Say you have a plan to win the Superbowl in 2005...

[SECTION 11]

...and you have the #6 pick, perhaps the highest you will have in a while (perhaps).

Enough of this dreamy, pie-in-the-sky stuff about being 'competitive' next year.

We need a plan to win it all.


1) Draft your franchise QB in Leftwich. You build a contender around your QB. McCown is gravy at this point. If we have a shot to be a contender for it all in a couple of years, who the hell cares what the implications are in 2003?

2) Begin a tradition this year of running the ball with authority, and draft Faine in round two. Keep Big, Clement, Kendall, Shelton, Faine and Shipp together.

3) Yeah, the D is gonna blow this year. Who cares? Keep Wilson, Barrett, Starks, Fisher (?), KVB, Bell, Bryant... whoever pans out. We've got a lot of youth on D. We might not be too bad off in a year from now. The point is that we don't know yet what we have. We've got youth, for the most part, and that's about it right now.


We've got two golden opportunities this year. Landing a top QB, and establishing a top running game.
Two pretty important building blocks could be in place for a title run.

Realistically, we don't know what we have on D, and at WR. We've got two years to find out, and address accordingly.

We DO know that there's an opportunity to grab an absolute stud at QB, and that we've got one of the biggest, baddest, and youngest O lines in the league.


Does anyone have any better ideas for a 2005 title?
Gamble on McCown?
Bandaid our pass rush at the expense of getting (arguably) the best QB in the draft?

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Hard to argue Section 11

I guess it comes down to if you believe the Cards are a playoff team this year.

I don't think so.

 

[kerouac9]

What are you talking about, "We don't know what we have on D"? We know exactly what we have on D, because all the guys that you noted played last year, and obviously the unit isn't in place.

Look at the past 3 Super Bowl Champions:

Tampa Bucs (Brad Johnson, QB)
NE Pats (Tom Brady, QB)
BAL Ravens (Trent Dilfer, QB)
STL Rams (unknown Kurt Warner, QB)

Wow. Look how important it is to have a legitimate Franchise QB, in the Peyton Manning mold. Look how deep he leads the Colts into the playoffs every year, especially in the way they neglected the D for years.

If you're building a plan for the Cards to be a media darling in five years, if Leftwich pans out, then you have an idea, but D wins championships, and we don't have a D anyone respects. Networks love offense.

Also, look at the Franchise QBs of recent years: Manning (Marvin Harrison), Brooks (Horn), Culpepper (Moss, Carter). They all had great WRs already in place for their rookie seasons. Look at the busts: Couch, McNown, McNabb (overrated, hasn't yet made The Leap, a bunch of scrubs did better than him when he got hurt). All were forced to be "better" than their WRs, and nothing happened with them.
If you think that another "franchise" QB can flourish in a system with no WRs, then you're going against the tide of an obvious trend.

The Cards aren't winning this year, but the best chance to be competitive, which will help turn the tide of free agent mercenaries into free agent playmakers, you better draft D. You have an amazing young core on D to be a contender for years to come, you just need to add the playmakers up front (especially DT, in my opinion) to make it all gel.

 

[Krangodnzr]

I keep wavering between 3 prospects, two that I want bad, and one that would be my backup.

1 a. Suggs. He could be that defensive building block that we need. Despite his bad workout, the film shows what he can do, and the guy could develop into a franchise defender, a defender that can take a team to a championship.

1 b. Leftwich. I don't care about the hype of Palmer and Boller, I like the steady production and amazing arm of Leftwich. According to my eyeballs, and according to most talent evaluators, Leftwich will have a top five arm IMMEDIATELY. He also is reads defenses very well, and was considered by many to be the top interview at the combine. As much as I don't like to say it, Leftwich (IMO) is a can't miss franchise QB.

2. Robertson. The tree stump with amazing quickness for a guy weighing 320. He can not only control two gaps, he can also play the three technique (like Sapp) and blitz like crazy. I think that he will be a dominating defensive tackle at the NFL level and would be a great selection at sixth overall.

If I'm the Cards on draft day, and I'm given the choice between 1a and 1b, I would seriously call up my brother and ask for his 2 year old nephew to pick. I really like both that much, and I can't really choose which one that I like better. And if both are gone, Robertson becomes a no-brainer in my mind.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by kerouac9
What are you talking about, "We don't know what we have on D"? We know exactly what we have on D, because all the guys that you noted played last year, and obviously the unit isn't in place.

Look at the past 3 Super Bowl Champions:

Tampa Bucs (Brad Johnson, QB)
NE Pats (Tom Brady, QB)
BAL Ravens (Trent Dilfer, QB)
STL Rams (unknown Kurt Warner, QB)

Wow. Look how important it is to have a legitimate Franchise QB, in the Peyton Manning mold. Look how deep he leads the Colts into the playoffs every year, especially in the way they neglected the D for years.

