the slant from the source you provide.

 

[CardShark]

K9,
Why aren't you calling out the Vikings for having the 28th ranked strength of schedule in '98 or the Cowboys sitting at #30.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/sfn/sfnjs.htm

Jeff Sagarin's power ratings

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright (c) 1999. Jeff Sagarin. All rights reserved.

This output has three parts: (1) teams listed by RATING top-to-bottom; (2) DIVISION AVERAGES (listed top-to-bottom); (3) teams listed by DIVISION (listed in order within divisions)

The SCHEDULE ratings represent the average schedule difficulty faced by each team in the games that it's played so far. The schedule difficulty of a given game takes into account the rating of the opponent and the location of the game.

To make predictions for upcoming games, simply compare the RATINGS of the teams in question and allow an ADDITIONAL 3 points for the home team. Thus, for example, a HOME team with a rating of 27 would be favored by 5 points over a VISITING team having a rating of 25. Or a VISITING team with a rating of 24 would be favored by 7 points over a HOME team having a rating of 14.

NOTE: Use whatever home advantage is listed in the output below. In the example just above, a home edge of 3 was shown for illustrative purposes. The home edge will vary during the season.

The numbers to the right of a team's schedule strength are its rank of schedule - (in parentheses) - and its record versus teams in these rating's top 10 and top 16 respectively.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NFL 1998 through Sunday, January 31 (Final)

HOME ADVANTAGE= 3.91 RATING W L T SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10| VS top 16
1 Minnesota Vikings = 32.92 16 2 0 18.08( 28) 3 1 0| 7 2 0
2 Denver Broncos = 32.90 17 2 0 19.09( 24) 5 1 0| 10 1 0
3 Atlanta Falcons = 30.70 16 3 0 21.28( 9) 5 3 0| 7 3 0
4 New York Jets = 29.69 13 5 0 21.95( 7) 8 2 0| 11 2 0
5 San Francisco 49ers = 28.96 13 5 0 21.22( 10) 3 5 0| 5 5 0
6 Miami Dolphins = 25.59 11 7 0 22.80( 3) 4 7 0| 5 7 0
7 Jacksonville Jaguars = 24.25 12 6 0 19.81( 15) 2 4 0| 5 5 0
8 Buffalo Bills = 24.20 10 7 0 20.99( 11) 4 5 0| 5 5 0
9 Green Bay Packers = 24.12 11 6 0 19.45( 20) 1 3 0| 3 4 0
10 New England Patriots = 23.58 9 8 0 23.21( 1) 3 7 0| 6 7 0
HOME ADVANTAGE= 3.91 RATING W L T SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10| VS top 16
11 Dallas Cowboys = 21.61 10 7 0 17.81( 30) 0 2 0| 1 4 0
12 Seattle Seahawks = 20.64 8 8 0 18.94( 25) 0 3 0| 2 5 0
13 Tampa Bay Buccaneers = 19.82 8 8 0 19.50( 19) 2 3 0| 2 5 0
14 Tennessee Oilers = 19.62 8 8 0 19.19( 23) 1 5 0| 2 6 0
15 New Orleans Saints = 18.93 6 10 0 22.61( 4) 0 8 0| 2 8 0
16 Kansas City Chiefs = 18.60 7 9 0 20.40( 14) 0 5 0| 2 6 0
17 New York Giants = 18.58 8 8 0 19.28( 21) 1 3 0| 2 6 0
18 Oakland Raiders = 17.09 8 8 0 19.70( 16) 0 4 0| 3 6 0
19 Carolina Panthers = 16.88 4 12 0 22.56( 5) 0 8 0| 1 11 0
20 Arizona Cardinals = 16.79 10 8 0 17.93( 29) 0 1 0| 2 5 0
HOME ADVANTAGE= 3.91 RATING W L T SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10| VS top 16
21 Pittsburgh Steelers = 16.30 7 9 0 18.59( 27) 2 3 0| 4 6 0
22 St. Louis Rams = 15.68 4 12 0 22.94( 2) 3 6 0| 3 8 0
23 Detroit Lions = 15.09 5 11 0 20.78( 12) 1 6 0| 3 6 0
24 Chicago Bears = 14.62 4 12 0 21.46( 8) 0 6 0| 2 8 0
25 Washington Redskins = 14.60 6 10 0 19.59( 18) 0 3 0| 1 6 0
26 Baltimore Ravens = 14.47 6 10 0 18.64( 26) 1 4 0| 1 6 0
27 Indianapolis Colts = 12.84 3 13 0 22.43( 6) 1 9 0| 1 11 0
28 San Diego Chargers = 12.82 5 11 0 19.27( 22) 1 2 0| 3 5 0
29 Cincinnati Bengals = 9.39 3 13 0 20.52( 13) 0 6 0| 0 9 0
30 Philadelphia Eagles = 8.72 3 13 0 19.61( 17) 0 3 0| 0 7 0
Divisional rankings
DIVISION RATING TEAMS

