The Cards are still a year away

[Cbus cardsfan]

Not to be pessimistic, but i think the Cards are still a year away from being a pretty good team. This could be a good thing because the last two years i have had the Cardinals pegged for double digit wins and we all saw what happened. But, for this year, i think there is just too much to overcome and too much faith being put on 1st year starters/players. Throw in the fact that there is a new coaching staff and new terminology,i think 2007 will be a struggle. Look at the first year Cards starters we are going to be counting on offensively. Gandy and Johnson are 1st year Cards starters that have washed out of other teams. Lutui and Brown have a combined 4-5 starts amongst them. THe OL hasn't played on regular season down together. Leinart is in his first full year as a starter.Pope,or whoever starts, is a huge question mark at TE. James has never run behind a FB at the NFL level. He should be fine but you never know. That's alot of change to expect them to jell and be a good team. The only proven things on offfense are Fitz and Q.

Defensively, they are installing a whole new scheme and asking players to play different positions. Plus, you're counting on 1st year starters Watson/Branch, Antonio Smith and ,maybe, Roderick Hood. We have no idea whether Berry and Okeafor can excell at playing OLB or that Dansby will excell playing on the inside. Dockett is moving to a new postion but i think he'll be fine. The only guys without question marks are Wilson and Hayes. We all know about Rolle's question marks and, as most people know, i'm a Rolle fan but he still has to prove it on the field.

On paper the coaching staff appears to be much better than the previous regime but Whiz has yet to be put under fire as a gameday HC. You never know. Green had a pretty impressive record coming from Minny and he failed miserably. I do think this staff HAS to be better.

Now,if you look forward a year to 2008 it all looks good. The coaching staff has a year under their belts. The defense will have played a year in the 3-4. And, offensively, Lutui and Brown will have a year experience. Leinart will only continue to improve. But the main thing that i hope happens is the OL looks like Jake Long, Alan Faneca, Johnson, Lutui,and Brown. Also, the overall team talent level, which isn't horrible right now, will be upgraded and fit better to the schemes after another draft and free agency period.

 

[stewdog1]

They easily have the talent to go 8-8. Now it depends on the leadership on the field to determine if they can get to 10-6.

I bet if our illustrious coach showed a single bit of emotion and acted like he was in the game last season, we may have eeked out some of those close ones. Nothing like playing for a guy who doesn't change his facial expression the entire game.

 

[kerouac9]

I thought this thread was about Rod Graves' annual proclamation?

 

[JeffGollin]

Two ways to look at it:

1. The Cardinals have been "a year away" at the beginning of preseason for as long as I can remember.

2. While the CW "flavor of the month" coming out of SIRIUS, NFL Net, Urban etc. is that the Cardinals will undoubtedly have an uphill battle adjusting to (another) new coaching staff plus new offensive and defensive systems - I'm not ready to buy into that.

I think we have as much (if not more) talent than we've ever had and am not willing to concede a "period of transition" to give the team time to adapt to new conditions. I see no reason why smart players under the watchful eyes of skilled coaches can't make the change quickly and move onward.

This isn't to say I "predict" anything - we'll just have to wait and see whether the players and coaches are as good as they might possibly be. But it's no slam-dunk that this team can't be "zero years away."

 

[Hollywood]

Two ways to look at it:

1. The Cardinals have been "a year away" at the beginning of preseason for as long as I can remember.

2. While the CW "flavor of the month" coming out of SIRIUS, NFL Net, Urban etc. is that the Cardinals will undoubtedly have an uphill battle adjusting to (another) new coaching staff plus new offensive and defensive systems - I'm not ready to buy into that.

I think we have as much (if not more) talent than we've ever had and am not willing to concede a "period of transition" to give the team time to adapt to new conditions. I see no reason why smart players under the watchful eyes of skilled coaches can't make the change quickly and move onward.

This isn't to say I "predict" anything - we'll just have to wait and see whether the players and coaches are as good as they might possibly be. But it's no slam-dunk that this team can't be "zero years away."

I hope you are right. I don't think so but am hoping.

 

[Redheart]

"Your just one kiss away"!

 

[ajcardfan]

Things seem to always go wrong for this team. We never get the breaks and overacheive, like the Bears last year and of 03 (?). You'd think just once we'd catch lightning in a bottle. But, I agree, on paper, it doesn't look too good. This is the least optimisitic I've been about this team going into a season since McGinnis' last two seasons.

 

[jefftheshark]

Things seem to always go wrong for this team. We never get the breaks and overacheive, like the Bears last year and of 03 (?). You'd think just once we'd catch lightning in a bottle. But, I agree, on paper, it doesn't look too good. This is the least optimisitic I've been about this team going into a season since McGinnis' last two seasons.