If you're building a plan for the Cards to be a media darling in five years, if Leftwich pans out, then you have an idea, but D wins championships, and we don't have a D anyone respects. Networks love offense.

Also, look at the Franchise QBs of recent years: Manning (Marvin Harrison), Brooks (Horn), Culpepper (Moss, Carter). They all had great WRs already in place for their rookie seasons. Look at the busts: Couch, McNown, McNabb (overrated, hasn't yet made The Leap, a bunch of scrubs did better than him when he got hurt). All were forced to be "better" than their WRs, and nothing happened with them.
If you think that another "franchise" QB can flourish in a system with no WRs, then you're going against the tide of an obvious trend.

The Cards aren't winning this year, but the best chance to be competitive, which will help turn the tide of free agent mercenaries into free agent playmakers, you better draft D. You have an amazing young core on D to be a contender for years to come, you just need to add the playmakers up front (especially DT, in my opinion) to make it all gel.

Oh yeah McNabb really sucks!

And I would say that Warner has proven to be a franchise QB...though he has slipped remarkably quickly.

And the Rams defense (as well as the Pats) weren't that good, so your argument doesn't really hold much weight. What those examples all show, is that to win a Super Bowl, you follow your own path, not follow blindly like a lemming.

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by kerouac9
Tampa Bucs (Brad Johnson, QB)
NE Pats (Tom Brady, QB)
BAL Ravens (Trent Dilfer, QB)
STL Rams (unknown Kurt Warner, QB)

Three and a half of those QB's are more than solid, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

Two of those teams had two of the best D's in the last 25 years of pro ball. "Just copy those guys"? Is that a plan?

Look, I think our D up the middle at DT and MLB is Highly Suspect. I'd love to get Robertson at 6, package our second and fourth and sixth, move up and get Henderson. I think it'd be a huge addition to our D.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

I like section 11's plan.The only thing i would add is to gut the front office.

 

[AZ1766]

I don't think we have spent the minimum yet.....we have to sign more players, and they should be quality players and not fodder.
"fodder" wonder where that word comes from???????



I think you picked the right year, and have a good plan, but it will have to coincide with the new stadium to match the Cardinals "plan". Just a guess!

If you are the optomistic type, there are some small things that indicate we will attempt to be competitive this year.

A few new coaches, MJ greene, has help, might be his ticket out of town if something doesn't happen soon with the DL.
keeping younger players longer, adding aging veterans to (hopefully) mentor a winning professoinal attitude.
Haven't mortgaged the future on one or two players lately, waiting for the timing of all the peices coming together, ok thats a reach, but you get it.
Is it possible that the Emmit signing is just what the Bidwill's need to understand what an organization will need to do to keep quality players. I think Emmit is the type person and player that will speak his mind "within" the organization and tell the Bidwill's about the little things that go on inside of it, things that are needed to keep your quality players happy. The future hall of famer, might rub off on the owner and change his ways.

A slow week, and no new hope of signing anyone...... I found something to give me hope!!!!!!!!

Stepping of the soap box now.

 

[Cheesebeef]

!!!!!

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
Oh yeah McNabb really sucks!

And I would say that Warner has proven to be a franchise QB...though he has slipped remarkably quickly.

And the Rams defense (as well as the Pats) weren't that good, so your argument doesn't really hold much weight. What those examples all show, is that to win a Super Bowl, you follow your own path, not follow blindly like a lemming.

Yeah - I have a problem with saying a QB - with a so-so running game and below average WR can take his team to the NFC Title games two years in a row and not be considered very good - McNabb is very good and once he has some wideouts he's gonna be scary. Also agree with the Kurt Warner thing - If he wasn't a Franchise QB back in 1999, I don't know what the hell one is.

However, I think that people have jumped on the Rams D always sucked byefore Lubbie Smith got there - in 1999 they were fourth in the league in points against 15.2/game - only 7 points behind the mighty Bucs, who's D was awesome that year. I also recall, but wasn't able to find, that the Rams D ended up ranked 3rd in overall D that year. That's pretty good if you ask me.

IF LEFTWHICH IS THERE AND WE DON'T TAKE HIM I WILL PUKE! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!meebers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Krangodnzr]

Re: !!!!!

Originally posted by cheesebeef
Yeah - I have a problem with saying a QB - with a so-so running game and below average WR can take his team to the NFC Title games two years in a row and not be considered very good - McNabb is very good and once he has some wideouts he's gonna be scary. Also agree with the Kurt Warner thing - If he wasn't a Franchise QB back in 1999, I don't know what the hell one is.

