MadCards 2025 Offseason Plan post Super Bowl

[DVontel]

It's not about points, it's about clutch. The Rams have a QB that knows how to win games when it matters and doesn't crap the bed.

But it's not a remotely new concept that players on winning teams get more attention around the league, than those on losing franchises.

The depths you always go to defend who is ever in the front office at the time is remarkable. I am always sitting in amazement.

 

[BritCard]

So you're saying that Monti actually has drafted bigger stars but our stars just don't get the credit. Insert laughing emoji here.

Sigh. You don't want PFF rankings, you can't accept the very obvious and known concept, that I am sure you yourself have used many times, that players on winning teams and bigger markets get more attention. So what metric do you want to use?

If your metric for a "Big John" is that the league is raving about them left right and center then you're going to be dissapointed. Any Cardinals players has to do 30% more than a player on the Eagles, Giants, Chiefs, Rams etc to get the same level of attention.

You, @DVontel and @kerouac9 (among others) have a very pessimistic view of the team. So if it's only your own personal opinions that we can use for deciding who is a star or not then we're going to be waiting some time.

 

[kerouac9]

Sigh. You don't want PFF rankings, you can't accept the very obvious and known concept, that I am sure you yourself have used many times, that players on winning teams and bigger markets get more attention. So what metric do you want to use?

If your metric for a "Big John" is that the league is raving about them left right and center then you're going to be dissapointed. Any Cardinals players has to do 30% more than a player on the Eagles, Giants, Chiefs, Rams etc to get the same level of attention.

You, @DVontel and @kerouac9 (among others) have a very pessimistic view of the team. So if it's only your own personal opinions that we can use for deciding who is a star or not then we're going to be waiting some time.

Well, all the team is going to have to do is win/be successful to get that attention. Reason we aren't winning games is because our players aren't very good/good enough.

James Conner was our best offensive player and ranked 11th in rushing yards. He doesn't get more pub because he's not that good and the team's not that good. Rico Dowdle isn't stealing his shine because he plays for the Star, bruh.

Being the 12th best tackle in a 32 team league is mid, especially when the marginal value between being the 12th and 5th best tackle is much more narrow than going from Tony Pollard to Jahmyr Gibbs. Budda Baker was our only All-Pro (2nd team) with zero picks.

 

[BritCard]

The depths you always go to defend who is ever in the front office at the time is remarkable. I am always sitting in amazement.

The facts you think this widely known and recognised concept is the "depths" says it all recently.

Monti is doing a fine job. He's found several good players in both FA and the draft. The team finished 12th in total DVOA (putting that one in the for @kerouac9), it was good enough to have a winning season and good enough to make the playoffs. We were, at the bye week, in pole position to win the division.

The main and overriding reason we didn't, and you have said as much yourself, is that Kyler sucked balls in key games. I mean, like giant, hairy balls. From both Seattle games, to getting outplayed by Bryce Young, throwing an INT to lose against the Vikings with the game in his hands, to having the game on his hands vs the Rams and throwing a badly placed rocket that became an INT. He's the most anti clutch QB in the league.

If Kyler was even mediocre in these situations the team finishes 10-7, likely win the division, and nobody is saying Monti did a bad job.

He got saddled with a crappy QB and there's nothing he can do until at least next year.

 

[BritCard]

Well, all the team is going to have to do is win/be successful to get that attention. Reason we aren't winning games is because our players aren't very good/good enough.

James Conner was our best offensive player and ranked 11th in rushing yards. He doesn't get more pub because he's not that good and the team's not that good. Rico Dowdle isn't stealing his shine because he plays for the Star, bruh.

Being the 12th best tackle in a 32 team league is mid, especially when the marginal value between being the 12th and 5th best tackle is much more narrow than going from Tony Pollard to Jahmyr Gibbs. Budda Baker was our only All-Pro (2nd team) with zero picks.

We ranked 12th in total DVOA, and I know you like DVOA. The team is good enough, the QB isn't. The team was in poll position to win the division and threw it away down the stretch when our massively overpaid QB became an INT machine.

The roster would, and should, have won the division if Kyler was even average down the stretch. Especially through the stretch when the defense was a top 5 scoring defense in the league. He was, as he is every year, truly ass in November and especially December. Not much Monti can do about that with the contract he inherited, and no GM can draft and sign enough in 2 years to counteract the effects of a crappy QB.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

We ranked 12th in total DVOA, and I know you like DVOA. The team is good enough, the QB isn't. The team was in poll position to win the division and threw it away down the stretch when our massively overpaid QB became an INT machine.