1 (afc east) = 23.18 5
2 (NFC WEST) = 22.23 5
3 (NFC CENTRAL) = 21.32 5
4 (afc west) = 20.41 5
5 (afc central) = 16.81 5
6 (NFC EAST) = 16.06 5
By Division
NFC East
Rating: 16.06

HOME ADVANTAGE= 3.91 RATING W L T SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10| VS top 16
11 Dallas Cowboys = 21.61 10 7 0 17.81( 30) 0 2 0| 1 4 0
17 New York Giants = 18.58 8 8 0 19.28( 21) 1 3 0| 2 6 0
20 Arizona Cardinals = 16.79 10 8 0 17.93( 29) 0 1 0| 2 5 0
25 Washington Redskins = 14.60 6 10 0 19.59( 18) 0 3 0| 1 6 0
30 Philadelphia Eagles = 8.72 3 13 0 19.61( 17) 0 3 0| 0 7 0
NFC Central
Rating: 21.32

HOME ADVANTAGE= 3.91 RATING W L T SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10| VS top 16
1 Minnesota Vikings = 32.92 16 2 0 18.08( 28) 3 1 0| 7 2 0
9 Green Bay Packers = 24.12 11 6 0 19.45( 20) 1 3 0| 3 4 0
13 Tampa Bay Buccaneers = 19.82 8 8 0 19.50( 19) 2 3 0| 2 5 0
23 Detroit Lions = 15.09 5 11 0 20.78( 12) 1 6 0| 3 6 0
24 Chicago Bears = 14.62 4 12 0 21.46( 8) 0 6 0| 2 8 0
NFC West
Rating: 22.23

HOME ADVANTAGE= 3.91 RATING W L T SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10| VS top 16
3 Atlanta Falcons = 30.70 16 3 0 21.28( 9) 5 3 0| 7 3 0
5 San Francisco 49ers = 28.96 13 5 0 21.22( 10) 3 5 0| 5 5 0
15 New Orleans Saints = 18.93 6 10 0 22.61( 4) 0 8 0| 2 8 0
19 Carolina Panthers = 16.88 4 12 0 22.56( 5) 0 8 0| 1 11 0
22 St. Louis Rams = 15.68 4 12 0 22.94( 2) 3 6 0| 3 8 0
AFC East
Rating: 23.18

HOME ADVANTAGE= 3.91 RATING W L T SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10| VS top 16
4 New York Jets = 29.69 13 5 0 21.95( 7) 8 2 0| 11 2 0
6 Miami Dolphins = 25.59 11 7 0 22.80( 3) 4 7 0| 5 7 0
8 Buffalo Bills = 24.20 10 7 0 20.99( 11) 4 5 0| 5 5 0
10 New England Patriots = 23.58 9 8 0 23.21( 1) 3 7 0| 6 7 0
27 Indianapolis Colts = 12.84 3 13 0 22.43( 6) 1 9 0| 1 11 0
AFC Central
Rating: 16.81

