Rosen in at 4 minutes!?

[Arz101]

Gator, I want Rosen to be our QB for the next 12 years, not the next twelve months. I want to put him in a position where he has a decent chance to succeed, that's all I'm going for.

We've got a an OC that, god help him, is trying to pull it together with a completely new group of players. We have a rookie center, and a rookie #2 WR. Can we give these guys some time to figure it out before we fire the rookie QB out there? In the interest of him having a fighting chance of being successful? Can we install him after the bye week, after giving him two full weeks of first team reps in practice?

I am with you pal. Currently Cardinals are a dumpster fire with flaming sh*t hitting the fan

 

[Buckybird]

So what's the plan then GatorAZ, if Rosen goes out against SEA and throws three picks in the 1st half? Hmmm?

The same people in here that are screaming for Rosen over Bradford, will then be screaming for Glennon over Rosen, or the dude off the practice squad over Rosen, or Johnny Manzel over Rosen, for gods sake.

They will give up on Rosen, just as quickly as they've given on up Bradford, and that's why we can't ever have nice things as Cardinal's fans.

Come on Mr Sooner, you really believe the fans are going to scream for Glennon if Josh throws 3 picks again the Hawks? lol

We as fans know what Bradford has been throughout his career & that’s a mediocre QB, who throws short constantly & also a poor W/L record.

Bottom line is this team won’t win more than 3-4 games max with Bradford or Rosen more than likely. If the Wilks can’t see that right now he needs to wake up.

This kid will get at least 2 years to find out if he offers any hope. No way the fans are going to turn on him as quick as 1 games & two series. Come on man

 

[GatorAZ]

Gator, I want Rosen to be our QB for the next 12 years, not the next twelve months. I want to put him in a position where he has a decent chance to succeed, that's all I'm going for.

We've got a an OC that, god help him, is trying to pull it together with a completely new group of players. We have a rookie center, and a rookie #2 WR. Can we give these guys some time to figure it out before we fire the rookie QB out there? In the interest of him having a fighting chance of being successful? Can we install him after the bye week, after giving him two full weeks of first team reps in practice?

Mayfield and Allen have new OC’s and are holding their own. I won’t argue with people who didn’t like him starting his career in the 4th qtr of that game but he was starting next week regardless. Bradford’s last 6 possessions went punt-punt-punt-int-int-fumble. He’s had one good qtr in 3 games. I don’t fault Wilkes for pulling the string. You could do worse than starting your young QB vs Seattle and SF the next two games.

 

[gimpy]

I don't know. Supposedly, by many here (maybe elsewhere, too?) Rosen was the one qb drafted that is the most "NFL ready". The other qb's are playing and starting already. Why not play/start the most NFL ready qb now?

After watching him play 4 1/2 minutes today, ??? He looked ok to me.

 

[Buckybird]

I don't know. Supposedly, by many here (maybe elsewhere, too?) Rosen was the one qb drafted that is the most "NFL ready". The other qb's are playing and starting already. Why not play/start the most NFL ready qb now?

I’ve said the same thing.

It’s simply ridiculous for anyone to keep wanting the same results from your QB when it’s clear your team won’t win more than 3-4 games & he’s struggled more than he’s ever struggled. It’s clearly not all on Sam, but’s its damn clear it’s not all McCoy either.

Pass the torch, play the kid & lets cross our fingers he’s the guy.

 

[sdscard4]

This all kind of reminds me when we drafted Matty. Kurt was in a terrible stretch when he fumbled like 99 times in 3 games. They gave Matt his first start against the chiefs I believe. We lose. Games later Matt I believe is injured and the forgotten dried up Kurt is brought back. He becomes the Kurt of old and the rest is history. I believe it all killed Matt. Could history repeat itself and Bradford could be the new Kurt? I know I am reaching but this movie looks familiar

 

[ReasonableMan]

This all kind of reminds me when we drafted Matty. Kurt was in a terrible stretch when he fumbled like 99 times in 3 games. They gave Matt his first start against the chiefs I believe. We lose. Games later Matt I believe is injured and the forgotten dried up Kurt is brought back. He becomes the Kurt of old and the rest is history. I believe it all killed Matt. Could history repeat itself and Bradford could be the new Kurt? I know I am reaching but this movie looks familiar

No. Just no.