I feel the same way.

I don't mean to start a "Graves bashing" type thread, but I do not have a lot of faith in his ability to build a winning football team. We just never seem to get the whole thing "right". When you add in the fact that we do not ever seem to be the beneficiary of any good luck whatsoever, we appear to be doomed to repeat the same pattern over and over again. The faces, uniforms, logos and venue can change, but the results remain the same.

To say that we are a year away is probably too optimistic, as we are always a year away. The problem is that we never actually seem to arrive.

The Shark

 

[football karma]

While I get the thinking behind the "big change" hypothesis as a cause of a 5 win year or worst --

I just dont get how on one hand everybody ( by season end) agreed that Denny was a bad coach with a bad staff and had to go. This conclusion means that everybody beleived that the talent was far better than the five wins the team produced --

yet when they change the coach, we are predicting the same record as when Denny was here. Does coaching not matter at all?

Interestingly -- go look at all the teams that changed head coaches over the last two years. There is ZERO predictive value of getting a new head coach and the team's record relative to the year prior.

Here are the stats from the last two years for teams that have had a head coaching change (I went on memory on who changed, so I may have missed one or two) :

In 2006, 10 teams had new coaches (Bills, Jets, Chiefs, Raiders, Texans, Saints, Vikes, Packers, Lions and Rams). Six of those teams' records improved from 2005, while four got worse. Collectively, those team teams had a combined winning percentage in 2005 of .325, which improved to .431 in 2006.

In 2005, four teams got new head coaches (Miami, Raiders, Browns and 49ers). Of those four teams, two had improved records and two teams records got worse. Collectively, the teams went from a winning percentage of .234 in 2004 to a winning percentage of .359 in 2005.

I guess the net is that I just dont see in the teams won/loss records that a new coach automatically equals a step back.

 

[Treesquid PhD]

Things seem to always go wrong for this team. We never get the breaks and overacheive, like the Bears last year and of 03 (?). You'd think just once we'd catch lightning in a bottle. But, I agree, on paper, it doesn't look too good. This is the least optimisitic I've been about this team going into a season since McGinnis' last two seasons.

1998 was once.

 

[conraddobler]

Wow, I'm totally optimistic.

I'm guessing 7 wins or so but I'm thinking we'll be much more competitive than in years.

Yeah we lack some oline depth and more importantly experience but there is some decent talent there, LT is a problem but not as much as it could be if our QB war right handed.

On balance I expect a team that comes out focused, prepared, has talent and wins some games. I mostly expect we establish some forceful homefield advantage for a change and lose only 2 home games but come up short and on the road a lot, winning maybe one.

Don't underestimate competent coaching, watching Whiz in the small amount of minis the one thing that struck me was running after Warner telling him that the other side was open and that he had to look for it.

This conveys to me understanding of the game, planning and the fact he ran after Kurt who wasn't really paying attention was funny to me, Kurt can be a little like that but it didn't phase the guy, he's a teacher and he's detail oriented, and people have commented on how the whole staff answers questions consistently, ie they're all on the same page.

I really like that, and I think people will be pleasantly suprised by this staff.

 

[RedViper]

I think if Leinart continues to improve, if that ends up being true, he doesn't get hurt and doesn't regress, I think you add four wins to last years total. If Leinart continues to improve, I don't see the Oline being worse than last years, and I don't think the defense will be worse. He gets a full season and gets more production out of Fitz and Boldin, you get one thousand yards out of Edge again, the defense doesn't do worse that last year, which isn't asking much, this team could be slightly better than average.

It sounds good to me. But then again, I'm never going into a season without some type of theory, hairbrained though it probably is, for us to acheive some type of success.

 

[kerouac9]

For what it's worth, I think the Cards are right now a "pretty good team," but they're not a good team, yet. I don't think they'll be a laughingstock, but good execution is what makes the difference in close games. The team lacked good execution last season because the coaching staff was incompetent. I think that the team will lack good execution this season because the coaching staff on one side of the ball is still incompetent (sorry, Pendy--how long do you need to put it together?), and on the other side of the ball everyone's learning a new system. That takes time. Last year, the team really only had to adjust to Leinart when he came in. Now, everyone has to adjust.

 

[ajcardfan]

I'm as hopeful as everybody else that we've upgraded the coaching big time. Yet, that is tempered a bit by the fact that we are undergoing a major overhaul in systems with several position changes. Those sorts of things take time to gel. And, often, a two season overhaul of the roster.

