Saturday Thoughts: Shuffling Cards

Walter Mitchell

All Star
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Posts
501
Reaction score
0
Location
Wrentham, MA
Since many of you will be pre-occupied with tomorrow's intra-squad scrimmage, I thought I would post my Saturday Thoughts a day early this week. Here goes.

With the exception of Jeff Blake and the starting secondary, due to the Cardinals' depth at WR, OL, TE, RB, DL and LB, look for Mac, Sully and Marmie to shuffle and rotate players in and out of the ballgames this season in order to keep the players fresh and in an effort to wear down the opponents, especially when playing under the hot Arizona sun.

In rotating players in and out, the coaches will be able to guage each game which players are having stronger games and the coaches will be able to ride those players in the fourth quarter. The liability of shuffling players is the potential for a lack of continuity. Therefore, it behooves the coaches to make sure that the players are fluid in their assignments and roles and all on the same page. Can the coaches pull this off? I believe they can and they will.

Likely Rotations:

Wide Receiver: McAddley, Foster, Boldin, Johnson, and the two winners of the Gilmore/Kasper/Walker/Soliday/Poole/Hamilton/Newhouse/Savage battle. NOTE: Last year the Cardinals were critcized by the local and national media for not adding a veteran to challenge and/or back up Thomas Jones at running back, especially in light of Michael Pittman's defection. The Cardinals had faith in Marcel Shipp. Hopefully the Cardinals will get lucky again. With the defections of David Boston, Frank Sanders and MarTay Jenkins...the Cardinals have merely added one relatively unknown veteran in Larry Foster and have put their trust in the hands of the youngsters. Sully will have to perform his magic and Jeff Blake will have to keep holding these kids to high standards.

Offensive Line: Shelton, Spikes, Kendall, Davis, Clement, Dishman, Wells and the winner of the Starkey/Garcia/Wragge/Grace battle. NOTE: Now that Mac has essentially asserted that Pete Kendall will be the starting center, look for Chris Dishman to garner considerable time at guard and possibly at center. Reggie Wells has become the wild card here at a most opportune time. Not only has he emerged as the front-runner to spell L.J. Shelton from time to time at LT, Wells could very well be the answer at RT, where the future of the oft-injured and under-achieving Anthony Clement remains uncertain. Cameron Spikes should be a strong factor in the running game at LG, but needs to prove he can hold his own in pass protection, otherwise Spikes may be lifted in favor of Dishman or Garcia on passing downs.

Tight End: Jones, Bush, Banks, Diamond. There's a likely chance that the Cardinals will keep four tight ends, especially if Steve Bush doubles as the second FB. Jones seems poised to put last year's debacle behind him, and hopefully will become one of the main focal points of the passing game. Bush is a true warrior...a headsy and tough blocker and under-rated pass catcher who battles like a crazed dog for extra yards after the catch. Banks' talent as a blocker is a real asset, particularly in short yardage situations. And Diamond's talent as a receiver is attractive, particularly in the red zone.

Running Back: Smith, Shipp, Hodgins and the winner of the Anderson/Prentice/Scobey battle. Not only will Emmitt and Marcel share the load at RB, Hodgins will be a major factor in both the running and passing games. Don't be surprised if Sully works Damian Anderson into the mix every now and then as well.

Defensive Line: Vanden Bosch, Bryant, Bell, Pace, King, Tanner, and the two winners of the Wakefield/Johnson/Davis/Dwyer/Atoe/Moore/Quinn battle. The Cardinals have rotated fresh defensive linemen in and out of the game for years now. This year their depth is hopefully a little stronger. The new, more aggressive line philosophy will require more shuffling than normal because the players will be exerting themselves more rigorously.

Linebacker: Thompson, McKinnon, Fisher, Hayes, Darling, Gilbert and the winner of the Woods/Faulk/Young/Burton/Jones battle. This rotation will perhaps be the most exciting and effective because this is the most talented group of young linebackers the Cardinals have had in ages. This group will likely lead the team in sacks if Mac throws the kitchen sink at teams the way I think he will.

Jeff Blake and Dexter Jackson: These players are the main straws...the conductors...who will keep the revolving door of players running smoothly and evenly. Both players love their roles and are ideally suited for it. They are by far the most important additions to this football team.