The roster would, and should, have won the division if Kyler was even average down the stretch. Especially through the stretch when the defense was a top 5 scoring defense in the league. He was, as he is every year, truly ass in November and especially December. Not much Monti can do about that with the contract he inherited, and no GM can draft and sign enough in 2 years to counteract the effects of a crappy QB.

You want to put all the blame on Kyler, which is ridiculous. Kyler is part of the problem, but the biggest problem is the overall talent on the roster. Good teams win because they have good players!!! Many teams look good early in the season, but when games start to matter, that's when the better teams win.

It's crazy that you need this explained to you.

 

[kerouac9]

We ranked 12th in total DVOA, and I know you like DVOA. The team is good enough, the QB isn't. The team was in poll position to win the division and threw it away down the stretch when our massively overpaid QB became an INT machine.

The roster would, and should, have won the division if Kyler was even average down the stretch. Especially through the stretch when the defense was a top 5 scoring defense in the league. He was, as he is every year, truly ass in November and especially December. Not much Monti can do about that with the contract he inherited, and no GM can draft and sign enough in 2 years to counteract the effects of a crappy QB.

I'm pretty sure that Kyler is a contributor to that total. You're asserting without evidence that we'd be, like, 8th and in the playoffs with a league-average QB (Tua was 16th in PFR's QBR calc).

 

[Stout]

The facts you think this widely known and recognised concept is the "depths" says it all recently.

Monti is doing a fine job. He's found several good players in both FA and the draft. The team finished 12th in total DVOA (putting that one in the for @kerouac9), it was good enough to have a winning season and good enough to make the playoffs. We were, at the bye week, in pole position to win the division.

The main and overriding reason we didn't, and you have said as much yourself, is that Kyler sucked balls in key games. I mean, like giant, hairy balls. From both Seattle games, to getting outplayed by Bryce Young, throwing an INT to lose against the Vikings with the game in his hands, to having the game on his hands vs the Rams and throwing a badly placed rocket that became an INT. He's the most anti clutch QB in the league.

If Kyler was even mediocre in these situations the team finishes 10-7, likely win the division, and nobody is saying Monti did a bad job.

He got saddled with a crappy QB and there's nothing he can do until at least next year.

Great! Tell me what he's done to improve the pass rush in two years--one of the top priorities for any defense--rather than making it worse. Hint: He made it worse.

 

[Stout]

Sigh. You don't want PFF rankings, you can't accept the very obvious and known concept, that I am sure you yourself have used many times, that players on winning teams and bigger markets get more attention. So what metric do you want to use?

If your metric for a "Big John" is that the league is raving about them left right and center then you're going to be dissapointed. Any Cardinals players has to do 30% more than a player on the Eagles, Giants, Chiefs, Rams etc to get the same level of attention.

You, @DVontel and @kerouac9 (among others) have a very pessimistic view of the team. So if it's only your own personal opinions that we can use for deciding who is a star or not then we're going to be waiting some time.

You're confusing posters on the PFF rankings. My metric for Big John's is to sit back and go, "Damn, we drafted a freaking star talent!" while watching them play. No player Monti has drafted or signed comes close. PJJ? He's pretty good. A direct replacement for DJ and he was no star. GW is pretty good but limited in snaps. Take Melton: We traded down, eschewed better talents, and got him. Maybe he'll end up fine. He's certainly not ROTY level.

So tell me, what stars did Monti draft or sign thus far?

 

[BritCard]

You want to put all the blame on Kyler, which is ridiculous. Kyler is part of the problem, but the biggest problem is the overall talent on the roster. Good teams win because they have good players!!! Many teams look good early in the season, but when games start to matter, that's when the better teams win.

It's crazy that you need this explained to you.

And the team did enough. We held the Seahawks in Seattle to 16 and only scored 6. We held the Vikings in Minnesota to 23 and had the ball in our hands to win and Kyler threw an INT. We held the Rams in LA to 13 and had the ball in our hands to win and Kyler threw an INT.

There were only 2 games in the final stretch of 8 I thought the team were poor as a whole and Kyler wasn't at fault for the loss. The Seahawks home game and the Panthers road game.

In the Seattle road game Kyler had a passer rating of 77. In the Vikings game it was 72.5. In the 2nd Seattle game it was 81. In the Panthers game it was 78. In the Rams game it was 76.8. Before the bye week, in what was the toughest part of our schedule, Kyler had a passer rating of 100.6. After the bye week he had a passer rating of 87.

If you take away the last 2 games where we were already eliminated from the playoffs and count the games that mattered his average was 81.1. A passer rating of 80 is considered a replacement level talent according to NGS. So yeah, I'm extremely comfortable in saying that the season was a losing one because of Kyler's play after the bye.

Quarterbacks are 75% of the game. You get a bad one and the roster doesn't matter, you get a good one and they can carry mediocre teams. The reason "Many teams look good early in the season, but when games start to matter, that's when the better teams win" is because they have quarterbacks that play well when the pressure is on.

