Let’s Talk About Lamb

[Solar7]

4 WRs is not the Cardinals' base offense and will get Kyler killed if it was.

Kliff realized he can't run it that way. Idiotic to take Lamb or Ruggs or whoever at WR. Kyler is gonna have to count to one Mississippi and throw the ball.

 

[DevonCardsFan]

4 WRs is not the Cardinals' base offense and will get Kyler killed if it was.

Kliff realized he can't run it that way. Idiotic to take Lamb or Ruggs or whoever at WR. Kyler is gonna have to count to one Mississippi and throw the ball.

Lol I just posted there 2 base offenses were 3 WR and a TE 376 times and 4 WRs 326 , the same amount it's not an opinion. If they had 4 WRs of that Caliber it's their base. You keep not factoring in they run the spread offense, these are facts not opinions to debate.

• They ran 376 plays with three receivers on the field. They ran 326 with four receivers.
• Their most common personnel was “11” personnel, with one back, one tight end and three receivers. They ran 346 plays that way.
• They ran “10” personnel 317 times, their next most common personnel grouping on offense. The other nine plays with four wideouts were with no running back and a tight end with the four receivers.

 

[DVontel]

Lol I just posted there 2 base offenses were 3 WR and a TE 376 times and 4 WRs 326 , the same amount it's not an opinion. If they had 4 WRs of that Caliber it's their base. You keep not factoring in they run the spread offense, these are facts not opinions to debate.

• They ran 376 plays with three receivers on the field. They ran 326 with four receivers.
• Their most common personnel was “11” personnel, with one back, one tight end and three receivers. They ran 346 plays that way.
• They ran “10” personnel 317 times, their next most common personnel grouping on offense. The other nine plays with four wideouts were with no running back and a tight end with the four receivers.

I’m curious on what these statistics look like after the 1st Seattle game where there was a clear scheme change.

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

Does anyone have YPC numbers and/or run success % #s for running plays out of various formations?

My recollection was that the running game was more effective out of 10 personnel even after the scheme shift that occurred during the first Seattle game.

In my opinion, the two best deterrents to a team keying on and pressuring Kyler are (1) a strong read-option run game that pins the DL down and minimizes blitz risk; (2) WRs that have elite separation ability strength/quickness to get open off the line, and speed to punish/minimize press coverage.

If these premises are true, then Jeudy/Ruggs/Lamb might be a better choice than Wills/Thomas/Wirfs/Becton. I do think that either category (WR/OL) are both helpful for protecting Kyler and both appear to contain multiple high value players.

 

[DevonCardsFan]

I’m curious on what these statistics look like after the 1st Seattle game where there was a clear scheme change.

It came from here I am too, I know we have heard KK say he was limited by lack of Wrs and wanted more 5 WRs ran

https://cardswire.usatoday.com/2020/02/09/arizona-cardinals-offense-personnel/

 

[DVontel]

It came from here I am too, I know we have heard KK say he was limited by lack of Wrs and wanted more 5 WRs ran

https://cardswire.usatoday.com/2020/02/09/arizona-cardinals-offense-personnel/

Proof? Cause I don’t.

 

[DevonCardsFan]

Proof? Cause I don’t.

I listen to everything Cards and 98.7, all day at home, it's been said 100% multiple times

 

[Solar7]

Lol I just posted there 2 base offenses were 3 WR and a TE 376 times and 4 WRs 326 , the same amount it's not an opinion. If they had 4 WRs of that Caliber it's their base. You keep not factoring in they run the spread offense, these are facts not opinions to debate.

• They ran 376 plays with three receivers on the field. They ran 326 with four receivers.
• Their most common personnel was “11” personnel, with one back, one tight end and three receivers. They ran 346 plays that way.
• They ran “10” personnel 317 times, their next most common personnel grouping on offense. The other nine plays with four wideouts were with no running back and a tight end with the four receivers.

As @DVontel said, I'd also like to see the numbers after the scheme change from Kliff.

No matter how you cut it, the Cardinals ran 1,000 plays in 2019, according to Pro Football Reference. If 326 of those plays came in with four receivers, and you expect the same next year, you're looking at Lamb (or whatever rookie 1st rounder) being involved on approximately 32.6% of plays. That's pathetic for a top ten pick.