Rod Graves deserves a good deal of credit for developing the depth of this football team and getting all players signed and ready to go. However, Rod can't sit still these next few critical weeks. He still has some major decisions to make:

(1) Should a veteran backup QB be added for insurance...should, God forbid, Jeff Blake get nicked up...should Josh McCown struggle as a second year QB might when turned to? With Preston Parsons struggling in camp, the move to add a quarterback with experience seems all the more wise.

(2) Should an experienced WR be added to the mix? It may prove to be very wise.

(3) Should a defensive lineman or two be added through waivers? Could prove very fruitful.

(4) What about another cornerback? No question, especially in light of Duane Stark's situation. It appears more and more that Starks' reliablity and credibility are in serious question. Mac will always defend his warriors. It's very telling that Mac has not been defending Starks while Starks has been nursing a hamstring injury.

Should Graves consider trading Starks? The likely suitor would be Marvin Lewis, the new Cincinnati head coach, who coached Starks in Baltimore. Lewis is desperate for secondary help...it's his weak link. The Cardinals would have to eat Starks' signing bonus, but would recover his base salaries.

While many of you seem to scoff at Renaldo Hill's prospects as a starting corner, let me remind you that Renaldo Hill essentially played just as well, if not better, than Starks last year. Hill plays with his head and his heart. While he's not a blazer, he's got very good instincts...there is a reason why he's intercepted four passes thus far in camp. Even if Starks remains on the team, it's not out of the realm of possibility that Hill will beat out Starks for the starting job, especially if Mac continues to sour on Starks...if the coaches remain objective...and if the coaches truly are intent on awarding starting jobs to those who earn them.

The shuffling of this 53-Card deck will promote a unified teamwork in ways we haven't seen in recent years. These Cards will be fun and very exciting to watch, which will make Coach Mac all the more animated on the sidelines this year. I think we are going to love these Cards.
 
Last edited:

EndZone

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
2,369
Reaction score
38
Location
New York
I would say that Wilson should be included in the main straws as well as Big. I don't think either of those players will be off the field much unless because of injury.
 

arthurracoon

The Cardinal Smiles
Joined
Dec 6, 2002
Posts
16,534
Reaction score
0
Location
Nashville
I would not want to trade Starks, because If Hill can be our #3 CB, that's great, especially if, as you say, he is capable of starting.

very nice article :thumbup:
 

EndZone

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
2,369
Reaction score
38
Location
New York
I have a feeling that Starks is just being careful. As long as he is healthy during the season I don't care if he misses some of camp. He is a veteran and when he was healthy he showed he can dominate (St. Louis)
 
OP
OP
W

Walter Mitchell

All Star
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Posts
501
Reaction score
0
Location
Wrentham, MA
If Mac shared in your opinion, End Zone, I think we'd all feel better about Starks. However, there may very well be a perception on Mac's part and others' that Starks did not report in shape for camp...which is all the more unthinkable after what was a very disappointing season for him and the team last year. Starks has even alluded to the fact that he came to Arizona for the money, which makes his modus operandi all the more dubious.

The antithesis of Starks' rationale can be seen in the way Emmitt Smith has embraced the challenge of playing in Arizona...when Smith was asked, "Why Arizona, of all places?" Smith's response was: "Why not Arizona? I think this is a tremendous opportunity here."
 

EndZone

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
2,369
Reaction score
38
Location
New York
Originally posted by Walter Mitchell
If Mac shared in your opinion, End Zone, I think we'd all feel better about Starks. However, there may very well be a perception on Mac's part and others' that Starks did not report in shape for camp...which is all the more unthinkable after what was a very disappointing season for him and the team last year. Starks has even alluded to the fact that he came to Arizona for the money, which makes his modus operandi all the more dubious.

The antithesis of Starks' rationale can be seen in the way Emmitt Smith has embraced the challenge of playing in Arizona...when Smith was asked, "Why Arizona, of all places?" Smith's response was: "Why not Arizona? I think this is a tremendous opportunity here."

I somewhat agree. So I rephrase my previous statement to say I Hope!
 

BuckeyeCardinal

Cantankerous Curmudgeon
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Posts
2,252
Reaction score
0
Banks

I had a poll the other day concerning the surprise of camp.....hands down it looks like Wells....especially if we're considering him as a possible starter.

