Kyler Murray, you will become a Cardinal. It is....

[HeHasRosen]

I agree with where youre coming from.. I'm not opposed to any of it. We have plenty of holes to fill and defense still most definitely gets ya championships. (I had that same fiery defensive mind set) So I get it. But, we can just diverge on opinions about this one because I see Murray being too dynamic to pass on. If he can provide half of what Russell Wilson can then it's still worth it for me.. but that's me.

I totally get that and respect your opinion. Im just not as high on RW as others i guess. He had a lot of help on that SB team from a great running game and the best D in the league. And he literally lost them the other SB with a stupid pass. Its fun and exciting to watch and can win you games off script at times. But it still hasn't been proven to have longevity in this league and win you rings.

One thing that remains the same in the NFL is that it has trends and they come and go. If the spread/air raid continues to be successful D's will be able to start figuring it out. I can argue BB already has. Can Murray adjust to a different O? Or can he only run that style offense? We don't know. I've just seen this movie to many times. Crazy athletic QB wins the heisman, balls out in college for a year, than completely flops in the NFL.

I still prefer the guy who can stand in the pocket and beat you with his mind. Read the D, know where your going with the ball before its snapped or where to check it down and hot routes. Those guys don't need great lines either because they get the ball out quickly.

Im not saying that is Rosen, but hes intelligent enough to have a shot at getting there.

 

[DVontel]

The thing about Krang & I is that we still think Rosen can be even good even though we’re pro-Kyler guys now instead of knocking every positive Rosen post down.

 

[dscher]

I totally get that and respect your opinion. Im just not as high on RW as others i guess. He had a lot of help on that SB team from a great running game and the best D in the league. And he literally lost them the other SB with a stupid pass. Its fun and exciting to watch and can win you games off script at times. But it still hasn't been proven to have longevity in this league and win you rings.

One thing that remains the same in the NFL is that it has trends and they come and go. If the spread/air raid continues to be successful D's will be able to start figuring it out. I can argue BB already has. Can Murray adjust to a different O? Or can he only run that style offense? We don't know. I've just seen this movie to many times. Crazy athletic QB wins the heisman, balls out in college for a year, than completely flops in the NFL.

I still prefer the guy who can stand in the pocket and beat you with his mind. Read the D, know where your going with the ball before its snapped or where to check it down and hot routes. Those guys don't need great lines either because they get the ball out quickly.

Im not saying that is Rosen, but hes intelligent enough to have a shot at getting there.

No doubt man. But as they say...change is inevitable. Things are always evolving and that's happening in the NFL as well. Baseball with analytics and small players like Mookie Betts. Putting up numbers that guy's twice his size produce, if they are lucky. Yes, small sample size..but perception is a lot to blame with small players not getting a shot. Just my opinion.

 

[juza76]

The thing about Krang & I is that we still think Rosen can be even good even though we’re pro-Kyler guys now instead of knocking every positive Rosen post down.

Right, if u can improve the most impactful position u do immediately

 

[juza76]

No doubt man. But as they say...change is inevitable. Things are always evolving and that's happening in the NFL as well. Baseball with analytics and small players like Mookie Betts. Putting up numbers that guy's twice his size produce, if they are lucky. Yes, small sample size..but perception is a lot to blame with small players not getting a shot. Just my opinion.

Agree, especially old school coaches like Arians, he still has the idea a qb must be 6'5 with stronger arm, finally this mentality will be wiped away

 

[b8rtm8nn]

Right, if u can improve the most impactful position u do immediately

The catch to this is that it isn’t just a player upgrade - we see that NOT work out more than it does every year in free agency. It’s really about a player being in the best situation in regards to team fit and coaching.

So it doesn’t matter if Murray or Rosen is statistically better, it is which one gives us the best chance to win under Kingsbury. I would put money that neither Roen nor Murray can transcend bad coaching - because both have shown the result (Rosen his entire career starting in college, Murray as a freshman). I am excited to see the result in September, regardless of the upcoming choices.

 

[dscher]

Agree, especially old school coaches like Arians, he still has the idea a qb must be 6'5 with stronger arm, finally this mentality will be wiped away

It's also not that one way is better or worse than the other.. the game is just getting bigger and more evolved. Sure, guys like Wilson and now Murray are changing the perceptions. That's regardless of whether you like them or not. It's evident through the fact it's even being mentioned in the media right now. Smokescreen or not..

 

[GuernseyCard]

No doubt man. But as they say...change is inevitable. Things are always evolving and that's happening in the NFL as well. Baseball with analytics and small players like Mookie Betts. Putting up numbers that guy's twice his size produce, if they are lucky. Yes, small sample size..but perception is a lot to blame with small players not getting a shot. Just my opinion.

