QB? How?

[john h]

Of course you mean "works out in my mind" yes? I would love to see the team get Kolb, but I have serious doubts that they will. If they did in my mind they are a playoff team..particularly if they can do it for a 2012 pick and shore up the defense in round 1 this year. I'm not in the mood for more amateur hour stuff.

I do not understand how anyone can project Kolb to be good, bad, or indifferent? No one has seen enough of him to invest a 1st round pick. Then why does a team want to trade such a future star as Kolb? The skins are snake oil salesmen people. You do not trade a QBOTF. They have seen more of him than anyone.

 

[john h]

what is that supposed to mean?

I think a rookie and skelton have the same potential as kolb, he is average at best and the eagles want way more than hes worth.

You are right we know about as much about Skelton as we do about Kolb. Probably more in fact. What scares me about Skelton is that so many of the TV color men and announcers said they did not think Skelton was the answer to our QB problems and there was unanimous agreement won this.

 

[NashDishesDimes]

My plan has been unwavering. A QB remains the most important position on any NFL team. The Cards are in the worst QB position of any team in the NFL. We should draft a QB who hopefully will be one who can take over in a few years. If we do not find a QBOTF in this draft or if Skelton does not develop then this franchise is set back for 5 years or more. Miller or any other position player, no matter how good they are, cannot turn this team around. A QB is the only position player who can have such a dynamic effect on a team in such a short time. Even the unintended consequences of not having a good QB can be devastating. What good receiver ever wants to play for a team with a bad QB? Certainly not Larry Fitzgerald. The unintended consequences of a bad QB are enormous. We lose Kurt Warner and go from the Superbowl to last place is a prime time example. Without a doubt in my mind I say draft the best QB available with our first pick. I also say sign the best available QB on the open market when the walkout/lockout ends. This is no time to let money stand in the way if you intend to be a competitive team.

Couldnt have said it any better.

 

[lobo]

The Cubs model for success one year was to have a committee of Field Managers. I think there were 4 on that committee. How on earth did I become a Cubs/Cardinal fan? I think I need an exorcism.

We have a bit of a crazy set up here...my dad was a bb cardinal and bears fan and i too am a baseball cardinal and cardinal football fan. my brother is a sox and colts fan......oh by the way the cubs college of coaches was 7 not four. first time in many many years tix for opener against pittsburgh are available from the cubs today!!

 

[RugbyMuffin]

.....

So, it is a 100% no risk, absolute guarantee that if we draft Newton, or Gabbert that they will succeed, play better than a veteran QB, and will instantly improve our QB situation ?

So, we passed up on Von Miller, or Patrick Peterson, but at least we got a QB right ? Even though there is no guarantee what so ever either one can come in and start, let alone be effective.

I understand you point, but I will not buy into the fact that drafting a QB in the 1st round is a guarantee improvement in our QB play. It is a big risk/reward situation, IMO.

Whether the risk is worth taking is the debate.

And talking about Von Miller and Patrick Peterson while also considering a QB is a worthy debate, IMO.

Another worthy debate is whether a re-tread vet QB, is any more of a risk than drafting QB, especially a QB in the 1st round.

You can make all the "right moves" and still find your team with no QB, and the devistating results of the situation noted above.

The need to draft a QB feels very "Levi Brownish" to me right now.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

I wish we did run a play-action passing offense, but that's sadly not the case.

Agreed. What a bait and switch when Whiz got signed. What is worse, we have the personel for that offense right now.

Overthrowing a wide-open seam route to Fitz covered man-up by Kamerion Wimbley in the Raiders game was our season in microcosm.

Or the missed 5 yard out on 3rd down to a wide open Fitzgerald during the Chiefs game....I mean take your pick of horrible passing plays from last year.

 

[bg7brd]

Agreed. What a bait and switch when Whiz got signed. What is worse, we have the personel for that offense right now.



Or the missed 5 yard out on 3rd down to a wide open Fitzgerald during the Chiefs game....I mean take your pick of horrible passing plays from last year.