I mean— no.

May the Cardinals gods smite you for comparing Bradford to Warner.

This is more like the year we had Derek Anderson and John Skelton, if John Skelton had a lot more talent and potential.

 

[sdscard4]

No. Just no.

I mean— no.

May the Cardinals gods smite you for comparing Bradford to Warner.

This is more like the year we had Derek Anderson and John Skelton, if John Skelton had a lot more talent and potential.

During that time Kurt was not popular at all

 

[sdscard4]

Skelton or Anderson couldn't even hold Sams jock. Light years better then both of them combined

 

[ReasonableMan]

Skelton or Anderson couldn't even hold Sams jock. Light years better then both of them combined

Clearly. Sam’s performance is a clear indication of that

 

[Chopper0080]

He made the right decision there. That's actually good coaching. The 3rd and 2 call on the other hand ...

I disagree. I don't have an issue with replacing Bradford with Rosen, but you don't do it at that moment. You do it coming out of the half or when the Bears close it to a one score deficit. Wilks waited until we got behind, against a top Bears defense that knew we had to throw the ball, and when we had zero momentum. It was a reactionary move of a guy who had no idea or plan for the situation. Wilks set up Rosen to fail which is never a good move and does not earn the respect of your players.

This all being said, I don;'t think we ruined Rosen with this decision. I do believe that it took a little bit out of Wilks's credibility with the players, but that will erode on it's own as well. This season can't get over soon enough.

 

[CFLredzoned]

In hindsight I'm sure Wilks would have put him in at the half. But I think like everybody else, he wanted Rosen to get a fresh start for a full game as the starter. Then the worst case scenario happened with Bradford fumbling and allowing the Bears to take the lead. At that point, they had a game to win and Rosen gave them the best chance. It was a tough decision I think he had to make. Maybe with a different qb with a more fragile makeup, you don't do it. But after hearing Rosen's interview, yeah I think he'll be fine.

 

[Chopper0080]

In hindsight I'm sure Wilks would have put him in at the half. But I think like everybody else, he wanted Rosen to get a fresh start for a full game as the starter. Then the worst case scenario happened with Bradford fumbling and allowing the Bears to take the lead. At that point, they had a game to win and Rosen gave them the best chance. It was a tough decision I think he had to make. Maybe with a different qb with a more fragile makeup, you don't do it. But after hearing Rosen's interview, yeah I think he'll be fine.

Again, disagree. What you want and what you plan for should be two different things. Wilks stuck with Bradford and instead of showing conviction with that choice, he waffled and put ensured Rosen was put in a situation to fail. He panicked. He was reactive instead of being proactive. He was everything that bosses get crushed for in the real world. he made one mistake and then compounded it by making another

 

[CFLredzoned]

Again, disagree. What you want and what you plan for should be two different things. Wilks stuck with Bradford and instead of showing conviction with that choice, he waffled and put ensured Rosen was put in a situation to fail. He panicked. He was reactive instead of being proactive. He was everything that bosses get crushed for in the real world. he made one mistake and then compounded it by making another

I also think Wilks was playing the odds though. They knew it could come down to the scenario that happened, but in their minds, those odds were very low - and they were willing to suffer the criticism if that played out. The odds in their minds heavily favored the Cards holding on and winning with Bradford playing and not fumbling at a critical time. Definitely a rookie HC mistake. I'm sure he's learned from it.

 

[RockinDaMike]

I'm good with it. I'm not disappointed in what he did and this will make him tougher.

 

[conraddobler]

Hail Mary's ..... well they rarely work, fitting Rosen got sacked on his try. The most troubling things about the Bears game?

