Memphis columnist slams Phoenix

[Cheesebeef]

PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE!!!!

Don't want this to get into a Suns fans bashing Cardinals thread so here's the scoop - up until we hired DG, the Cards were without a doubt tied for the worst franchise in sports with the Clippers, but things have changed since DG came aboard - they haven't turned the corner yet, but they have made such dramatic strides - like not getting killed 50-14 every week and are just getting better.

That's the bottom line.

 

[fordronken]

you really don't know football b/c that's changing... throw in new jerseys and the new stadium and you get a much different impression of the cards these days . . .

Wow, I didn't realize they were going to have new jerseys. So I take it all back.

Hahahahaha. That's not gonna make you a lot of friends.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

the Cards were without a doubt tied for the worst franchise in sports with the Clippers,

I dont follow fball much, but do you really think the Cards were tied with the Clippers? I mean the Clippers made the playoffs every now and again, had a few very high profile coaches, and always have good talent.

Baylor is actually a decent GM. He usually has a good draft, and makes some nice trades. It is just the financial side of it that makes it hard to keep people.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I dont follow fball much, but do you really think the Cards were tied with the Clippers? I mean the Clippers made the playoffs every now and again, had a few very high profile coaches, and always have good talent.

Baylor is actually a decent GM. He usually has a good draft, and makes some nice trades. It is just the financial side of it that makes it hard to keep people.

yeah they were basically synonymous with one and other. poorly viewed organizations seen as miserly with little success. remember, it's been easier to make the playoffs in the nba than in the nfl for a long time. the nfl used to only have 8 teams in the ENTIRE league make the playoffs whereas the nba had 16. so to use that as an indicator really isn't fair. and other than larry brown, what other high profile have they had? even under brown they weren't that successful. you could make the argument that brown was the clippers buddy ryan (but the clips didn't have to suffer the aftermath of a brown departure the way the cards had to suffer post-buddy).

 

[Chaplin]

Here's the gist of it...

1) Eric, you're on ignore NOW.

2) The Cardinals are definitely looking up, and I didn't even think last year that they were laughing stocks.

3) The whole Cardinals = the Clippers arguement is valid, based on their owners.

 

[fordronken]

Baylor is actually a decent GM. He usually has a good draft, and makes some nice trades. It is just the financial side of it that makes it hard to keep people.

Are you kidding? Chris Kaman, Melvin Ely, Darius Miles(at 3!), Olowokandi(at 1!), Brian Skinner, Maurice Taylor, Lorenzen Wright, Lamond Murray, Bo Kimble, Danny Ferry(at 2!) and, in the same draft, Reggie Williams, Joe Wolf, Ken Norman.

In 17 years of draft picks, with 13 of them in the lottery, his only solid picks were Danny Manning, Antonio McDysse, Shaun Livingston(probably), Quentin Richardson, extremely arguably Lamar Odom, and the draft day trade for Elton Brand.

And, other than the aforementioned Brand trade...what good ones did he have?

 

[Gaddabout]

Calkins is no Mike Downey. I'm hoping some other cantankerous columnist steps up and says Phoenix will "fold like a tortilla."

 

[elindholm]

I have no problem at all admitting that I don't really know the NFL. If the Cardinals had a great draft this year and are on the right direction, I think that's super.

But if they had such an awesome summer last year too, it doesn't really look like it. The finished 6-10, which I guess ventures into the "respectable" category, but they were 4-11 before winning two of their final three virtually meaningless games. (Yes, I know one was against a playoff team.)

The Cardinals were 0-2 against the 49ers, who in turn were 0-14 against the rest of the league. Four of their losses were by three points or less, but so were two of their wins, which means that their win rate in close games (2-4, .333) was about the same as their overall.

To me, that's just a bad team. And it's not like last season was unusual.

But I certainly don't have anything against the Cardinals, and if they turn out to be good this year, I'll be happy for all of the Cardinal fans that I know. I'm sure it would be good for the league if they could turn things around.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

And, other than the aforementioned Brand trade...what good ones did he have?

The Brand trade was the only good one I could think of actually. In theory the Miller trade looked like a steal, but didn't work out so well.


While Baylor doesn't get the best picks ever, he doesn't necessarily blow a ton of drafts. I guess Ill change that to a decent drafter.

 

[elindholm]

In 17 years of draft picks, with 13 of them in the lottery, his only solid picks were Danny Manning, Antonio McDysse, Shaun Livingston(probably), Quentin Richardson, extremely arguably Lamar Odom, and the draft day trade for Elton Brand.

And Maggette.

And, other than the aforementioned Brand trade...what good ones did he have?

I think the trade for Andre Miller was pretty good, but unfortunately Miller decided to quit on the team before he even donned the uniform.

I'd say that Baylor has been below average, but I don't think he's terrible. But on the other hand, I also thought that Alvin Gentry was a good coach even before he became a Suns assistant, so what do I know?