However, I think that people have jumped on the Rams D always sucked byefore Lubbie Smith got there - in 1999 they were fourth in the league in points against 15.2/game - only 7 points behind the mighty Bucs, who's D was awesome that year. I also recall, but wasn't able to find, that the Rams D ended up ranked 3rd in overall D that year. That's pretty good if you ask me.

IF LEFTWHICH IS THERE AND WE DON'T TAKE HIM I WILL PUKE! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!meebers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But the Rams defense actually wasn't a good yardage defense. They gave up huge chunks of yards, but stopped teams from scoring much like the Pats defense a few years ago. Their defense wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination.

Kerouac can really say somethings that are way offbase sometimes....

 

[Cheesebeef]

Re: Re: !!!!!

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
But the Rams defense actually wasn't a good yardage defense. They gave up huge chunks of yards, but stopped teams from scoring much like the Pats defense a few years ago. Their defense wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination.

Kerouac can really say somethings that are way offbase sometimes....

Krang - do you know where I could find stats out on prior teams - I want to look at the Rams stats because I'm pretty sure that team led the league in takeaways as well as D touchdowns and ranked pretty high as far as sacks. That D was good enough to continually allow the offense to get out to 14 point leads and most of the time 21 point leads by half. It seemed like very game the Rams won was osmething ridiculous like 38-14.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
Three and a half of those QB's are more than solid, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

Two of those teams had two of the best D's in the last 25 years of pro ball. "Just copy those guys"? Is that a plan?

Look, I think our D up the middle at DT and MLB is Highly Suspect. I'd love to get Robertson at 6, package our second and fourth and sixth, move up and get Henderson. I think it'd be a huge addition to our D.

Brad Johnson was a Franchise QB at least a couple times (WAS, MIN, TB), but he's not Joe Montana. Tom Brady still has no more arm strength than I do, and if you put a half dozen WRs in on a play, someone's going to catch a ball, and three catches for four yards apiece moves the chains. The Ravens used a power running game and very mid-level QBs and WRs. Kurt Warner is a bum, I could throw for 3000 yds a season throwing to Issac Bruce, Torry Holt, and Faulk 16 weeks a year.

Tons of teams get deep into the playoffs with great Ds and middling Os (Tampa year after year, the Eagles, the Rams of a couple years ago, B-More, Tennesee, NY Jets, Pittsburgh). Tons of teams get into the playoffs with great offenses and then make early exits because they can't outscore good teams (New Orleans, Indy, Minnesota). I don't think it's a matter of jumping on a bandwagon, it's a long-term trend.

That trend points, like it or not, to a Franchise QB being nice, but not necessary, to a Super Bowl Championship team. The secret to building a Super Bowl contender over the long term is keeping your best players, managing the cap, and drafting well. It is not getting a Franchise QB and building around him (I don't know of many examples of anyone doing this besides Indy) all the other offensive skill players. Franchise QBs turn the good players around them into superstars. This is what Aikman did in Dallas. What Favre did in Green Bay. What Elway did in Denver. What's happening to Hasselback in Seattle. I think it's a good plan for Cincy to draft Leftwich to help elevate the play of Dillion and Warrick. I think that to bring another Franchise QB into Arizona with no one around him is a recipe to being more gun-shy the time the pieces are in place to get a Franchse QB.

Krang: I don't think the McNabb is a horrible QB, but there are at least five other QBs playing right now that I'd rather have, and he's massively overrated by the media.

Section: The plan is to build from what you have. What we have are the building blocks of a good D, and a good O-line, and maybe a good running back in Marcel Shipp. What we don't have are any good WRs. I say complement the youth and promise on D, and not leave them to wallow in their promise and not work to improve upon it. I agree that, no matter what some posters think about Ronnie Mac, the belly of the D is the largest problem. I'd love to get a 2-gap DT at #6, and maybe draft or sign a new-model MLB of the future in the next couple years. That will improve the D and the pass rush.

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
[B
Does anyone have any better ideas for a 2005 title?
Gamble on McCown?
Bandaid our pass rush at the expense of getting (arguably) the best QB in the draft? [/B]

1) Suggs, if not there Robertson
2) I like Faine, if we can't get Suggs hope Redding is there
3) Drew Henson, give him a Plummer like first contract so you can redo his deal during or just after his 2nd year assuming he becomes an elite QB.

Beyond that best player available through the draft.


Or there is my high risk high reward draft I mentioned before.

Trade out of 6 for 2 picks, 1st round Kelly Washington and Willis McGahee, 2nd round Faine or Redding, 3rd round Henson.

If everyone heals and signs you get a #1 WR, a all pro RB and a Pro Bowl QB. IF they fail, you get fired and never get another NFL GM job as long as you live!

 

[gnomepete]

Originally posted by AZ1766
"fodder" wonder where that word comes from???????