 

[slanidrac16]

Why is it we "face to many problems" yet we can look back to last year and see a team like the Saints hire a new coach, new Qb, new systems , new terminology, yadda, yadda, yadda, but we think it's impossible to win this year.

Opps, I forgot. Cause we are the Cardinals. Things like that just don't happen to us.

7-9 at the very best.

 

[kerouac9]

Why is it we "face to many problems" yet we can look back to last year and see a team like the Saints hire a new coach, new Qb, new systems , new terminology, yadda, yadda, yadda, but we think it's impossible to win this year.

Opps, I forgot. Cause we are the Cardinals. Things like that just don't happen to us.

7-9 at the very best.

Because the Saints had a playoff-proven quarterback and a much more veteran roster than we do, including two above-average cornerbacks and a settled OT situation?

For what it's worth, though, the Saints were viewed much the same way that the Cards are viewed by many on this board: a team with the talent to compete, but with inferior coaching holding it back. Personally, I think that the Saints of 2006 were kind of a fluke, and fully expect them to fall back to 8-8 this season.

 

[Pariah]

"Your just one kiss away"!

your dead

 

[Gee!]

Things seem to always go wrong for this team. We never get the breaks and overacheive, like the Bears last year and of 03 (?). You'd think just once we'd catch lightning in a bottle. But, I agree, on paper, it doesn't look too good. This is the least optimisitic I've been about this team going into a season since McGinnis' last two seasons.

Never forget 1998!

 

[slanidrac16]

Because the Saints had a playoff-proven quarterback and a much more veteran roster than we do, including two above-average cornerbacks and a settled OT situation?

For what it's worth, though, the Saints were viewed much the same way that the Cards are viewed by many on this board: a team with the talent to compete, but with inferior coaching holding it back. Personally, I think that the Saints of 2006 were kind of a fluke, and fully expect them to fall back to 8-8 this season.

Keep in mind that Brees was coming off shoulder surgery, one proven and aging wr in Joe Horn and they weren't sure if they were even going to play their home games at home for a while.
And you are right, NOBODY pick the Saints as a team with a chance to make the playofffs.
I would like to think it could happen to us but as I said things like that happen about once every thirty years for this franchise.
I'll say this. If we are 4-4 after 8 games , we will make the playoffs. However, I just have a hunch it's going to be a brutal September and a nearly brutal October.

 

[conraddobler]

Hey not going backwards is a start!!

 

[mjb21aztd]

doesnt it seem like every off season we always say their a year away from being a good team.... we need to win now yeah we need help on defense still espeically at cornerback but we have talent to win and maybe make it to the playoffs this year.

 

[Duckjake]

Keep in mind that Brees was coming off shoulder surgery, one proven and aging wr in Joe Horn and they weren't sure if they were even going to play their home games at home for a while.
And you are right, NOBODY pick the Saints as a team with a chance to make the playofffs.
I would like to think it could happen to us but as I said things like that happen about once every thirty years for this franchise.
I'll say this. If we are 4-4 after 8 games , we will make the playoffs. However, I just have a hunch it's going to be a brutal September and a nearly brutal October.

The Cards just need to get through the first 3-4 games without some disaster like the fumble in the Rams game. With this team a thing like that can easily kill an entire season.

What it did last year in addition to starting the "same old Cards" spiral was lead to a rookie QB starting far sooner than anticipated and the expected result of losing games as the Cards did not have a strong enough defense to compensate.

Now we no longer have a rookie at QB. Unfortunately we don't have the favorable schedule we had last season and have real questions about the offensive line. 10-6 or 5-11? This team could just as easily do either one.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Hey not going backwards is a start!!

With LD not on the roster, this is definitely a possibility.

 

[BigRedRage]

With LD not on the roster, this is definitely a possibility.

in that case it would have been a false start.

 

[football karma]

The Cards just need to get through the first 3-4 games without some disaster like the fumble in the Rams game. With this team a thing like that can easily kill an entire season.

Now we no longer have a rookie at QB. Unfortunately we don't have the favorable schedule we had last season and have real questions about the offensive line. 10-6 or 5-11? This team could just as easily do either one.

ding ding ding ding ding -- we have a winner!

I absolutely agree.

An 0-4 start means players question if the direction is right. 2-2 or better means heads are up and looking forward.

My biggest concern in the first half of the season will be if the defense is good enough to give what figures to be a fairly conservative, run first offense a chance in games. Will they get the defense that limited five of their last seven opponents to 21 or fewer offensive points and produced 10 turnovers --- or the defense that gave up 37 to Denver and 31 to Minnesota?