OH PLEASE OH PLEASE! Terrell Suggs wants to play for Cardinals

[JeffGollin]

make no mistake -- the trade down was Michael Bidwill's first foray into ownership influencing player decisions...

What's the source of that info? Do you know for a fact that Michael influenced Rod G to make that move or is this just your strong opinion? Do you know anyone who was in the Cardinal war room who can substantiate this? Can you cite an article or public statement?

Rule of Thumb: When someone says "It's a fact" or "Make no mistake", it often isn't.

 

[TheCardFan]

Don't forget about Okeafor

I would cut Berry and Chike and sign Suggs.

Suggs, Dansby, Hayes, Pace

 

[cardsfanmd]

The question I ask is who do you think would help more, Suggs or Faneca. I wont pretend to know exactly what either would get in a contract, but I seriously we would get both. Calling on Joe.

 

[CardLogic]

The trade down by Graves/Bidwill was a GOOD ONE. Suggs would have never blown up here the way he did in B'more. We haven't had 1/2 of the talent to surround him with that they do. Also, we are not in any position to pay out that type of $ for a guy who only worth putting out on passing downs. I will take Pace and BJ over Suggs any day of the week. Matter-of-fact, I will take Pace alone over Suggs.

I don't bring it up usually but, I said it was a good trade then (check the archives) and I still think so now.

That 2003 draft was the beginnings of the turn-around for the Cardinals:

1a. 17 Bryant Johnson WR Penn State
1b. 18 Calvin Pace DE Wake Forest
2. 54 Anquan Boldin WR Florida State
3. 70 Gerald Hayes LB Pittsburgh
4. None
5. 141 Kenny King DE Alabama
6a. 177 Reggie Wells T Clarion
6b. 210 Tony Gilbert LB Georgia
7. Traded to Detroit for WR Larry Foster

The only real mistake in the bunch was the #7 pick traded for Larry Foster. Likely wouldn't have gotten much with the #7 pick, but they got nothing from Foster.

A demi-god starting WR; the best #3 WR in the league, two solid LB's, a starting OL (Granted we all would like him to be moved to back-up and supplanted by someone better. ) That's four/five multi-year starters from one draft! King might have been another starter, if he could have stayed healthy. Even Tony Gilbert has done decent for Jacksonville (IR this season I believe).

Yet people still like to bitch that the Cards didn't take Suggs.

 

[cardsfanmd]

I don't bring it up usually but, I said it was a good trade then (check the archives) and I still think so now.

That 2003 draft was the beginnings of the turn-around for the Cardinals:

1b. 18 Calvin Pace DE Wake Forest
2. 54 Anquan Boldin WR Florida State
3. 70 Gerald Hayes LB Pittsburgh
4. None
5. 141 Kenny King DE Alabama
6a. 177 Reggie Wells T Clarion
6b. 210 Tony Gilbert LB Georgia
7. Traded to Detroit for WR Larry Foster

The only real mistake in the bunch was the #7 pick traded for Larry Foster. Likely wouldn't have gotten much with the #7 pick, but they got nothing from Foster.

A demi-god WR; two solid LB's, a starting OL (Granted we all would like him to be moved to back-up and supplanted by someone better. ) That's four multi-year starters from one draft! King might have been another starter, if he could have stayed healthy. Even Tony Gilbert has done decent for Jacksonville (IR this season I believe).

Yet people still like to bitch that the Cards didn't take Suggs.

 

[joeshmo]

A demi-god starting WR; the best #3 WR in the league, two solid LB's, a starting OL (Granted we all would like him to be moved to back-up and supplanted by someone better. ) That's four/five multi-year starters from one draft! King might have been another starter, if he could have stayed healthy. Even Tony Gilbert has done decent for Jacksonville (IR this season I believe).

Yet people still like to bitch that the Cards didn't take Suggs.

If you dont mind waiting 4-5 years for them to become solid. Also looking at that draft in a vacuum I can agree with you, but since there are more things to consider how has that draft done for are overall success over the last 5 years?