And yes, of course there will be instances where he's on the field for a specific kind of play, or someone's hurt, but in terms of using your argument to extrapolate out...

This is in comparison to an OT who would see 100% of plays barring injury, or a defensive talent that would see at least 50% plus, if not more.

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

Personnel dictates scheme. If the Cardinals have better WR depth they will run a lot more 10 personnel this year. I also don’t think that Kirk (or Larry, hopefully) will be better than the rookie WR. It’s obviously hard to say, because of busy rate, but I’d bet Lamb gets more targets than Kirk next year.

 

[Solar7]

Personnel dictates scheme. If the Cardinals have better WR depth they will run a lot more 10 personnel this year. I also don’t think that Kirk (or Larry, hopefully) will be better than the rookie WR. It’s obviously hard to say, because of busy rate, but I’d bet Lamb gets more targets than Kirk next year.

I think that's silly. NFL WRs typically take a while to adjust coming in, and it's going to be even tougher in a year with truncated OTAs and potentially training camp.

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

I think that's silly. NFL WRs typically take a while to adjust coming in, and it's going to be even tougher in a year with truncated OTAs and potentially training camp.

This is partly related to Kirk being unlikely to play all 16 games. Kirk had 6 TPG as a second round rookie, and 8 TPG as the de facto #1 option last year.

I agree that lack of OTA and the strange situation this offseason might impede development of the rookies, and their rhythm with Kyler (somewhat mitigated with Lamb) + understanding of playbook.

 

[BritCard]

All this energy talking about Lamb when we just traded for a top 3 WR.

All the arguments for drafting Lamb were flushed the second we signed Nuk.

 

[Solar7]

This is partly related to Kirk being unlikely to play all 16 games. Kirk had 6 TPG as a second round rookie, and 8 TPG as the de facto #1 option last year.

I agree that lack of OTA and the strange situation this offseason might impede development of the rookies, and their rhythm with Kyler (somewhat mitigated with Lamb) + understanding of playbook.

Kirk has had injury struggles, but so have our OTs, and one of them isn't even good on top of injury.

I'm far less concerned about drafting a WR to mitigate the issues from injury than I am OT.

All this energy talking about Lamb when we just traded for a top 3 WR.

All the arguments for drafting Lamb were flushed the second we signed Nuk.

Seriously man. I guess the only reason I'm still arguing it is I feel like the board is moving more and more toward wanting/expecting Lamb, and I can't for the life of me understand why.

 

[cardpa]

Of course this could happen if they draft Lamb. Murray will lean on him because of their history to the detriment of the offense especially since you have a guy like Hopkins who needs to be your primary target over Lamb. Lamb could become Murray's crutch and it's even possible Murray could look for Lamb ignoring other options even when Lamb is covered. It's human nature to lean toward what you know and trust even if it's not best for the team.

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

Of course this could happen if they draft Lamb. Murray will lean on him because of their history to the detriment of the offense especially since you have a guy like Hopkins who needs to be your primary target over Lamb. Lamb could become Murray's crutch and it's even possible Murray could look for Lamb ignoring other options even when Lamb is covered. It's human nature to lean toward what you know and trust even if it's not best for the team.

If Hop is neutralizing an opponent’s CB1 + safety help, would it be that bad for Murray to funnel targets to Lamb or (other rookie WR)?

 

[Minski]

All this energy talking about Lamb when we just traded for a top 3 WR.

All the arguments for drafting Lamb were flushed the second we signed Nuk.

Just like taking an OL at 8 when we signed up our best OL from last season (before he hit IR)

 

[DevonCardsFan]

As @DVontel said, I'd also like to see the numbers after the scheme change from Kliff.

No matter how you cut it, the Cardinals ran 1,000 plays in 2019, according to Pro Football Reference. If 326 of those plays came in with four receivers, and you expect the same next year, you're looking at Lamb (or whatever rookie 1st rounder) being involved on approximately 32.6% of plays. That's pathetic for a top ten pick.

And yes, of course there will be instances where he's on the field for a specific kind of play, or someone's hurt, but in terms of using your argument to extrapolate out...

This is in comparison to an OT who would see 100% of plays barring injury, or a defensive talent that would see at least 50% plus, if not more.