What about the Vikings game and the 3rd down swing pass from deep in our end that Hightower dropped. He had nothing but room down the sideline and would have sealed the victory. Say what you will about Whiz's play calling, but that was a great call.

 

[NashDishesDimes]

So, it is a 100% no risk, absolute guarantee that if we draft Newton, or Gabbert that they will succeed, play better than a veteran QB, and will instantly improve our QB situation ?

So, we passed up on Von Miller, or Patrick Peterson, but at least we got a QB right ? Even though there is no guarantee what so ever either one can come in and start, let alone be effective.

I understand you point, but I will not buy into the fact that drafting a QB in the 1st round is a guarantee improvement in our QB play. It is a big risk/reward situation, IMO.

Whether the risk is worth taking is the debate.

And talking about Von Miller and Patrick Peterson while also considering a QB is a worthy debate, IMO.

Another worthy debate is whether a re-tread vet QB, is any more of a risk than drafting QB, especially a QB in the 1st round.

You can make all the "right moves" and still find your team with no QB, and the devistating results of the situation noted above.

The need to draft a QB feels very "Levi Brownish" to me right now.

Obviously theres no guarentee a 1st round QB will be good but the Cards will be 5-11 until they get that franchise QB. Miller and Peterson are not going to turn this franchise around right now. It starts with the QB. Until they get that QB, they are simply polishing a turd.

If they draft a QB in the first and hes a bust, then you draft another QB next year until you find that guy.

If they bring in a vet QB instead of drafting a franchise QB then they are only putting a bandaid on the situation for a couple years and then will face the same problem. A vet QB might get the cards to 8-8(MIGHT) and they may squeeze into the playoffs but nothing more..

 

[Duckjake]

Obviously theres no guarentee a 1st round QB will be good but the Cards will be 5-11 until they get that franchise QB. Miller and Peterson are not going to turn this franchise around right now. It starts with the QB. Until they get that QB, they are simply polishing a turd.

If they draft a QB in the first and hes a bust, then you draft another QB next year until you find that guy.

If they bring in a vet QB instead of drafting a franchise QB then they are only putting a bandaid on the situation for a couple years and then will face the same problem. A vet QB might get the cards to 8-8(MIGHT) and they may squeeze into the playoffs but nothing more..

How many teams have been to a SB in the last 11 years without having a defense ranked in the top 10 in either points allowed or yards allowed or both? Saints, Cards and Colts. Anyone else? I think that's all but I'm not positive.

Also you can't tell if QB is a bust for 2-3 years so every time you fail you get yourself 2-3 more years of losing seasons unless you have a defense that can keep you competitive while you try to find the right QB.

Build a defense then go get your QB.

One other thing: The Cards squeezed into the playoffs at 9-7 in 2008 losing 4 of their last 6 games and look what happened. With a band aid vet QB no less.

 

[JeffGollin]

It may depend on the status of the lockout. Entering training camp without a veteran QB is pretty scary, and the Cards may feel they're better off drafting an NFL-ready rookie (possibly Gabbert or Newton) than to sit around and "hope" that they can deal for Kolb, Palmer etc. if and when there's an agreement later on.

That would be the logic, but, of course, we don't know how the Cards FO views these options.

Note - Regarding possible other veteran QB's - D. Urban as much as said in his chat that we should forget about McNabb. And Bulger (whom I've never been in love with) is one year older. Frankly, at this point, I'd be thrilled if we were able to sign Matt Hasselbeck (assuming of course that the lockout was over).

 

[NashDishesDimes]

How many teams have been to a SB in the last 11 years without having a defense ranked in the top 10 in either points allowed or yards allowed or both? Saints, Cards and Colts. Anyone else? I think that's all but I'm not positive.

Also you can't tell if QB is a bust for 2-3 years so every time you fail you get yourself 2-3 more years of losing seasons unless you have a defense that can keep you competitive while you try to find the right QB.

Build a defense then go get your QB.