 

[football karma]

What's the source of that info? Do you know for a fact that Michael influenced Rod G to make that move or is this just your strong opinion? Do you know anyone who was in the Cardinal war room who can substantiate this? Can you cite an article or public statement?

Rule of Thumb: When someone says "It's a fact" or "Make no mistake", it often isn't.

first person knowledge? no. from a source that has been right before and has no agenda? yes.

This story has popped up in print as rumor from time to time as well. For whatever reason M Bidwill concluded that Suggs would be hard to sign, and coming off the Wendell Bryant debacle the year before, didnt want to be beat up in the press for failing to sign a local hero.

all you can do is take it for what its worth.

 

[JeffGollin]

first person knowledge? no. from a source that has been right before and has no agenda? yes....all you can do is take it for what its worth.

Fair enough, Fueg.

But personally, I'd tend to be leery of unnamed sources (Been burnt too many times in the past).

 

[CardLogic]

If you dont mind waiting 4-5 years for them to become solid. Also looking at that draft in a vacuum I can agree with you, but since there are more things to consider how has that draft done for are overall success over the last 5 years?

That's just the thing joe; there are more things to consider. Can you lay the lack of success over the last 5 years on the personnel of the 2003 draft, or would the blame be more correctly directed at the coaching staffs for failing to develop the talent sooner, i.e. - train them up and put them in a postition to succeed?

 

[Stout]

Sorry, but I question the logic and football acumen of anyone who thinks that that disaster of a tradedown was a good thing. We are only now seeing average play out of Pace; BJ has still done nothing. We still had to give up an extra pick to do the deal, which was an absolute crime. Who would we have gotten with that pick? We still almost screwed ourselves out of getting Quan by trading back in the 2nd round as part of the trade--we were lucky not to have shot ourselves in the foot there. So, how again was that trade good for us? Wow. It will still go down as one of the biggest draft blunders of all time.

 

[jefftheshark]

Sorry, but I question the logic and football acumen of anyone who thinks that that disaster of a tradedown was a good thing. We are only now seeing average play out of Pace; BJ has still done nothing. We still had to give up an extra pick to do the deal, which was an absolute crime. Who would we have gotten with that pick? We still almost screwed ourselves out of getting Quan by trading back in the 2nd round as part of the trade--we were lucky not to have shot ourselves in the foot there. So, how again was that trade good for us? Wow. It will still go down as one of the biggest draft blunders of all time.

We could have taken Asante Samuel, who was picked with #120 (we traded away #102).

JTS

 

[azsouthendzone]

No one thought the Cardinals would go after Edge either and them WHAM it happened. The Cards don't show their hand to anyone. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it went down.

 

[Mr. Boldin]

You know, we could have made this much easier a few years ago...

 

[slanidrac16]

This franchise can do whatever it wants to do. Salary cap be damned. I would think that signing Dansby and Suggs wouold mean Berry and Pace would be released.
I like the thought of having a tandem of Suggs and Dansby. Think of the havoc they could create for opposing defenses much like Kearney and Peterson do for Seattle.

When you look back at last season we are just a better defense away from being the playoff team. The offense played well enough to be considered a playoff offense.

The same can't be said for the defense.
We need somebody to replace Berry. Pace could very well be that guy and come cheaper than Suggs. Okeafor is also a huge piece of the puzzle being put back in place.
I could live with Pace, Hayes, Dansby and Okeafor but we would most certainly need to add QUALITY depth behind this group in case of injury. We still need to add a quality CB and solve the problem at FS probably thru the draft,

Bottom line, I think the Cards would be better off keeping Pace and Dansby. Go after the DB Florence. With the 16th pick our FS problems could be solved. It seems it is 1 position that a player can step right in. Look at Landry,Sanders. and Taylor(rip).
Those moves would help this defense greatly and we still have 6 more picks.

 

[imaCafan]

So the age old question and debate continues...........Suggs or Faneca. Will Pace play better next year if he remains a Cardinal? Will Wells play better next year? Would the Cardinals be better if we replaced Pace with Suggs, or if we replaced Wells with Faneca? How good would the Cardinals be if we did both??????

