Not a good list.
About half of the list and honorable mentions are players that had good careers. Busts are players that tank, not guys that for whatever reason simply didn't do it here, or that much here.
The list shouldn't of been called the worst draft picks in the history of the Cardinals, it should have been called a list of picks that never lived up to their draft status while part of the Arizona Cardinals, and a few outright busts.
The author should of made two lists, or even four. Outright busts and players that never lived up their draft status while a part of the team. Two for Arizona. Two for St. Louis/Chicago. Or simply two, one for each Arizona and St. Louis/Chicago. Or had a broader title and more than five players to encompass the entire history of the Cardinals. Hell really he could of done a total of six lists (or three) and talked about players we passed up in order to draft someone else far less talented, like Levi Brown over AP.
It's a classic case of an author picking a specific title but having a very wide range of topic in mind that ultimately undermines his own work. Had they paused to flesh out their thought when developing the title either before or after they could have avoided it.
It's kind of funny that they had all these common pitfalls in the list but still chose such a small number. It should have been obvious that there's been tons of players we should have drafted over someone else, tons of outright busts, tons of players who went on to have good careers elsewhere, guys who refused to play here, injuries/deaths, and no doubt more subcategories. If someone wants to make a worst pick list and not have it be about outright busts only, they really need more than five players. They could probably come up with 25 players from Kelly Stouffer to Joe Namath.
I wont hate on the person for trying. But they could have done it much better.
