Kyle thinks we should beat Miami first, then consider becoming buyers at the trade deadline

[Stout]

I'd wager that Monti thinks the team is ahead of schedule and is looking at what happened when the Giants overextended themselves through a fluke playoff appearance. I also think he's very aware of what the Vikes have accomplished with a patient build.

4-4 is nice but it's probably a fluke result.

True, and there should be caution, of course. No one's advocating trading high picks--unless someone like Garrett becomes available. Trading 6ths for guys that might help the pass rush is doing nothing to overextend.

 

[BritCard]

True, and there should be caution, of course. No one's advocating trading high picks--unless someone like Garrett becomes available. Trading 6ths for guys that might help the pass rush is doing nothing to overextend.

For me all picks after round 4 are better spent on trades. What are the odds of getting a good starter after 4? Certainly for us, not great.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

We're in desperate need of above average starters, and we have a lot of young guys already. If you can get some great players whilst trading picks round 1-3, why not at this point? It's not like we're lacking in salary cap space. (Of course this is all predicated on them being under contract for several years)

 

[dreamcastrocks]

4-4 is nice but it's probably a fluke result.

I don't think that it is a fluke result. We were in a lot of close games last year and didn't figure out how to win them. This year we are. That shows more progress IMO than it being a fluke.

(I do find it weird that we are probably winning games that most of us thought we would lose, and losing games many thought we would win.)

 

[daves]

(I do find it weird that we are probably winning games that most of us thought we would lose, and losing games many thought we would win.)

Actually, that might simply be a matter of how the opponents were perceived at the time. The Cards have lost only to teams with 6 wins, and defeated every team with 4 or fewer wins.

 

[kerouac9]

I don't think that it is a fluke result. We were in a lot of close games last year and didn't figure out how to win them. This year we are. That shows more progress IMO than it being a fluke.

(I do find it weird that we are probably winning games that most of us thought we would lose, and losing games many thought we would win.)

I guess. This season we're 3-2 in games decided by seven points or less (essentially random results). Last year we were 2-5 in games decided by seven points or less. The signal that we're improving is that we're in more games that come down to the final drive on one side of the ball or the other. It shows that we're approaching being an average NFL team (we're 20th in DVOA right now).

The next step is creating more results that don't come down to the last drive. This is what good teams do. Three of the Lions' wins this year have been by more than seven points; they're one loss was by four. One reason to short Kansas City RN is they are 5-0 in games decided by a TD or less. They're likely to revert toward the mean in future games.

I don't put any stock in "learning to win" nonsense.

 

[Mark22]

Rashid Shaheed? signed through 2025. Saints, as usual, are wayyyyyy over the cap next year and may not be in position to extend him

Olave would instantly vault the WR corp up the charts -- Olave from pure experience would push existing WRs down one slot. Also signed through 2025 (the fifth year option -- so i suspect you would need to extend him)

Shaheed is out for the season

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I don't put any stock in "learning to win" nonsense.

I guess you don't put any stock in actual wins either...

There are a whole lot of factors, and a whole lot of skills that come into play when the games are close.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Actually, that might simply be a matter of how the opponents were perceived at the time. The Cards have lost only to teams with 6 wins, and defeated every team with 4 or fewer wins.

I mean, sure. But did anyone really expect SF (on the bad side) or Washington (on the good) to be where they are now?

 

[kerouac9]

I guess you don't put any stock in actual wins either...

There are a whole lot of factors, and a whole lot of skills that come into play when the games are close.

Nah. It's actually just luck, a bounce of the ball, a call from an official, etc., etc.

Arians' obscene winning percentage in one-score games was remarkable because it was so unusual, and over such a large sample size. Really good teams don't end up in one-score games, and usually hover around .500 in them.

 

[kerouac9]

I mean, sure. But did anyone really expect SF (on the bad side) or Washington (on the good) to be where they are now?

San Franciso is 4-4. They're 1-3 in games decided by a TD or less, despite their long list of injuries.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Nah. It's actually just luck, a bounce of the ball, a call from an official, etc., etc.

Arians' obscene winning percentage in one-score games was remarkable because it was so unusual, and over such a large sample size. Really good teams don't end up in one-score games, and usually hover around .500 in them.

Who's claiming this team is really good? 4-4 probably should be considered average.

To dismiss one score games out of hand seems wildly controversial. Since 2000, over half of the games played were one won by one score or less. Being good at this seems pretty important to me...

 

[602 Native]

Be prudent of course but if you could get a Garrett or Crosby then you see what you need to offer.

Adding some help on D plus getting Robinson back should help out tremendously with the rush and ultimately in coverage as well. I really don't see downside here with where we are.

Anyone else getting Dan Campbell vibes when it comes to this team and JG?

 

[kerouac9]

Being good at this seems pretty important to me...

The point is that no one is “good at this” and so you work to be involved in fewer one-score games.