If it was as clear cut as you put it, that would be great, read the reports, a Combine wonder, players who struggle at pass blocking and some Tacklesthat will be stuck at Guard, when all is said and done.


https://walterfootball.com/draft2020ot.php

Wirfs- they feel should be a late 1st, came out to early, was a combine wonder and some feel should be a Guard came out to early.

Although Wirfs has the physical talent to play left tackle, he could better off at right tackle, and it probably would have been better for him to return for his senior year to improve before going pro. In speaking with some team sources after the game against Michigan, they agreed Wirfs looked more like a late first-rounder than a top-10 pick.

https://arizonasports.com/category/...4fd0-8902-ab8f00f00c2d&sid=1004&n=Doug+&+Wolf

Nagy Senior bowl executive draft analyst, blasts Wirf says 10 players waaaaay better you can get.
He says Catds should go Ruggs.

Wirfs doesnt have a true position, came out early, did good at the combine, which means nothing.

Wirfs looks like a bust and you dont rage a RT or Guard at 8, RT dont go at 8, come on now.

 

[Solar7]

Just like taking an OL at 8 when we signed up our best OL from last season (before he hit IR)

He didn't play a single down, is 32, and hasn't played a full season since 2015, which happens to be one of his two full seasons in 9 years of play.

How is that anywhere comparable to acquiring Hopkins?

 

[Solar7]

If it was as clear cut as you put it, that would be great, read the reports, a Combine wonder, players who struggle at pass blocking and some Tacklesthat will be stuck at Guard, when all is said and done.


https://walterfootball.com/draft2020ot.php

Wirfs- they feel should be a late 1st, came out to early, was a combine wonder and some feel should be a Guard came out to early.

Although Wirfs has the physical talent to play left tackle, he could better off at right tackle, and it probably would have been better for him to return for his senior year to improve before going pro. In speaking with some team sources after the game against Michigan, they agreed Wirfs looked more like a late first-rounder than a top-10 pick.

https://arizonasports.com/category/podcast_player/?a=e293bc90-a21d-4fd0-8902-ab8f00f00c2d&sid=1004&n=Doug+&+Wolf

Nagy Senior bowl executive draft analyst, blasts Wirf says 10 players waaaaay better you can get.
He says Catds should go Ruggs.

Wirfs doesnt have a true position, came out early, did good at the combine, which means nothing.

Wirfs looks like a bust and you dont rage a RT or Guard at 8, RT dont go at 8, come on now.

Walter Football is obviously questioning the viability of Wirfs at LT. Thankfully, we don't need an LT, and a young stud RT or RG would be amazing for this team going forward.

I'll give the Nagy interview a listen, but someone already pointed out some of his bad takes earlier.

 

[Minski]

He didn't play a single down, is 32, and hasn't played a full season since 2015, which happens to be one of his two full seasons in 9 years of play.

How is that anywhere comparable to acquiring Hopkins?

not comparing situations but more that the arguments for drafting a WR were flushed away.

 

[DevonCardsFan]

Walter Football is obviously questioning the viability of Wirfs at LT. Thankfully, we don't need an LT, and a young stud RT or RG would be amazing for this team going forward.

I'll give the Nagy interview a listen, but someone already pointed out some of his bad takes earlier.

Do you take a RT at #8, the answer is no

 

[Solar7]

Do you take a RT at #8, the answer is no

The answer is yes, if he's a star and makes your team better as a whole.

You don't take someone who will have a lesser contribution to your team because someone once told you what was acceptable to take at certain spots in the draft.

 

[slanidrac16]

With your logic, you shouldn't want a WR then, because you should be focused on what our 3 WRs drafted last year are going to contribute as 2nd year players.

I want the best player. I don’t want an apparent surplus at one position to stop us from taking a particular player.

whether we select a DL, OT, CB, WR, LB or edge rusher, I don’t care. A player at any one of those positions will improve the roster. Maybe one more than another. But the best wr would be better that a bust OT.

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

Just like taking an OL at 8 when we signed up our best OL from last season (before he hit IR)

this is why BPA (non-QB) has to be a huge consideration at every draft spot. Injuries are so common, depth is an absolute necessity. Plus we have absolutely zero depth at every position.

 

[Harry]

I think that's silly. NFL WRs typically take a while to adjust coming in, and it's going to be even tougher in a year with truncated OTAs and potentially training camp.

They rarely play with their college QB. That changes the equation dramatically.