Mookie Betts: 5'10" - 180
Hank Aaron: 6'00" - 180 - the true Homerun King (755)

 

[GuernseyCard]

Agree, especially old school coaches like Arians, he still has the idea a qb must be 6'5 with stronger arm, finally this mentality will be wiped away

One QB under 6 ft has won a Super Bowl in the last 20.

The short and mobile is the outlier and there's no suggestion that this is about to change.

 

[Krangodnzr]

One QB under 6 ft has won a Super Bowl in the last 20.

The short and mobile is the outlier and there's no suggestion that this is about to change.

The short and mobile havent been given a chance.

I'd agree with this take IF there were at least 10 starters during that time period under 6 feet...

But there has been ONE and he has one Super Bowl win and one loss.

So sub 6 feet QBs have a 50% win rate in Super Bowls.

 

[BW52]

The short and mobile havent been given a chance.

I'd agree with this take IF there were at least 10 starters during that time period under 6 feet...

But there has been ONE and he has one Super Bowl win and one loss.

So sub 6 feet QBs have a 50% win rate in Super Bowls.

Over 6 foot QBs have a 50% win rate also with a much larger sample size.

 

[DVontel]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Krangodnzr]

Over 6 foot QBs have a 50% win rate also with a much larger sample size.

LOL I was kidding, but my point is perfect counter point.

Only one sub 6 foot QB has started during that time frame and he has been to two Super Bowls.

 

[DVontel]

Right, if u can improve the most impactful position u do immediately

People also have to account for context when you haven’t.

 

[BW52]

LOL I was kidding, but my point is perfect counter point.

Only one sub 6 foot QB has started during that time frame and he has been to two Super Bowls.

Which IMO shows the lack of success of under 6 foot QBs in the NFL.
You are hoping for the exception rather than the rule.

 

[dscher]

One QB under 6 ft has won a Super Bowl in the last 20.

The short and mobile is the outlier and there's no suggestion that this is about to change.

The fact that it happened also suggests that it could happen again. Isnt that how change occurs in the first place...? Not getting off topic, but for the sake of example, is Trump not the perfect example of this? It becomes less about the history of things, but the breaking of that history. History doesn't repeat. It rhymes.

 

[OmahaCardsFan]

LOL I was kidding, but my point is perfect counter point.

Only one sub 6 foot QB has started during that time frame and he has been to two Super Bowls.

So I get this... over that time period we have a short QB sampling size of 1. And that 1 was a 100% hit rate. You nailed your point.

 

[GuernseyCard]

The fact that it happened also suggests that it could happen again. Isnt that how change occurs in the first place...? Not getting off topic, but for the sake of example, is Trump not the perfect example of this? It becomes less about the history of things, but the breaking of that history. History doesn't repeat. It rhymes.

There is no suggestion to be reached by one occurrence.

Yes, Trump rhymes with dump, which I'm about to have.

 

[dscher]

There is no suggestion to be reached by one occurrence.

Yes, Trump rhymes with dump, which I'm about to have.

Sure there is. Records and history are meant to be broken. So just because Russ Wilson is the exception to the rule, we can't ever think it can happen again?! Silly line of thinking. IMO But to each their own.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Sure there is. Records and history are meant to be broken. So just because Russ Wilson is the exception to the rule, we can't ever think it can happen again?! Silly line of thinking. IMO But to each their own.

Yes - it could happen again, but, at best the data says - once in the next 20 Super Bowls.

(There are no exceptions to rules. If there's an exception then it's not a rule).

If all rules have exceptions then even the rule that states that all rules have exceptions must have an exception, or the rule is proven false.

But if it does have an exception the rule is also proven false, because then there is a rule without an exception, which is what the rule is saying cannot exist.

 

[Jetstream Green]

Great discussion

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Krangodnzr]

Which IMO shows the lack of success of under 6 foot QBs in the NFL.
You are hoping for the exception rather than the rule.

They havent even been given a chance.

Your comment would be true if they had.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Great discussion

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

I disagree that the Cardinals are at a massive talent deficit.

They need another WR or two, an offensive lineman or two, and a defensive lineman or two.

 

[Jetstream Green]

I disagree that the Cardinals are at a massive talent deficit.

They need another WR or two, an offensive lineman or two, and a defensive lineman or two.

I agree but talent for a football team is also depth... funny though how Chandler Jones is always invisible when they talk about our talent and probably the most underrated player in the NFL

 

[BW52]

They havent even been given a chance.

Your comment would be true if they had.

And there is a reason there haven`t been a bunch of little short QBs in the NFL.Once again you are wanting the exception rather than the rule.