 

[BritCard]

I'm pretty sure that Kyler is a contributor to that total. You're asserting without evidence that we'd be, like, 8th and in the playoffs with a league-average QB (Tua was 16th in PFR's QBR calc).

Yes, I'm asserting, with decades of evidence to back me up, that teams with better quarterbacks win more games. I refer you to the post above.

 

[BritCard]

You're confusing posters on the PFF rankings. My metric for Big John's is to sit back and go, "Damn, we drafted a freaking star talent!" while watching them play. No player Monti has drafted or signed comes close. PJJ? He's pretty good. A direct replacement for DJ and he was no star. GW is pretty good but limited in snaps. Take Melton: We traded down, eschewed better talents, and got him. Maybe he'll end up fine. He's certainly not ROTY level.

So tell me, what stars did Monti draft or sign thus far?

Well there's your problem, because they only players you watch are those throwing the ball, those catching the ball, those sacking the QB and those breaking up passes, and 95% of football happens outside those instances.

 

[kerouac9]

No player Monti has drafted or signed comes close.

It's been two drafts. I don't think this is fair.

And Garrett Williams is really good. It's not his fault that he doesn't play more (probably).

 

[Stout]

Yes, I'm asserting, with decades of evidence to back me up, that teams with better quarterbacks win more games. I refer you to the post above.

The problem with your argument is that it discounts when Kyler was nails last season. I can't believe I'm defending him, but we have to be fair about his play. Did he choke away games for us? Absolutely. Did he also carry the team sometimes? Absolutely. That's the problem with trying to re-legislate Ws and Ls with these kinds of arguments. There are just as many counterarguments.

The bottom line is that this roster is not good enough. Now, we can argue degrees. Are we good enough to win the SB? No one's idiotic enough to claim we are. Are we good enough to win playoff games? I will verbally crush any who say we are. Are we good enough to make the playoffs? I say not at this point, after losing some of the talent we do have. And that's a big, big problem. Our roster is bottom half and not even close. We need studs. We need, dare I say it, Big Johns, something Monti has not proven he can do even once.

 

[Stout]

It's been two drafts. I don't think this is fair.

And Garrett Williams is really good. It's not his fault that he doesn't play more (probably).

He is good. He was not an instant impact star, not even close. Maybe he gets there. Monti would receive credit for that, just as he receives credit from everyone that this was a good pick.

It's absolutely fair to say that Monti hasn't drafted a single instant-impact star. Granted that it should be the exception and not the rule to be able to draft instant impact stars, you still have to be able to do it. Other GMs are doing it much more than Monti, although it isn't hard to beat a goose egg lol

 

[ASUCHRIS]

And the team did enough. We held the Seahawks in Seattle to 16 and only scored 6. We held the Vikings in Minnesota to 23 and had the ball in our hands to win and Kyler threw an INT. We held the Rams in LA to 13 and had the ball in our hands to win and Kyler threw an INT.

There were only 2 games in the final stretch of 8 I thought the team were poor as a whole and Kyler wasn't at fault for the loss. The Seahawks home game and the Panthers road game.

In the Seattle road game Kyler had a passer rating of 77. In the Vikings game it was 72.5. In the 2nd Seattle game it was 81. In the Panthers game it was 78. In the Rams game it was 76.8. Before the bye week, in what was the toughest part of our schedule, Kyler had a passer rating of 100.6. After the bye week he had a passer rating of 87.

If you take away the last 2 games where we were already eliminated from the playoffs and count the games that mattered his average was 81.1. A passer rating of 80 is considered a replacement level talent according to NGS. So yeah, I'm extremely comfortable in saying that the season was a losing one because of Kyler's play after the bye.

Quarterbacks are 75% of the game. You get a bad one and the roster doesn't matter, you get a good one and they can carry mediocre teams. The reason "Many teams look good early in the season, but when games start to matter, that's when the better teams win" is because they have quarterbacks that play well when the pressure is on.

You're using the multiverse to scapegoat one player - Kyler isn't the only reason the offense struggled to put points on the board. Our O-line was in shambles by the end of the season and Conner dropped off significantly.

I'm no Kyler stan by any stretch of the imagination, but our overall lack of talent is a far greater problem than Kyler.

 

[BirdGangThing]

And the team did enough. We held the Seahawks in Seattle to 16 and only scored 6. We held the Vikings in Minnesota to 23 and had the ball in our hands to win and Kyler threw an INT. We held the Rams in LA to 13 and had the ball in our hands to win and Kyler threw an INT.

There were only 2 games in the final stretch of 8 I thought the team were poor as a whole and Kyler wasn't at fault for the loss. The Seahawks home game and the Panthers road game.