Banks may very well be the surprise of those coming back....yes Bryant and Bell may be tearing them up but they were drafted higher than Banks and are/were expected to provide the defensive line that we sorely need.

So for me pencil in Banks as the possible surprise of those returning.

Why?

Well many said he would be cut (he still may be)....and some of the sports "experts" said his forte was catching and that he couldn't block?

I say he can do both and he has a big heart.....I'll take Banks on my team.
 

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
38,363
Reaction score
29,723
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Walter, let me ask you: Would you rather have Duane Starks available in camp or available all season?

Duane Starks is a veteran player in the NFL. He lives on an island and is expected to essentially shut down one side of the field for four quarters. Remember how the whole writeup last camp was how Starks was busting his butt working with the team? I'd rather he do that during the season, and save himself from work during camp and pre-season.

Free agents go wherever they want to for money. It's a fact of the game. Why did Emmitt come here? We were offering him over 10 times whatever anyone else was offering, and a starting job. Same with Freddie Jones.

Personally, I don't care whether or not Starks is in camp. He needs to be on the field on Sundays, and worry about that, not worrying about playing on Saturday nights in August. He has no trade value, and is probably one of the top 3 or 4 players on our D.

EDIT: Just thinking a little more about this, I'm wondering if Starks is being treated as another "untouchable" was over the last three years: Jake Plummer. There were a lot of statements from Mac about "turnovers not being acceptable for this team." Maybe a quality replacement wasn't available, but to say something like this flatly and not back it up may have sent the wrong message to the offense, and the team in general. Obviously, turnovers were acceptable, all season long.

Maybe there's more here going on than even Skorp can tell us. There's a new DB coach in town; could Starks not get along with him? Maybe Starks isn't buying into new system altogether, and doesn't want to put his season on the line until he sees something happening. Maybe Duane thinks he's "too good" to waste his time blanketing Jason McAddley and Foster. Maybe Starks is sulking over the fact that D. Jackson seems to have taken over what he thought to be his leadership role of the defense. I have no idea.

What I do know is that many, many vet players hate training camp. Brett Favre isn't doing much in Packer-land. Jimmy Smith (I think) is holding out (again) in J-ville. Duce Staley doesn't want to go to camp, and his job's on the line. I think that Starks knows that he's not going to lose his starting job just because he doesn't want to run wind sprints and go through walkthroughs, so he's sitting in the dorms, waiting for Madden 2004 to come out.
 
Last edited:

spanky

All Star
Joined
Mar 16, 2003
Posts
551
Reaction score
0
Location
North Carolina
Trade Starks to Cincinnati........hmmmmm........for their 2nd rd'er in 2004...............I'd do it.

Need another experienced WR...............Walter, we've got to get down to a more manageable group of WR's quickly or none of these guys will get enough reps. No....

Verteran QB.........Yes........cut Parsons ASAP. On another thread, Ray Lucas was brought up...........me likey

One or two waiver cut D-Linemen.........no.

CB'S..............call Spurrier ASAP and offer him one and or all of the following WR's (Savage;Newhouse;Hamilton; Soliday) for Smoot
 

cardagon7

Newbie
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Posts
40
Reaction score
0
Keep it up

Awesome Walter. Appreciate the synopsis. Great info for us out-of-towners!n Keep it up. Can't wait for the scrimmage re-cap!:thumbup:
 

Northern Card

All Star
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Posts
779
Reaction score
0
Location
Ottawa, ON - Canada
Originally posted by Walter Mitchell
If Mac shared in your opinion, End Zone, I think we'd all feel better about Starks. However, there may very well be a perception on Mac's part and others' that Starks did not report in shape for camp...which is all the more unthinkable after what was a very disappointing season for him and the team last year. Starks has even alluded to the fact that he came to Arizona for the money, which makes his modus operandi all the more dubious.

The antithesis of Starks' rationale can be seen in the way Emmitt Smith has embraced the challenge of playing in Arizona...when Smith was asked, "Why Arizona, of all places?" Smith's response was: "Why not Arizona? I think this is a tremendous opportunity here."

A series of well turned sentences operatively based on lines and words such as, ...'may very well be... "perception" and "alluded to..." All adding up to nothing more than "pure conjecture" from a great distance.... :)
 
Last edited:

ajcardfan

I see you.
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
38,456
Reaction score
25,350
Walter,

By your reasoning Pete Kendall's "modus operandi" should be even more dubious. I never seen anyone more upfront about signing somewhere for the money, and he's been hurt about as much as Starks has in games missed per season and he's dinged now.
 