HOME ADVANTAGE= 3.91 RATING W L T SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10| VS top 16
7 Jacksonville Jaguars = 24.25 12 6 0 19.81( 15) 2 4 0| 5 5 0
14 Tennessee Oilers = 19.62 8 8 0 19.19( 23) 1 5 0| 2 6 0
21 Pittsburgh Steelers = 16.30 7 9 0 18.59( 27) 2 3 0| 4 6 0
26 Baltimore Ravens = 14.47 6 10 0 18.64( 26) 1 4 0| 1 6 0
29 Cincinnati Bengals = 9.39 3 13 0 20.52( 13) 0 6 0| 0 9 0
AFC West
Rating: 20.41

HOME ADVANTAGE= 3.91 RATING W L T SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10| VS top 16
3 Denver Broncos = 31.73 16 2 0 18.33( 27) 4 1 0| 7 2 0
12 Seattle Seahawks = 20.41 8 8 0 18.70( 24) 0 3 0| 1 4 0
17 Kansas City Chiefs = 18.39 7 9 0 20.16( 14) 0 5 0| 2 7 0
19 Oakland Raiders = 16.88 8 8 0 19.45( 20) 0 4 0| 4 4 0
28 San Diego Chargers = 12.62 5 11 0 19.02( 23) 1 2 0| 2 5 0

 

[CardShark]

Plummer outscored everyone (21 td's) and, at YPC, outrushed everyone. Don't forget that Plummer was essentially a rookie QB.

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/1998-arz

1998 Arizona Cardinals Stats

Passing Comp Att Comp % Yds Y/Att TD Int Rating
Jake Plummer 324 547 59.2 3737 6.83 17 20 75.0
Dave Brown 2 5 40.0 31 6.20 0 0 61.2

Rushing Rush Yds Avg TD
Adrian Murrell 274 1042 3.8 8
Jake Plummer 51 217 4.3 4
Mario Bates 60 185 3.1 6
Larry Centers 31 110 3.5 0
Michael Pittman 29 91 3.1 0
Dave Brown 1 2 2.0 0
Frank Sanders 4 0 0.0 0

Receiving Rec Yds Avg TD
Frank Sanders 89 1145 12.9 3
Larry Centers 69 559 8.1 2
Rob Moore 67 982 14.7 5
Eric Metcalf 31 324 10.5 0
Johnny McWilliams 26 284 10.9 4
Chris Gedney 22 271 12.3 1
Adrian Murrell 18 169 9.4 2
Fred Brock 2 12 6.0 0
Mario Bates 1 14 14.0 0
Ronnie Anderson 1 8 8.0 0

Kick Returns Ret Yds Avg TD
Eric Metcalf 57 1218 21.4 0
Michael Pittman 4 84 21.0 0
Chris Gedney 2 12 6.0 0

Punt Returns Ret Yds Avg TD
Eric Metcalf 43 295 6.9 0

Punting Punts Yds Avg Blocked
Scott Player 81 3378 41.7 1

Kicking PAT
Made PAT
Att PAT
% FG
Made FG
Att FG
% Pts
Joe Nedney 30 30 100 13 19 68.4 69
Chris Jacke 6 6 100 10 14 71.4 36

Interceptions Int Yds Avg TD
Kwamie Lassiter 8 80 10.0 0
Ronald McKinnon 5 25 5.0 0
Tommy Bennett 2 100 50.0 1
Corey Chavous 2 0 0.0 0
Aeneas Williams 1 15 15.0 0
Tony McCombs 1 14 14.0 0
J. J. McCleskey 1 1 1.0 0

Sacks No.
Simeon Rice 10.0
Mark Smith 9.0
Andre Wadsworth 5.0
Eric Swann 4.0
Jamir Miller 3.0
Ronald McKinnon 2.0
Patrick Sapp 1.0
Aeneas Williams 1.0
Mark Maddox 1.0
Pat Tillman 1.0
Tom Knight 1.0
Bernard Wilson 1.0

 

[CardShark]

K9,

The area where you can call th '98 season a fluke is that the Cards were outscored over the course of the season. Yet they did outscore 9 teams to get into the playoffs and beat a 10-6 team in the Dallas Cowboys when they got there.