One other thing: The Cards squeezed into the playoffs at 9-7 in 2008 losing 4 of their last 6 games and look what happened. With a band aid vet QB no less.

haha. How many teams even make the playoffs with horrid QB play? much less the superbowl.

The Cards D will never be good until they get a QB that can keep the defense off of the field and give them a reason to even try..

Von Miller is going to make the Cards D top ten? Its not like they cant get an impact OLB in the 2nd round

Kurt warner was not a band aid brotha. He was argueably the best QB in the league that year.

On another note: the cards cant even put a vet behind that O-line they have. He will be knocked out by week 5. They need a mobil guy i.e. Gabbert/Newton

 

[Cardiac]

How many teams have been to a SB in the last 11 years without having a defense ranked in the top 10 in either points allowed or yards allowed or both? Saints, Cards and Colts. Anyone else? I think that's all but I'm not positive.

Past 9 years the following teams have been in the SB with a Defense ranking 11 or worse: Colts pts 23 yds 20, Cards pts 14 yds 20, Bears pts 16 yds 28,
Seahawks pts 19 yds 19, Steelers pts 11 yds 9, Pats pts 17 yds 26, Eagles pts 27 yds 23, Panthers pts 15 yds 20, Raiders pts 25 yds 30,
Pats pts 17 yds 23 Rams pts 23 yds 13.

That's 10 teams outa 9 SB's which is more then 50% of the time teams without top notch D's get into the SB.

Interesting note is that 7 of the winning teams had a better D then the SB losers. The other 2 are pretty much toss ups stat wise, they were pretty close in rankings.

So while you may not need a great D to get you to the SB your odds of winning it are very much against you.


Also you can't tell if QB is a bust for 2-3 years so every time you fail you get yourself 2-3 more years of losing seasons unless you have a defense that can keep you competitive while you try to find the right QB.

Fully agree that you can't always know what you have at the QB position for sure in 1 year of experience. Ryan, Bradford, Flaco (to a degree) and possibly Sanchez are recent early drafter QB's that have shown great promise. Freeman could also be added to that list. Stafford (mostly injury) is the biggest question mark of QB's taken in rd1 in the past 5 years that I can think of.

Build a defense then go get your QB.

Fair is fair. Of the last 9 SB's 11 teams had a top ten ranking in either offensive yrds and or points. All this tells me is that there is no one way to ensure you get to the SB by simply looking at Defensive or Offensive stats.

One other thing: The Cards squeezed into the playoffs at 9-7 in 2008 losing 4 of their last 6 games and look what happened. With a band aid vet QB no less.

I think looking at regular season stats for the entire year may skew how a team is playing heading into the playoffs. This was certainly the case with the Cards as the D was playing much better in the playoffs then typically during the regular season.

Come on Duck, "band aid vet QB". Former SB winning and twice League MVP QB is a closer discription.

While talking about QB's, the above playoff teams had 3 journey men QB's, 1 solid QB (Hassleback) and 13 QB's named Brady or Rothlisberger or Manning or Brees or Rodgers or Warner or McNabb. Yep, it's still all about the QB. [/B]

 

[kerouac9]

haha. How many teams even make the playoffs with horrid QB play? much less the superbowl.

The Cards D will never be good until they get a QB that can keep the defense off of the field and give them a reason to even try..

Von Miller is going to make the Cards D top ten? Its not like they cant get an impact OLB in the 2nd round

Kurt warner was not a band aid brotha. He was argueably the best QB in the league that year.

On another note: the cards cant even put a vet behind that O-line they have. He will be knocked out by week 5. They need a mobil guy i.e. Gabbert/Newton

Horrid QB play or merely mediocre QB play? The Seahawks were in the playoffs this year with bad play from the QB position. Mark Sanchez has been in the playoffs the last two years with sub-average QB performance--and lead those teams to the Conference Championship game both years. Carson Palmer won the AFC North putting up a solid-but-not-great 83.6 QB rating. Miami won the AFC East with Chad Pennington (I think) as the starter in 2008. The 2008 Tennessee Titans went 13-3 with Kerry Collins putting up an 80.2 QB rating.