Tangodnzr

ASFN Lifer
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
3,837
Reaction score
5
Location
Idaho
Originally posted by Northern Card
A series of well turned sentences operatively based on lines and words such as, ...'may very well be... "perception" and "alluded to..." All adding up to nothing more than "pure conjecture" from a great distance.... :)
LOL. I guess I wasn't the only one to notice that. :D


BTW, Cardagon7, just for the record... As far as "out of towners" go ....Walter is one too. In fact, I'm probably closer to what's going on than he is, and I'm in Idaho. :wave:
 

SECTION 11

vibraslap
Joined
Oct 11, 2002
Posts
16,357
Reaction score
4,766
Location
Between the Pipes
Originally posted by Northern Card
A series of well turned sentences operatively based on lines and words such as, ...'may very well be... "perception" and "alluded to..." All adding up to nothing more than "pure conjecture" from a great distance.... :)


Who pissed in your Cheerios?
 
OP
OP
W

Walter Mitchell

All Star
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Posts
501
Reaction score
0
Location
Wrentham, MA
Ajcardfan: Interesting point about Kendall, although Kendall started 12 games last year as opposed to Starks' 10. Kendall started 11 the year before. The difference is that Kendall has played well by anyone's standards...Starks last year did not. Kendall is also a pretty darned good leader. Is Starks? I will reiterate that if Mac isn't defending Starks...something is seriously wrong.

Kerouac: If you are right, why would any established player ever want to participate in training camp? If you gave veterans the choice...most of them would show up the week before the first game. Training camp is a necessary ritual...not for just whipping the players into solid football shape, but for developing team chemistry.

Remember Eric Swann? Swann was always operating on his own agenda and always believed he should just suit up for games. Not only did Swann's level of play regress due to injuries and his own questionable decisions, his impact on the team chemistry was extremely negative.

I understand your point, Kerouac. I do. But the Cardinals have had a history of kow-towing to their high profile players...as you suggest...and that needs to change if the Cardinals are going to ever get the team on the same page. Mac seems to be learning pretty well on this one.

So, to answer your question, I do care what Duane Starks is doing in camp, especially in light of how disapppointing his play was in 2002. Duane Starks is looking like Tommy Knight all over again, isn't he? Even if he rested all of training camp, can the team really count on Starks week after week?

Spanky: Great post today on your training camp concerns. Thanks. Good insights about the QB and CB situations...which fed nicely into my thoughts as well.

Tang: Do yourself, me and everyone else a favor by not even reading my posts. Your disdain for me has been well established, for whatever the reasons, and I don't see what point there is in continuing to denigrate me or my opinions. Why don't you start your own new threads and try to register your own thoughtful opinions?...and leave me to mine. Honestly, Tang, save yourself and me the aggravation.
 

Sack Daddy

Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2003
Posts
215
Reaction score
0
Location
Utopia
Originally posted by EndZone
I have a feeling that Starks is just being careful. As long as he is healthy during the season I don't care if he misses some of camp. He is a veteran and when he was healthy he showed he can dominate (St. Louis)
Totally agree with you, EndZone. If he was a young guy it would be more worrisome. I think he'll be fine.
 

JeffGollin

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
20,472
Reaction score
3,056
Location
Holmdel, NJ
If Mac shared in your opinion, End Zone, I think we'd all feel better about Starks
Wishful speculation on my part -

I noticed that, while Mac and the coaches were needling Starks about missing action, being "Wally Pipped" etc. - Graves came on Thursday and said: "No one is more upset about missing practice than Duane Starks" yada yada.

I'm thinking that Mac (and now his coaches) may be needling Stark more for the benefit of the rest of the squad than they are for Starks himself.

Two messages: "If you're in pain but not really hurt, get your butt out there." and "It doesn't matter if you're an UDFA or superstar - we're going to get on your butt if we're not happy about something."
 

Tangodnzr

ASFN Lifer
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
3,837
Reaction score
5
Location
Idaho
Originally posted by JeffGollin
If Mac shared in your opinion, End Zone, I think we'd all feel better about Starks
Wishful speculation on my part -

I noticed that, while Mac and the coaches were needling Starks about missing action, being "Wally Pipped" etc. - Graves came on Thursday and said: "No one is more upset about missing practice than Duane Starks" yada yada.