 

[joeshmo]

No one thought the Cardinals would go after Edge either and them WHAM it happened. The Cards don't show their hand to anyone. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it went down.

Bad example. They made those statements before the cap went up by 10 Mill after the new CBA agreement, and a new TV contract and revenue sharing agreement was anounced.

I also disagree. They show their hands more often then people realize if they are willing to listen. For example it was pretty easy to tell who we were going to draft that last 4-5 or so years. The week leading up to the last draft we all knew it was going to be Brown, there was story after story. We knew it was going to be Fitz, we knew it was going to be Brown, teams knew we wanted McDougal when we traded down and why the Eagles knew they had to jump us to get him. We knew it was going to be a corner when we got Rolle. We had a good idea of free agents we were going to target in free agency last year.

 

[joeshmo]

That's just the thing joe; there are more things to consider. Can you lay the lack of success over the last 5 years on the personnel of the 2003 draft, or would the blame be more correctly directed at the coaching staffs for failing to develop the talent sooner, i.e. - train them up and put them in a postition to succeed?

Of course its both. But even with bad coaching a player still shows signs of life and ability and none have shown signs of life until recently. Which means the players themselves were also part of the problem as well as the coaches. Meaning it was still a bad draft.

 

[MadCardDisease]

I'd rather see the Cardinals go after Faneca than Suggs if they go after a big name FA.

I just don't see them going after Suggs. Especially if they resign Pace and Dansby. With Okeafor, Hayes, Dansby and Pace there isn't a huge need for Suggs. Especially at the price he would cost.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I'd rather see the Cardinals go after Faneca than Suggs if they go after a big name FA.

I just don't see them going after Suggs. Especially if they resign Pace and Dansby. With Okeafor, Hayes, Dansby and Pace there isn't a huge need for Suggs. Especially at the price he would cost.

 

[cardsfanmd]

Sorry, but I question the logic and football acumen of anyone who thinks that that disaster of a tradedown was a good thing. It will still go down as one of the biggest draft blunders of all time.

I question the football acumen of someone who would call that one of the greatest draft blunders of all time. That statement is just flat out funny.

Before we get too far into this let me say that living in Md, I have seen every game Suggs has played, and you guys really aren't seeing the truth when you look at his stats. He has racked up bunches of sacks no doubt, but how many can you really attribute to him?? I would venture to say that you have to credit Chris McAlister, Rolle and Ed Reed with making many quarterbacks hold the ball too long. How many double teams do you think he faced playing next to Ray Lewis, Peter Boulware, Adalius Thomas, Bart Scott Kelly Gregg and Haoli Ngata?? It is also a lot easier for a DC to send a guy after the qb consistantly when he has 5 pro bowlers manning the rest of the field.

Remember how good players like Ed Hartwell, Duane Starks and Will Demps looked before they left B'more and were major dissapointments to their new teams. If you think Suggs' #s would have been 1/2 what they have been had we drafted him your crazy. JMHO.

 

[CardLogic]

Of course its both. But even with bad coaching a player still shows signs of life and ability andnone have shown signs of life until recently. Which means the players themselves were also part of the problem as well as the coaches. Meaning it was still a bad draft.

None have shown until recently?

Boldin, certainly you are not including him in the "none"! No need to expound further in his case

Wells has been a starter for 4 years / 58 games; he became a permenant starter for the Cardinals in his second year. We all would like to replace him with an perennial All-Pro, however he has been better than most give him credit for.

Hayes has been decent the past two seasons and was showing signs the year prior (2005) but missed the entire season on IR. Likely would have been a regular starter in this third year.

Johnson, obviously not the caliber of the Cardinals two Pro Bowl starters at WR, but he has been solid since his rookie season when he started 8 games and caught 35 passes. He has at least 40 receptions every year since.

Pace has taken the longest to develop and not surprisingly has been the one to be most effected by coaching and being put in a postion to succeed.

Bad draft, no I don't agree. Unpopular draft, yes - so much so that people are still unwilling to see it for it's results.