In the Seattle road game Kyler had a passer rating of 77. In the Vikings game it was 72.5. In the 2nd Seattle game it was 81. In the Panthers game it was 78. In the Rams game it was 76.8. Before the bye week, in what was the toughest part of our schedule, Kyler had a passer rating of 100.6. After the bye week he had a passer rating of 87.

If you take away the last 2 games where we were already eliminated from the playoffs and count the games that mattered his average was 81.1. A passer rating of 80 is considered a replacement level talent according to NGS. So yeah, I'm extremely comfortable in saying that the season was a losing one because of Kyler's play after the bye.

Quarterbacks are 75% of the game. You get a bad one and the roster doesn't matter, you get a good one and they can carry mediocre teams. The reason "Many teams look good early in the season, but when games start to matter, that's when the better teams win" is because they have quarterbacks that play well when the pressure is on.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[BritCard]

The problem with your argument is that it discounts when Kyler was nails last season. I can't believe I'm defending him, but we have to be fair about his play. Did he choke away games for us? Absolutely. Did he also carry the team sometimes? Absolutely. That's the problem with trying to re-legislate Ws and Ls with these kinds of arguments. There are just as many counterarguments.

The bottom line is that this roster is not good enough. Now, we can argue degrees. Are we good enough to win the SB? No one's idiotic enough to claim we are. Are we good enough to win playoff games? I will verbally crush any who say we are. Are we good enough to make the playoffs? I say not at this point, after losing some of the talent we do have. And that's a big, big problem. Our roster is bottom half and not even close. We need studs. We need, dare I say it, Big Johns, something Monti has not proven he can do even once.

What games was Kyler nails that we lost? Washington? If there's any that's it.

If you can call 142 yards of passing "nails".

 

[BritCard]

I'm no Kyler stan by any stretch of the imagination, but our overall lack of talent is a far greater problem than Kyler.

No, it's really not. Not even close. There is plenty of talent on this team, as the 12th in DVOA suggests. Not a lot of top end talent, but plenty of good players. Enough players to have a winning season.

The QB on every team dictates how much you win and how much you lose far more than the rest of the roster combined. QB's are like 75% of the ingredients.

 

[BirdGangThing]

i place a good amount of blame on kyler murray - but after watching patrick maholmes get kyler murray'd in the superbowl ive calmed down a lil bit

 

[ASUCHRIS]

No, it's really not. Not even close. There is plenty of talent on this team, as the 12th in DVOA suggests. Not a lot of top end talent, but plenty of good players. Enough players to have a winning season.

The QB on every team dictates how much you win and how much you lose far more than the rest of the roster combined. QB's are like 75% of the ingredients.

If we had enough good players to have a winning season, then why didn't we have a good season? Kyler? Be serious. Kyler is a mid qb, our entire roster is mid.

You're really going to assert we have plenty of good (which on this side of the pond means "above average") players? Which of our players do you consider above average?

 

[Stout]

What games was Kyler nails that we lost? Washington? If there's any that's it.

If you can call 142 yards of passing "nails".

Nails in games that we would have lost without him being nails.

 

[Chopper0080]

Monti is going to have to do some major work to get this roster to an above .500 group.

 

[daves]

Monti is going to have to do some major work to get this roster to an above .500 group.

I agree that Ossenfort has "major work" to do to make the Cardinals a serious threat to win playoff games; but they were 8-9 with this roster and are projected to have a significantly easier schedule this season, so if the bar is set at being "above .500", I don't see "major work" required to get there.

 

[Chopper0080]

I agree that Ossenfort has "major work" to do to make the Cardinals a serious threat to win playoff games; but they were 8-9 with this roster and are projected to have a significantly easier schedule this season, so if the bar is set at being "above .500", I don't see "major work" required to get there.

Here is the reasoning.

The OL needs major work, especially if Jonah is going to be out for multiple weeks of the season. The 3rd best OL player on the roster right now is Adams and he wasn't very good last year. The OL is very critical for this team. Can Monti find better players than Evan Brown, Will Hernandez and Jonah Williams?

DL needs a big time player to improve this mid level group. Adding more Justin Jones players isn't going to move the needle. Can Monti acquire 1 or 2 top DL guys.

EDGE has been a mess for two seasons and has zero answers on the roster. Can Monti add 2 (maybe 3) decent NFL EDGE players.

Overrated or not, Kyzir White was the 2nd best defensive player on the Cardinals last year (maybe 3rd if you count Garrett Williams). Can Monti find a new defensive captain who can call the defense, and play the snaps White was at the level White was?

2 OL starters
1 DL starter
2 EDGE starters
1 ILB starter

No small feats here.