I'm thinking that Mac (and now his coaches) may be needling Stark more for the benefit of the rest of the squad than they are for Starks himself.

Two messages: "If you're in pain but not really hurt, get your butt out there." and "It doesn't matter if you're an UDFA or superstar - we're going to get on your butt if we're not happy about something."

I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head Jeff.

I've seen a couple other posts allude to that a little too, and I agree.

On one hand I want to say I think this is all maybe getting a little out of hand, especially some of the wild speculation which I guess is inevitable on a message board like this. As to Starks getting cut over this, I just laugh and think of the old Chinese Proverb:
"One does not remove the fly on a friend's forehead with a hatchet." :rolleyes:

But I also do think its important that Mac and the team still make noise and make some issue of it, even if it is all just posturing.
By doing nothing, then you basically subconciously say:
"Yeah, it's OK to use seniority for special privelege and not have to abide by the same rules everyone else does."

The reality is, experienced, productive people will get some "bennys" for it, that's life. I don't think Mac's frustration over this is fake, but neither do I really think he's going to run Starks down the road over it either. I think Mac is a very, very media savvy guy. And like you said Jeff, I think Mac needed to establish a point here, and he's done that.

I guess we'll just have to see how Starks ultimately responds. My guess is everything will probably work out just fine. I think that , by now, and especially after last year, Mac has definitely established the fact that there is no room on this team for slackers and malcontents.

One of the great things I like about Mac is his ability to project sincerity, yet charismatic and intelligent enough to be media savvy and project the image he wants projected.
 

Sandan

Oscar
Supporting Member
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
24,666
Reaction score
2,150
Location
Plymouth, UK
Originally posted by Walter Mitchell
The antithesis of Starks' rationale can be seen in the way Emmitt Smith has embraced the challenge of playing in Arizona...when Smith was asked, "Why Arizona, of all places?" Smith's response was: "Why not Arizona? I think this is a tremendous opportunity here."

Walter, while I'm concerned about Starks, you are spot on with Emmit. I have some comments anlong with supporting photos to put together but for now I'll just say Emmit looks smooth, real smooth
 

Sandan

Oscar
Supporting Member
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
24,666
Reaction score
2,150
Location
Plymouth, UK
As to the vet dosging camp thing, I suspect that may be why DS is appartently less than popular.

I mean, #22 is out there working the same drills, side by side with Travis Prentis and Scobey. If you didn't know who he was you would think he was a rookie, by that I mean he works hard the the drills and listens to the coaches. Despite the fact he probwably knows more about the RB position that all our coaches put together.
 

conraddobler

I want my 2$
Joined
Sep 1, 2002
Posts
20,052
Reaction score
237
Ok this Starks thing is really starting to tick me off.

Maybe Mac should be more specific and say hey they guy is lazy and reported to camp out of shape and so now he has a hammy pull and thats probably because he is out of shape.

However he is not saying this he is just harping on him not being "out there"

Please those who are yacking about Starks not playing with pain tell me of a well respected medical professional who agrees with you on playing through a hammy pull. You won't find one with a medical degree not earned in the third world because there aren't any.

Hammy pulls are not about playing through pain they are about resting and getting over them period. Also a DB with a hammy pull that feels he is better than his healthy backup is either a hall of famer in his prime or an idiot. The position is hugely dependent on being able to run really really fast. I can see a lineman or a QB playing with one it's not smart but it's workable and can somewhat be masked by technique and smarts but a WR or DB is useless with one of these.

The whole thing about rotating players I cannot agree with. We only play half our games here and only 2/3rds of those are hot. So basically 5 games or so does not make for a great strategy unless you'd like a record like we had last year.

Bottom line is our recievers aren't too good or we wouldn't have 12 in camp. This is like wishful please God one of them be good thinking period.

I enjoy most of Walters stuff so I am not attacking him or his posts in general just the specific point about rotating players. I believe myself it's just a competition thing and that if anyone does stand out they will play a lot not rotate. Rotation to me screams medicore players. This does not really hold true for the defensive line since they have to rush all out all the time substitutions here are common.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
552,807
Posts
5,403,018
Members
6,313
Latest member
50 year card fan
Top