 

[Skkorpion]

Sitting back. Enjoying the Suggs discussion.

All of you know it's not really going to happen, don't you? Fess up.

Suggs has enough hoodlum history in his background here that the Bidwills wouldn't touch him now, even if the organization was willing to make a big FA splash, which it is not.

It's okay to dream.

 

[cardsfanmd]

None have shown until recently?

Boldin, certainly you are not including him in the "none"! No need to expound further in his case

Wells has been a starter for 4 years / 58 games; he became a permenant starter for the Cardinals in his second year. We all would like to replace him with an perennial All-Pro, however he has been better than most give him credit for.

Hayes has been decent the past two seasons and was showing signs the year prior (2005) but missed the entire season on IR. Likely would have been a regular starter in this third year.

Johnson, obviously not the caliber of the Cardinals two Pro Bowl starters at WR, but he has been solid since his rookie season when he started 8 games and caught 35 passes. He has at least 40 receptions every year since.

Pace has taken the longest to develop and not surprisingly has been the one to be most effected by coaching and being put in a postion to succeed.

Bad draft, no I don't agree. Unpopular draft, yes - so much so that people are still unwilling to see it for it's results.

The bottom line is that we got 1 Pro Bowler in Boldin, three starters in Hayes, Pace (not his fault he is a 3-4 SSLB and was drafted into a 4-3) and BJ and quality depth in Wells. Really, why is there all this crying? Most teams would be very pleased with that draft.

 

[Stout]

I question the football acumen of someone who would call that one of the greatest draft blunders of all time. That statement is just flat out funny.


The bottom line is that we got 1 Pro Bowler in Boldin, three starters in Hayes, Pace (not his fault he is a 3-4 SSLB and was drafted into a 4-3) and BJ and quality depth in Wells. Really, why is there all this crying? Most teams would be very pleased with that draft.

Then you don't have any football acumen. It was universally agreed through the media that it was a huge blunder. I doubt you'd get the media, upon reviewing it, to change opinions. I doubt you'd get many people on here to agree with you either.

You also seem to be under the impression that Suggs was the only player available when we picked; he wasn't.

So, let us re-examine this trade, okay? First of all, you do know that trades of this nature usually happen using the formula of 2 lower 1sts for one high 2nd, right? That's the baseline. Instead, we did that, PLUS gave up a 4th rounder, PLUS traded back in the 2nd. That right there is insanity itself, without looking any deeper.

So now let's look deeper. We've just discovered that, with that given-away 4th rounder, we could have had Asante Samuel. Granted, we may have blown that pick, but we may not have. Also, Boldin could have been picked anywhere between our original pick and the pick we traded back for. Sheer luck that he wasn't.

You're trying to take other picks in the draft into consideration (Wells, Hayes, Boldin) when talking about this trade. Those picks are irrelevant. Well, except for the fact that we endangered missing out on Boldin because of the crappy trade we made. Bottom line is that we traded the #6 pick, a 4th rounder that may or may not have been Asante Samuel, and a chance to miss out on Boldin...for...Pace (a player that is finally showing some ability but who has yet to live up to his slot), and a questionable #3 receiver who definitely never lived up to his slot and will most likely be off the team after his original contract. Hmm, you're right...how can that possibly be considered a bad trade?

To be fair, I'll take out the 'could have been's'. We traded whoever we could have taken at #6 (a fair sampling of talent, there) and another mid-round player for a possible late bloomer platoon OLB and a #3 receiver that wasn't good enough to stick. Still a pretty bad trade.

 

[ajcardfan]

I'll never forget the look on Dave McGinnis' face during an interview right after that trade happened. It looked like he had been sucker punched in the 'nads.

Let's not forget we only passed on Suggs. The buzz in the days right before the draft was that we were leaning towards Marcus Trufant. That would've been a pretty good pick too. And, we traded down with the idea of getting Jerome McDougle who has sucked. So, if it had worked as planned, .....ugh. Even so, we got nothing out of BJ and Pace for 3 full seasons.