It's remarkable that so many fans are asking if a QB would get us to the Super Bowl. We were 5-11 last year, y'all. Let's work on winning the division. Or half our games.

 

[Duckjake]

haha. How many teams even make the playoffs with horrid QB play? much less the superbowl.

The Cards D will never be good until they get a QB that can keep the defense off of the field and give them a reason to even try..

Von Miller is going to make the Cards D top ten? Its not like they cant get an impact OLB in the 2nd round

Kurt warner was not a band aid brotha. He was argueably the best QB in the league that year.

On another note: the cards cant even put a vet behind that O-line they have. He will be knocked out by week 5. They need a mobil guy i.e. Gabbert/Newton

No team can win with HORRID QB play but that is not what we're talking about. You can win with average play and a great defense.

The Falcons went to the SB with Chris Chandler. The Panthers with Jake Delhomme. The Bears with Rex Grossman. The Ravens and Bucs won with defense. The Giants won with Eli Manning who had a 56.1% completion rate a QB rating of 73.9 and a league high 20 Interceptions that season.

Warner played behind basically the same offensive line. Mobil is not necessary in the Cards offense. Getting rid of the ball in a hurry is.

Warner was a band aid vet FA QB when the Cards signed him in 2005.

Peterson, Acho and Irving/Shepard would make the defense top 10. The Steelers have been one of the dominant teams of this century. Because their defense has been ranked in the top 10 in yards allowed every single year.

 

[Stout]

I don't think that's the case at all. We don't run a West Coast offense, but we do run a spread shotgun passing offense. I wish we did run a play-action passing offense, but that's sadly not the case.

Very few of Warner's passes even in 2008 went 20+ yards downfield through the air. Heck, few of them went 15+ yards downfield. What got Fitz injured in the preseason? An 8-yard in route. We were running a modified Mike Martz passing offense that exploited interior passing zones to gret success with Warner, and that seems to have become Whis's philosophy. Those require great mid-range accuracy and--more importantly--excellent identification of coverage and quick decision-making on where the ball is going. That second reason is why we'll likely not see a rookie starter this season.

I'm not saying this as a defender of Gabbert--I think he might be fine in this offense, but not better than a Kyle Orton type. I don't think he's much of a prospect overall; his upside probably isn't greater than Skelton in the mid-run.

I'm not stressed about the QB situation because I've resigned myself to the idea that we'll press hard on Marc Bulger and if he says no then we'll be going with John Skelton. I like Alex Smith more as a mental exercise than anything else.

EDIT: FWIW, there should NEVER be a "small window" 20 yards from the line of scimmage in an offense. If you have a WR on a vertical route, he'll be double-covered (maybe). But if you have TWO WR on vertical routes, then one of them should be single-covered, and an NFL QB should be able to defeat single-coverage 60% of the time or better. The problem with our offense last season is that QBs rarely had the time for a 20-yard route to develop before defenses were collapsing at their knees and when they did have that time, they couldn't get the ball downfield to their target.

Overthrowing a wide-open seam route to Fitz covered man-up by Kamerion Wimbley in the Raiders game was our season in microcosm.

Yes, we run a style of offense similar to the spread, but not the West Coast Offense, or even close to it. Our offense is not dink-and-dunk. We had one season with a high RB reception rate, but that's it--and it was also the same season that our pass defense was so horrific that Warner couldn't possibly throw downfield most of the time, and used Timmy as his safety blanket.

Whisenhunt definitely likes going downfield--we just don't have the burners to do it very well. Remember, in Warner's last season, he dropped back to look for the deep throw often, but had to rush it out incredibly fast. And even our short throwing game hasn't been designed as a WCO short passing game. We do not use the pass as an extension of the run to such a level as the WCO does.