I think they did pretty good for a team with a second year QB in his first full year taking snaps. He did manage to complete nearly 60% of his passes. They probably would have done even better if they had a healthy Eric Swann. That would have been a dominating defense.

 

[Russ Smith]

It just goes to show you that it depends on how you look at the numbers. But the article you refer to seems to have some bias against the Cards, just like you. For you to say that the Cards '98 season was detrimental to the team in the long term was idiotic. It was a season that was a bright spot since the Cards moved here and really since Bill Bidwill has owned the team. It was the management of Bill Bidwill Jr. that was the worst thing for this team.

First he gave Jake a bigger contract than what he and his agent were even looking for. Then he refused to pay Lomas Brown left tackle money, citing he wouldn't give that much to a player that old. Who cares about his age if the player is getting the job done as he's supposed to. Jake even offered to take less money if it meant keeping the team intact. Then Jr. started letting key members of the team go ie.; Miller and Centers. Jr. could barely even negotiate without having Michael step in more and more as time went on. The other key components to the teams failures were injuries (including to Jake), poor free agency and draft decisions, poor coach hirings, the overall cheapness that the Cards exuded, and the inability to adapt to how things were done in the NFL.

I wouldn't agree that the season was detrimental, it was great as a fan to see the first real playoff games since '75. But I can see the logic in that winning that year created a huge money problem for the Cards that contributed to the downfall of that team.

It's a complete myth that Jake didn't seek as much money as the Cards gave him. Complete fabrication. That year before the Raiders game the rumor broke that we were about to sign Jake to an extension, the numbers thrown about were good, but not huge. Jake went out and singlehandedly lost the Raiders game, and not long after we were told that Jake and his agent called off talks until after the season because Jake wanted to concentrate on a playoff run for the team. Of course they actually continued to negotiate and wound up getting more than twice what the rumored contract had been prior to the Raider game. Steinberg did say that Jake wasn't all that involved in the numbers but Steinberg certainly was. He was an agent, you can't seriously think they came in asking for X and Bidwill said here's X +10?

Saying Jake offered to take less money to keep the team intact is flat out wrong, it was Jake's contract, mainly the bonus, that broke the team up. Miller, Brown and Centers all expected to be overpaid as well, and the Cards at that time couldn't come up with enough cash to give all 3 signing bonuses, and sign two first round picks(boston and shelton). Even after losing all 3 UFA's Shelton signed late because we waited until the tv money came in to up his bonus offer on his contract. Jake signed his contract in December, you really expect people to believe a couple of months later he was offering to renegotiate it? First off I don't even think that's legal under NFL rules. Jake offered SEVERAL years later, that he had told the Cards he was willing to alter his contract to help them, of course that meant extend my contract, give me another bonus, and I'll lower my current caphit. That was well after '98.

Injuries absolutely hurt that team in '99 the DL had Swann, Wadsworth and Smith all hurt. Jake had the thumb injury early on and then later hurt his hand on the Washington LB's facemask and missed 4 games. Moore was a huge loss, Boston had to play right away and wasn't immediately ready.

The reality is the '98 team had an incredibly weak schedule, we didn't beat a single team all year that finished with a winning record, until Dallas in the playoffs. We got outscored for the year. We had an extremely high turnover rate(thanks to Jake) but we forced so many on defense we came out ahead.

People want to claim that Jake carried a mediocre team to the playoffs that year, it's just not true, for much of that year the team was carrying him. The defense won the playoff game, and then Jake had a complete first half meltdown in the loss to Dennis Green's Vikings.