From farming. It's fermented crops like corn (stalks and all) that is fed to cows during the winter. If you see what looks like a stuffed white nylon tunnel made out of the same stuff they use for tarps, that's fodder.

Pete

 

[SECTION 11]

Re: Re: Say you have a plan to win the Superbowl in 2005...

Originally posted by Russ Smith
Or there is my high risk high reward draft I mentioned before.

Trade out of 6 for 2 picks, 1st round Kelly Washington and Willis McGahee, 2nd round Faine or Redding, 3rd round Henson.

If everyone heals and signs you get a #1 WR, a all pro RB and a Pro Bowl QB. IF they fail, you get fired and never get another NFL GM job as long as you live!

You gotta take a shot.

It's crazy... It's hairbrained... I like it!

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by kerouac9
I agree that, no matter what some posters think about Ronnie Mac, the belly of the D is the largest problem. I'd love to get a 2-gap DT at #6, and maybe draft or sign a new-model MLB of the future in the next couple years. That will improve the D and the pass rush.

Agree completely.

Also agree on McNugget.

I think the main difference in our thinking is the timing of having a #6 pick.

Say we're picking at #15 next year... You can fill just about any hole you want with some level of quality.

The #6 pick this year... you gotta take a shot at the One player that Could make a difference in the next 10(?) years.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
The #6 pick this year... you gotta take a shot at the One player that Could make a difference in the next 10(?) years.

So, a player in the Warren Sapp or Michael Strahan mold? Or one of those Ryan Leaf, Cade McNown types? We took Big at, what #5 or something? Has he made a huge difference in the past few years? I don't know.

 

[gnomepete]

Originally posted by kerouac9
We took Big at, what #5 or something? Has he made a huge difference in the past few years? I don't know.

Big was #2.

Pete

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by kerouac9
If you think that another "franchise" QB can flourish in a system with no WRs, then you're going against the tide of an obvious trend.

I'm talking about an offense that only puts the ball up about 25 times a game, only takes about 20 sacks on the season, throws Deep and dominates T.O.P.

That alone significantly improves our D.

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by kerouac9
Ryan Leaf, Cade McNown types?

Now, now. The other side of that coin is Superbowl MVP HOF types...

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
I'm talking about an offense that only puts the ball up about 25 times a game, only takes about 20 sacks on the season, throws Deep and dominates T.O.P.

That alone significantly improves our D.

Who's Offense are you talking about? It doesn't sound like ours.

If you're only putting the ball up 25 times a game, why would you pay a QB $10 mil. a season (which is what you pay at the end of a Franchise QB's rookie contract)? You could get those skills from Jeff George for the Veteran minimum. He can throw deep and accurately.

Also, how are you going to dominate TOP without a D? The Ravens dominated TOP in 2000, but their QBs were bad and they just ran the ball. The D gave them the ball back. If you don't have a D, you just get outscored, because a drive is going to peter out eventually, and you can't trade field goals for TDs (because your D can't stop anyone) and expect to win.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
Now, now. The other side of that coin is Superbowl MVP HOF types...

Like who? Tom Brady (7th Round) or Kurt Warner (UFA, old)?

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by kerouac9
Like who? Tom Brady (7th Round) or Kurt Warner (UFA, old)?

Are we confined to the last four years?
A trend in the NFL that's four years old is about out the door. Four years ago our "big receivers" were gonna light up the league. Too bad we jumped on the bandwagon on year four...


I'm talking about getting a QB like Elway, Aikman, Marino, Bledsoe.

You think Detroit wishes they could have drafted Peppers instead of Harrington? Hell no.

I'm pretty sure Atlanta is sold on their roll of the dice, even though Gerrard Warren was available (I refuse to use the eyeroll smiley).

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by kerouac9
Who's Offense are you talking about? It doesn't sound like ours

Not with Plummer at the helm. Our 330 pound line got to run sideways with our wittle pwaymaker.

I'm saying that's what I would do with our current offense. That's the direction I would go.
Basically, this year, I'm subscribing to the "one side of the ball is closer" theory.
Our running game would be frightening with a guy like Leftwich at the helm.

 

[kerouac9]

If you want to change the entire character of the team, then I agree with you. We have a D-minded coach. That's where the heart of this team ought to be. Denver had a O-oriented coach in Dan Reeves, and won with him and Elway. The Neeners had a O-minded coach in Walsh, and they won with him and Montana and Young. We have a D-minded coach. If we're going to go Offense-oriented, we might as well fire Mac right now and see of Mornhinweg needs a job, because he's a O-oriented coach.

I don't know why you think the O is further along than the D. The D won games for us last year. I don't remember winning a scoring contest on O, like the Lions game of two years ago, last season. The O just lost a lot of games for us by underperforming (*cough, cough* KC).