And even if we don't go downfield as much as I think, the QB still has to have the capability to do it. With how terrible his numbers are beyond 20 yards, I doubt Gabbert is going to do well. That's just IMHO.

 

[Stout]

haha. How many teams even make the playoffs with horrid QB play? much less the superbowl.

The Cards D will never be good until they get a QB that can keep the defense off of the field and give them a reason to even try..

Von Miller is going to make the Cards D top ten? Its not like they cant get an impact OLB in the 2nd round

Kurt warner was not a band aid brotha. He was argueably the best QB in the league that year.

On another note: the cards cant even put a vet behind that O-line they have. He will be knocked out by week 5. They need a mobil guy i.e. Gabbert/Newton

Really? That makes absolutely no sense. The Cards D will never be good until they have better personnel; we hopefully have good coaching on D now. Sure, the offense can have a negative impact on a defense, but it won't make a good defense bad, just wear them down. Now, it is hard to have a great defense with a bad offense, sure, but that's not where we're setting the standard here.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Really? That makes absolutely no sense. The Cards D will never be good until they have better personnel; we hopefully have good coaching on D now. Sure, the offense can have a negative impact on a defense, but it won't make a good defense bad, just wear them down. Now, it is hard to have a great defense with a bad offense, sure, but that's not where we're setting the standard here.

A worn down "D" becomes a statistically bad "D".

Ours was on the field an average of 7 minutes more per game.

 

[kerouac9]

Yes, we run a style of offense similar to the spread, but not the West Coast Offense, or even close to it. Our offense is not dink-and-dunk. We had one season with a high RB reception rate, but that's it--and it was also the same season that our pass defense was so horrific that Warner couldn't possibly throw downfield most of the time, and used Timmy as his safety blanket.

Whisenhunt definitely likes going downfield--we just don't have the burners to do it very well. Remember, in Warner's last season, he dropped back to look for the deep throw often, but had to rush it out incredibly fast. And even our short throwing game hasn't been designed as a WCO short passing game. We do not use the pass as an extension of the run to such a level as the WCO does.

And even if we don't go downfield as much as I think, the QB still has to have the capability to do it. With how terrible his numbers are beyond 20 yards, I doubt Gabbert is going to do well. That's just IMHO.

I never said that we run a West Coast offense. The Spread is not a West Coast offense--even a derivitive of it. Whis does not like to go downfield with the ball, but he does like to give the WRs a chance to run after the catch, something Boldin, Fitz, Breaston, and even Doucet can do well.

Watch the games, Stout. We don't have deep drops that allow WRs to get open 20 yards down field, and we don't run a lot of vertical routes. We run the deep ins and quick outs that are features of the Martz spread offense (IMO because Warner was allowed to essentially run that offense while he was here, and Whis is convinced that you can do that with anyone, and have to in order to be successful).

IMO, the offense is poorly designed for our personnel. But you have to at least know what the offense is before you can either modify it for the personnel that we have or begin to find players to fit the system. One thing that was good late in the year is that the Cards actually did start to implement more max protect schemes and put fewer receivers into patterns, and we started to see more of those deep connections.

I'm not sure how you can look at the number of quick WR screens that we started running once John Skelton was in the lineup and not see the offense that we were running.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

I'd take Kolb over any of the rookies any day. The rookies have very little chance of playing next year. I know Kolb hasn't really done anything yet so nobody can say how he'll be with any certainty but the scouts and NFL personnel all seem to be high on him. He' been in the league and is ready to assume a starting role. His upside is very good but that doesn't mean he's a sure thing but I'll take my chances with him over anything else available out there(Palmer, according to Brown, is not available).

 

[Stout]

I never said that we run a West Coast offense. The Spread is not a West Coast offense--even a derivitive of it. Whis does not like to go downfield with the ball, but he does like to give the WRs a chance to run after the catch, something Boldin, Fitz, Breaston, and even Doucet can do well.