He's a completely different player now. And by the way, the guy had started 9 games and thrown 296 passes in his rookie year, it's a bit silly to say he was basically a rookie in '98. Young and inexperienced yes, a rookie no, he played more than most rookie QB's do.

 

[Duckjake]

K9,

The area where you can call th '98 season a fluke is that the Cards were outscored over the course of the season. Yet they did outscore 9 teams to get into the playoffs and beat a 10-6 team in the Dallas Cowboys when they got there.

I think they did pretty good for a team with a second year QB in his first full year taking snaps. He did manage to complete nearly 60% of his passes. They probably would have done even better if they had a healthy Eric Swann. That would have been a dominating defense.

The point for/against in 1998 is further skewed by the two opening losses to Dallas and Seattle where the Cards were outscored 71-24. They also lost to NYG 34-7. For the other 13 games the Cards were ahead 294-273. Of course that information is meaningless as the 1993 Cards outscored their opponents 326-269 and finished 7-9.

To me the more k9 bashes the '98 Cards team the more it proves how instrumental Plummer's "magic" was in engineering that Cinderella season.

 

[Rivercard]

1998 was a cinderella season, and, possibly, one of the worst long-term things to happen to the franchise.

This has to be the goofiest post I've seen in a long time. The only successful season in recent memory we've gotten to enjoy as fans has now been labeled as one of the worst things to ever happen.

 

[Russ Smith]

The point for/against in 1998 is further skewed by the two opening losses to Dallas and Seattle where the Cards were outscored 71-24. They also lost to NYG 34-7. For the other 13 games the Cards were ahead 294-273. Of course that information is meaningless as the 1993 Cards outscored their opponents 326-269 and finished 7-9.

To me the more k9 bashes the '98 Cards team the more it proves how instrumental Plummer's "magic" was in engineering that Cinderella season.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that the 3 big losses were to 10-6 Dallas, and 8-8 Seattle and NYG, and that we didn't beat a single team all regular season that had a winning record?

We lost twice to Dallas, twice to NYG, lost to 7-9 KC. So the best teams beat us, mostly easily.

We beat Philly(3 wins) twice, Rams(4 wins), Bears(4 wins) Detroit(5 wins) Washington (6 wins) twice, New Orleans(6 wins) and San Diego(5 wins). That's 6 of our 9 wins that year over teams with 5 wins or less, and 9 of our 9 wins that year over teams with 6 wins or less.

We beat a lot of bad teams, usually by less than a TD.

The Seattle game was the classic example of the idea Jake was winning games single handedly being wrong. We lost 33-14, Jake threw 2 picks that Springs returned for TD's, and lost 2 fumbles that set up 2 FG's. Take away the 20 points he gave them and we won the game by 1 point, assume we score even once in those 4 lost possessions and we win by more.

It was a hell of a good year to watch as a fan because the games were so close and we won, but it was misleading. The team had a chance to get better fast, 2 high picks, young nucleus, but injuries and players leaving tore it apart.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

The point for/against in 1998 is further skewed by the two opening losses to Dallas and Seattle where the Cards were outscored 71-24. They also lost to NYG 34-7. For the other 13 games the Cards were ahead 294-273. Of course that information is meaningless as the 1993 Cards outscored their opponents 326-269 and finished 7-9.

And many would argue that the '93 team was likely better than the '97 team but had much worse luck.


When looking at the 1997 Cardinals you can't take out the first two games of the season as if they are meaningless. That would be like me taking two wins out out of the equation to come up with a worse points scored/allowed ratio.

 

[Russ Smith]

And many would argue that the '93 team was likely better than the '97 team but had much worse luck.


When looking at the 1997 Cardinals you can't take out the first two games of the season as if they are meaningless. That would be like me taking two wins out out of the equation to come up with a worse points scored/allowed ratio.