In reality it boils down to this:

Bradford looked terrible as in done at least in my perspective.... could be from his hit he took but he's going to take those so that's bad.

Rosen's out route pass that got picked looked very weak and very college like both in arm strength and in thinking, that's probably much worse than the above.

The defense had no chance but played very well.

So now we have a suspect OC, a suspect GM and a HC who's probably very good at defense but is a noob HC.

Our best prospect looked like a total rookie when thrown into the fire but worse than that again was that out route. I want to see him throw that like a real NFL QB and make sure he can before I worry about his HOF induction.

 

[Chopper0080]

I also think Wilks was playing the odds though. They knew it could come down to the scenario that happened, but in their minds, those odds were very low - and they were willing to suffer the criticism if that played out. The odds in their minds heavily favored the Cards holding on and winning with Bradford playing and not fumbling at a critical time. Definitely a rookie HC mistake. I'm sure he's learned from it.

There are zero odds that show it is better to insert a QB who has never taken a professional NFL snap into a game when he is playing against a top defense, the team has zero momentum, the team is behind, and time remaining dictates that the team will have to pass the ball. I don't care what the other option is, it is better than this one.

 

[JeffGollin]

Not saying he didnt deserve benching but creates a bad culture with moves like that, instability, have to make personnel moves the right way at least...

You've got the ball on your 25 yd line with roughly 4:30 to play and 40+ yds to get into FG range. (Aaron Rodgers does this in his sleep). Who do you want at QB:

1. A veteran who turned over the ball 3 times but has "been there" & has the entire playbook at his disposal?

2. A talented but green rookie with far fewer play calling options?

 

[AZCrazy]

Does anyone doubt or dispute that the team looked far sharper when Rosen was in at the end? You stay with the vet because it brings confidence and clarity to a tough spot. Does any of that sound like what Bradford was slinging?

Thanks Sam, for coming in and doing your best. No one doubts your sincere effort, but it didn't work out. We wont really know how much of the poor production was on you and how much was on McCoy, and how much on Keim, but we're going to know soon enough.

 

[Chopper0080]

Does anyone doubt or dispute that the team looked far sharper when Rosen was in at the end? You stay with the vet because it brings confidence and clarity to a tough spot. Does any of that sound like what Bradford was slinging?

Thanks Sam, for coming in and doing your best. No one doubts your sincere effort, but it didn't work out. We wont really know how much of the poor production was on you and how much was on McCoy, and how much on Keim, but we're going to know soon enough.

That sharpness led to zero points and practically two turnovers on two drives. Let's take off our rose colored glasses here and call Rosen's drives what they were. Failures in a lot of ways. The only excuse to be made is that he was put in a bad spot.

 

[conraddobler]

You've got the ball on your 25 yd line with roughly 4:30 to play and 40+ yds to get into FG range. (Aaron Rodgers does this in his sleep). Who do you want at QB:

1. A veteran who turned over the ball 3 times but has "been there" & has the entire playbook at his disposal?

2. A talented but green rookie with far fewer play calling options?

I'm going to say you are right and from a calm perspective with zero emotions then you are exactly right.

Putting Rosen in there is giving up on Bradford and he may well have won the game all he had to do was drive down for a FG. Since it's the first time we've even had the option of seeing if your multi million dollar investment could accomplish this it was a total panic move to stick Rosen in there.

Noob HC's do that but .........

It's also apparent that any feel for the game would tell you that the time of Bradford never got off the ground, wasn't getting off the ground and what fleeting success you had went up in a turnover set of flames.

The fluid nature of how it played out means that I don't question that the HC did this like you would if you were just looking at the situation on paper by box score which is in my opinion what you are doing. I would of done the same thing since Bradford literally turned the game over after he was hit.

The coach has to deal with this stuff in real time factoring in team emotions, to leave Bradford in was giving up on the team in a way, he chose the team over Bradford is what he did which long term plays better than you think with players.