Watch the games, Stout. We don't have deep drops that allow WRs to get open 20 yards down field, and we don't run a lot of vertical routes. We run the deep ins and quick outs that are features of the Martz spread offense (IMO because Warner was allowed to essentially run that offense while he was here, and Whis is convinced that you can do that with anyone, and have to in order to be successful).

IMO, the offense is poorly designed for our personnel. But you have to at least know what the offense is before you can either modify it for the personnel that we have or begin to find players to fit the system. One thing that was good late in the year is that the Cards actually did start to implement more max protect schemes and put fewer receivers into patterns, and we started to see more of those deep connections.

I'm not sure how you can look at the number of quick WR screens that we started running once John Skelton was in the lineup and not see the offense that we were running.

1--I never said that we run a WCO either, so...don't type words into my post.

2--I watch the games. Your snarky elitist attitude has to go. You bring good insight when you want to, but often ruin it with your attitude.

3--Your last sentence basically gainsays your post. That we started running 'once John Skelton' was in the lineup. KW's offense is not nearly close enough to a WCO for Gabbert to succeed in, IMO. He likes going downfield as well as he likes throwing short. As you've said, he simply doesn't have the proper players for his kind of offense. That does not mean he wants to keep dialing the offense back because of bad QB play. IMO, if we draft Gabbert, it would be a step back for our offense.

Maybe he can go somewhere else and succeed, but I don't think it will be with us. And I doubt we'll draft him even if he's available. That's really what this conversation started as. Can we get back to that instead of sidetracking into philosophical debates about our offense?

So, that turned out more hostile than I intended. I'm just responding to perceived arrogance and talking-down on your part. I do not respond well to such, and you should really dial it back. It can come out wrong on a message board, I know, so if it did, then don't take my response to heart. If so, then by all means, do.

 

[Duckjake]

Really? That makes absolutely no sense. The Cards D will never be good until they have better personnel; we hopefully have good coaching on D now. Sure, the offense can have a negative impact on a defense, but it won't make a good defense bad, just wear them down. Now, it is hard to have a great defense with a bad offense, sure, but that's not where we're setting the standard here.

Exactly.

The 2010 team gave up only 8 more points than the 2008 Super Bowl team. The Cards generated 890 yards of offense in two playoff games in 2009 and gave up 90 points!

We need the personnel to change the 25 year history of bad defense.

 

[Pariah]

I'd take Kolb over any of the rookies any day.

Me, too... but the real question becomes: Would you give up the #5 pick for him? I wouldn't.

 

[NashDishesDimes]

Horrid QB play or merely mediocre QB play? The Seahawks were in the playoffs this year with bad play from the QB position. Mark Sanchez has been in the playoffs the last two years with sub-average QB performance--and lead those teams to the Conference Championship game both years. Carson Palmer won the AFC North putting up a solid-but-not-great 83.6 QB rating. Miami won the AFC East with Chad Pennington (I think) as the starter in 2008. The 2008 Tennessee Titans went 13-3 with Kerry Collins putting up an 80.2 QB rating.

It's remarkable that so many fans are asking if a QB would get us to the Super Bowl. We were 5-11 last year, y'all. Let's work on winning the division. Or half our games.

Those teams you just mentioned all had top notch defenses, and top notch running games. Imagine if they had a good QB. Nobody cares about those teams because without that franchise QB they will always hit a glass cieling.

Your basically trying to tell me that an OLB is going to make a greater impact than a potential franchise QB...

 

[imaCafan]

Me, too... but the real question becomes: Would you give up the #5 pick for him? I wouldn't.

And don't give our 2012 first round pick for him either. Our LUCK would be we would get the first pick in 2012, but Philly would have it......

 

[Duckjake]

Those teams you just mentioned all had top notch defenses, and top notch running games. Imagine if they had a good QB. Nobody cares about those teams because without that franchise QB they will always hit a glass cieling.

Your basically trying to tell me that an OLB is going to make a greater impact than a potential franchise QB...

Kamerion Wimberly would have had a more positive impact on the Cardinals than Matt Leinart did.