The other problem is that 93 makes perfect sense when you look at who we lost to. Dallas twice (12 wins), NYG(11 wins), Philly(8 wins), Detroit(10 wins)twice, SF(10 wins), NO (8 wins). We had 2 bad losses to NE(5 wins) and Washington(4 wins).

We lost a bunch of close games to good teams, and beat several bad teams by large margins(washington by 30, Rams by 28).

That was another year where the final record was a quirk because we had an abnormally difficult schedule that year. 8 losses to teams with at least 8 wins, 6 to teams with 10 more wins.

 

[NEZCardsfan]

The 1993 team was the reason I got Cardinals season tickets. I continue to say that this is the best team in Arizona. We were on the track to several playoff appearances if Bidwill wouldn't have fired Bidwill and hired Buddy Ryan.



At the time, I thought that Buddy would be the coach to get the D over the top. I thought he'd be wise enough to leave the Offense alone. I was just a stupid teenager.

 

[Redheart]

... if Bidwill wouldn't have fired Bidwill ....

You ment Bugel...but for a second there I thought "that would have been a good kill", at least in '93.

I would not say that about the owner in 2006; I like the "young lion", Mike.

 

[Duckjake]

Doesn't it seem odd to you that the 3 big losses were to 10-6 Dallas, and 8-8 Seattle and NYG, and that we didn't beat a single team all regular season that had a winning record?

We lost twice to Dallas, twice to NYG, lost to 7-9 KC. So the best teams beat us, mostly easily.

We beat Philly(3 wins) twice, Rams(4 wins), Bears(4 wins) Detroit(5 wins) Washington (6 wins) twice, New Orleans(6 wins) and San Diego(5 wins). That's 6 of our 9 wins that year over teams with 5 wins or less, and 9 of our 9 wins that year over teams with 6 wins or less.

We beat a lot of bad teams, usually by less than a TD.

The Seattle game was the classic example of the idea Jake was winning games single handedly being wrong. We lost 33-14, Jake threw 2 picks that Springs returned for TD's, and lost 2 fumbles that set up 2 FG's. Take away the 20 points he gave them and we won the game by 1 point, assume we score even once in those 4 lost possessions and we win by more.

It was a hell of a good year to watch as a fan because the games were so close and we won, but it was misleading. The team had a chance to get better fast, 2 high picks, young nucleus, but injuries and players leaving tore it apart.

Are you kidding? How does losing to Seattle in week two relate to beating teams in week 13?

 

[Russ Smith]

Are you kidding? How does losing to Seattle in week two relate to beating teams in week 13?

Because if he wasn't giving away games early in the season, we might have had more margin for error later in the year?

ANyways, we lost to KC in week 13, I can't be bothered to look up Jake's stats in the game but he didn't win a game that week.

 

[Duckjake]

Because if he wasn't giving away games early in the season, we might have had more margin for error later in the year?

ANyways, we lost to KC in week 13, I can't be bothered to look up Jake's stats in the game but he didn't win a game that week.

OK, so if Jake sucked so bad how did the Cards manage to win enough games to make the playoffs? Oh, I know, the other teams, knowing that the Cards had the easiest schedule in NFL history, rolled over and played dead.

 

[kerouac9]

OK, so if Jake sucked so bad how did the Cards manage to win enough games to make the playoffs? Oh, I know, the other teams, knowing that the Cards had the easiest schedule in NFL history, rolled over and played dead.

They didn't have to. They stank. The last six teams we played all had 6-10 records or worse and we still just barely beat them. That's not being dominant. That's not being good. That's lucking into a quirky schedule where you don't have to play anyone good in the last three-eigths of the season.

That season was a fluke not because the Cards were good, but because we won despite being bad. We won desipte Jake giving away points in bunches. That team wasn't good because they didn't beat anyone good.

 

[Russ Smith]

OK, so if Jake sucked so bad how did the Cards manage to win enough games to make the playoffs? Oh, I know, the other teams, knowing that the Cards had the easiest schedule in NFL history, rolled over and played dead.

we beat 9 teams with 6 wins or less, that's how.