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

yeah they were basically synonymous with one and other. poorly viewed organizations seen as miserly with little success. remember, it's been easier to make the playoffs in the nba than in the nfl for a long time. the nfl used to only have 8 teams in the ENTIRE league make the playoffs whereas the nba had 16. so to use that as an indicator really isn't fair. and other than larry brown, what other high profile have they had? even under brown they weren't that successful. you could make the argument that brown was the clippers buddy ryan (but the clips didn't have to suffer the aftermath of a brown departure the way the cards had to suffer post-buddy).

Thats fair I guess. I like to give the clippers some credit now and again though.

They have also had a young Paul Silas coach them, as well as Mike Dunleavy now.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

I think that Wilcox was a good pick as well. I think had he been givin the time, he would be a mid level PF in the league.

Also, while Darius was a high pick, that draft SUCKED. I mean I would have taken Mike Miller, and MAYBE Crawford before him, but other than that - Darius is sadly a top 5-7 talent from that year.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I have no problem at all admitting that I don't really know the NFL. If the Cardinals had a great draft this year and are on the right direction, I think that's super.

But if they had such an awesome summer last year too, it doesn't really look like it. The finished 6-10, which I guess ventures into the "respectable" category, but they were 4-11 before winning two of their final three virtually meaningless games. (Yes, I know one was against a playoff team.)

kind of hard to be 4-11 and end up at 6-10, don't you think? And actually they were 4-5 and tied for the last wild card spot before they had a three game losing streak and then they won their last 2 of three games - while still actually in the playoff hunt - where only their last game was a "meaningless game".

Honestly, if you don't know a lot about football - my advice is don't talk about. Anyone who watches football can see that last year's team - on the heels of the previous season and the season before, where the Cards were being outscored by an average margin of two touchdowns a game - merely being competitive and actually havign a shot at the division title is tremendous improvement.

But hey - you said it yourself that you don't know much about football - you clearly demonstrated it above.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I kind of disagree with calling Kaman worhtless also. That guy has some skills - he's a solid banger, he's got nice touch and he goes up strong. He's just the fugliest human being I've ever seen.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I have no problem at all admitting that I don't really know the NFL. If the Cardinals had a great draft this year and are on the right direction, I think that's super.

But if they had such an awesome summer last year too, it doesn't really look like it. The finished 6-10, which I guess ventures into the "respectable" category, but they were 4-11 before winning two of their final three virtually meaningless games. (Yes, I know one was against a playoff team.)

The Cardinals were 0-2 against the 49ers, who in turn were 0-14 against the rest of the league. Four of their losses were by three points or less, but so were two of their wins, which means that their win rate in close games (2-4, .333) was about the same as their overall.

To me, that's just a bad team. And it's not like last season was unusual.

But I certainly don't have anything against the Cardinals, and if they turn out to be good this year, I'll be happy for all of the Cardinal fans that I know. I'm sure it would be good for the league if they could turn things around.

the difference was that denny had to turnover the roster and the team became competitive compared to getting blown out consistently the year before. he notched two additional wins and raised the level of our defense from 26th in the league to 12th. that's substantial. add the moves made this offseason and the draft and i fully expect to see at least an additional 2 wins. and though that's only 8 wins, that's not "terrible." i was just pointing out that these aren't the same old, same old cardinals.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Thats fair I guess. I like to give the clippers some credit now and again though.

They have also had a young Paul Silas coach them, as well as Mike Dunleavy now.

i don't know that you could put silas and dunleavy in the "big time coaches" category.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I kind of disagree with calling Kaman worhtless also. That guy has some skills - he's a solid banger, he's got nice touch and he goes up strong. He's just the fugliest human being I've ever seen.

easy, you're friends with stuart.






















(if stu ever reads this i keed, i keed)

 

[elindholm]

kind of hard to be 4-11 and end up at 6-10, don't you think?

LOL, yes, it is quite difficult. Sorry about that. 4-9. And saying that a team that is 4-9 is "still actually in the playoff hunt" might be literally accurate, but it's a bit of a reach. When's the last time an NFL team made the playoffs after being 4-9? My guess is never.

Honestly, if you don't know a lot about football - my advice is don't talk about.

My advice is that you think twice before dispensing unsolicited advice about what people should or should not talk about.

I haven't done or said anything that would offend a reasonable person. In the column that inspired this thread, I thought the crack about the Cardinals was funny. You apparently didn't. We disagree, big deal, get over it.

But hey - you said it yourself that you don't know much about football - you clearly demonstrated it above.

Does that make you feel better? Geez, you've always struck me as pretty reasonable before now.

 

[Cheesebeef]

i don't know that you could put silas and dunleavy in the "big time coaches" category.

certainly not as big as Buddy Ryan (oye gevault) or Dennis Green.

That being said - up until DG I believe the Cards were even more futile than the Clippers.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Does that make you feel better? Geez, you've always struck me as pretty reasonable before now.

well - now you know better!

Just sick of the Cards bashing when most football fans can clearly see that things are changing for the boys - especially after so many years of having to endure the wretchedness that they had been for decades with the taunting (rightly so) that went with it.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

kind of hard to be 4-11 and end up at 6-10, don't you think?

LOL, yes, it is quite difficult. Sorry about that. 4-9. And saying that a team that is 4-9 is "still actually in the playoff hunt" might be literally accurate, but it's a bit of a reach. When's the last time an NFL team made the playoffs after being 4-9? My guess is never.

Honestly, if you don't know a lot about football - my advice is don't talk about.

My advice is that you think twice before dispensing unsolicited advice about what people should or should not talk about.

I haven't done or said anything that would offend a reasonable person. In the column that inspired this thread, I thought the crack about the Cardinals was funny. You apparently didn't. We disagree, big deal, get over it.

But hey - you said it yourself that you don't know much about football - you clearly demonstrated it above.

Does that make you feel better? Geez, you've always struck me as pretty reasonable before now.

eh, i think cheese is overreacting a bit, but give him a break, it's tough to be a cards fan and not get defensive.

 

[fordronken]

I kind of disagree with calling Kaman worhtless also. That guy has some skills - he's a solid banger, he's got nice touch and he goes up strong. He's just the fugliest human being I've ever seen.

I'm sorry, but using lottery pick after lottery pick on players who wind up being somewhat capable is not the way to make a good franchise. Have there been worse GMs in the league? Absolutely. The difference is, they all got fired.

 

[se7en]

kind of hard to be 4-11 and end up at 6-10, don't you think? And actually they were 4-5 and tied for the last wild card spot before they had a three game losing streak and then they won their last 2 of three games - while still actually in the playoff hunt - where only their last game was a "meaningless game".

Honestly, if you don't know a lot about football - my advice is don't talk about. Anyone who watches football can see that last year's team - on the heels of the previous season and the season before, where the Cards were being outscored by an average margin of two touchdowns a game - merely being competitive and actually havign a shot at the division title is tremendous improvement.

But hey - you said it yourself that you don't know much about football - you clearly demonstrated it above.

To say that the 6-10 Cardinals “had a shot at the division title” and were in the playoff hunt as a way to imply that they are a good team is a bit like saying that the 36-46 Orlando Magic were a good team just because they barely missed a playoff spot in the weak Eastern conference.

It would be one thing if the Cardinals had finished the season crushing their opponents like the Suns did last year and the Warriors did this year. But they didn’t. They won “6” games the entire year in the NFC West. In fact based on the standings, it appears that the NFC West was the worst conference in football last year. And yet out of 4 merely mediocre to really bad teams, the Cardinals placed 3rd while losing against the 4th place finisher.

In trying to defend the Cardinals, you reveal how bad they were. “They were 4-5 and challenging for a wildcard spot”. 7 games to go in a season and you’re looking for a wildcard spot and proclaiming a losing record a success? I admire your enthusiasm in the face of grim defeat. Of course, that’s right after you state that they go on a 3 game losing streak.

Based on this post, I have to say that you’re not really selling the sizzle of this supposedly “new and improved” Cardinal team.

 

[Cheesebeef]

To say that the 6-10 Cardinals “had a shot at the division title” and were in the playoff hunt as a way to imply that they are a good team is a bit like saying that the 36-46 Orlando Magic were a good team just because they barely missed a playoff spot in the weak Eastern conference.

It would be one thing if the Cardinals had finished the season crushing their opponents like the Suns did last year and the Warriors did this year. But they didn’t. They won “6” games the entire year in the NFC West. In fact based on the standings, it appears that the NFC West was the worst conference in football last year. And yet out of 4 merely mediocre to really bad teams, the Cardinals placed 3rd while losing against the 4th place finisher.

In trying to defend the Cardinals, you reveal how bad they were. “They were 4-5 and challenging for a wildcard spot”. 7 games to go in a season and you’re looking for a wildcard spot and proclaiming a losing record a success? I admire your enthusiasm in the face of grim defeat. Of course, that’s right after you state that they go on a 3 game losing streak.

Based on this post, I have to say that you’re not really selling the sizzle of this supposedly “new and improved” Cardinal team.

everything in perspective my friend. If you sat and watched the Cards get shellacked by margins of 38-0, 50-14, 44-7, 28-3 and so and so on and then watched them go from the 32nd ranked D in the league to the 11th ranked D in the league you'd see the leap and bounds improvement from one years to the next.

You don't - okay - that's fine - you'll see even more this season.

There's no reason to continue this. Bash the Cards all you want. Football fans know the team is turning a corner and I can't wait for the season.

 

[Cheesebeef]

To say that the 6-10 Cardinals “had a shot at the division title” and were in the playoff hunt as a way to imply that they are a good team is a bit like saying that the 36-46 Orlando Magic were a good team just because they barely missed a playoff spot in the weak Eastern conference.

I'll use this example to prove my point (Tank you very much - couldn't have done it better myself).

The Magic were the worst team in the NBA last year - correct? Wouldn't you say that they made HUGE strides this season and did well in the offseason and have some nice young talent to build upon and now will have another high pick to build upon? Because Orlando's scenario is almost a carbon copy of what the Cards have gone through. NO ONE'S SAYING THEY ARE GOOD - they are saying they are better and are headed in the right direction - that's all.