The team didn't suck, the team was pretty good, the defense forced a ton of turnovers, we had Moore and Sanders, Murrell was decent. We even could throw the ball the problem was we turned it over so much.

Defense beat Dallas, and then Minnesota's defense exposed Jake bigtime while their offense scored at will and blew us out.

 

[Redheart]

is not
is too
is not
is too
is not
is too
....

 

[Crimson Warrior]

we beat 9 teams with 6 wins or less, that's how.

The team didn't suck, the team was pretty good, the defense forced a ton of turnovers, we had Moore and Sanders, Murrell was decent. We even could throw the ball the problem was we turned it over so much.

Defense beat Dallas, and then Minnesota's defense exposed Jake bigtime while their offense scored at will and blew us out.

Only one thing wrong with your and K9s argument.

If we were such a bad team, we never would have won the road playoff game vs. Dallas.

 

[AZBALLER]

The Cardinals have 1 good year out of 50, and "fans" only rip on the players from that team

 

[Russ Smith]

Only one thing wrong with your and K9s argument.

If we were such a bad team, we never would have won the road playoff game vs. Dallas.

We weren't a bad team, if Jake had been more experienced and less TO prone, we would have won 11 or 12 games with that schedule. We beat Dallas largely on defense, shut them out until late in the game. IIRC Jake had 1 TO or less in that game.

I'm not saying that team didn't have talent, I'm just saying given the schedule and how many turnovers our defense forced, it's amazing we only won 9 games.

That was not a bad team by any stretch, all I'm disputing is Duckjake's comment that we would have won 3 games if not for Jake. We won a series of close games against bad teams and in many cases had to come back because Jake started slowly that whole year.

 

[Crimson Warrior]

We weren't a bad team, if Jake had been more experienced and less TO prone, we would have won 11 or 12 games with that schedule. We beat Dallas largely on defense, shut them out until late in the game. IIRC Jake had 1 TO or less in that game.

I'm not saying that team didn't have talent, I'm just saying given the schedule and how many turnovers our defense forced, it's amazing we only won 9 games.

That was not a bad team by any stretch, all I'm disputing is Duckjake's comment that we would have won 3 games if not for Jake. We won a series of close games against bad teams and in many cases had to come back because Jake started slowly that whole year.

Oh. Well, no I don't agree with that either. Although, I would say that Jake's will to win served that team well.

But a lot of QBs could have led that team to 9-7.

K9, however, is out of line as usual, suggesting that team lacked talent, or didn't play well as a unit.

Agree that they shouldn't be compared with the 85' Bears though.

coaching might have been a little suspect.

 

[Duckjake]

That was not a bad team by any stretch, all I'm disputing is Duckjake's comment that we would have won 3 games if not for Jake. We won a series of close games against bad teams and in many cases had to come back because Jake started slowly that whole year.
__________________

The thing is they DID come from behind. And it was mostly Plummer's ability to make something out of nothing that got those games back.

Now using the same reasoning that says the 1998 team was way overrated and lucky you have to say the 2005 team was one of the best ever. Decent rankings in both offense and defense AND had the ball with a chance to win in the 4th quarter against Carolina, Jacksonville, Washington and Indianapolis. 7 of their 10 losses came against playoff teams.

However I'll take 1998 results over 2005 results any day.

 

[Russ Smith]

The thing is they DID come from behind. And it was mostly Plummer's ability to make something out of nothing that got those games back.

.

Looks like he's going to have to do it again today, 10-0 Pittsburgh start of the 2nd quarter.

So far Jake has looked pretty good, he got rocked on the fumble, and his first 3rd down pass was into triple coverage, but he looks ok. Ben got away with a bad throw Bailey nearly picked, but has otherwise looked brilliant, he's been on the money with just about everything.

Looks like it's going to be a pretty good game.