Thoughts on The Cardinals' Missing Roster Pieces

[Duckjake]

AND ?

What does that prove ? That when the other team was forced to pass they could do so at will ?

Exactly. It does show that teams could only pass at will once the Cards got a big lead. Not before. There has to be a reason for this. That's why I included Warner's numbers against the Jets in 2008.

I've raised this question before. What happened? Was it a change in scheme; softer coverage for instance? Was it players letting up because they were so far ahead? And why could teams move the ball at will after the Cards had forced them to be one dimensional which is supposed to be the goal of any defense?

The one thing that some of us agreed on was a lack of a consistent pass rush. Even when the Cards could "pin their ears back" and get after the passer they still couldn't stop the opponent from being successful through the air.

 

[Bobcat]

Mitch take a deep breath count to 10 and then accept that Leinart will be the QB this year. Hopefully that will help.

I agree with you; Mitch has been a Matt hater since day one, and that is too bad. Go Matt...!!!

BOBCAT

 

[WarnerHOF]

Other than people just saying it on this board, I don't know where anyone gets that Rhodes is significantly better in coverage. Everything I read after the two transactions was that Rhodes lacked the range of Rolle and that's the main attribute a FS needs,along with playmaking ability.

Besides, for the most part, a FS isn't assigned to cover a particluar player and is more of a CF. So, it would be pretty tough to tell who had better coverage skills.

I do think,value-wise, the Cards came out ahead in the deal as Rolle isn't going to give the Cards 10 million dollars worth, or whatever it is, more production than Rhodes. But to think the Cards aren't worse off at the position is drinking the kool-aid, imo.

Rhodes has no range? what??? Maybe you can say that about his underachieving past two seasons but his range is much better than Rolle's when he's on as shown in his play after he returned from his benching last season and 06-07.

 

[JeffGollin]

Rhodes has no range? what??? Maybe you can say that about his underachieving past two seasons but his range is much better than Rolle's when he's on as shown in his play after he returned from his benching last season and 06-07.

The elegance in all this is that Rhodes' play on the field come training camp and after will determine which of 2 passionate and contrasting views on his play will turn out to be the most accurate one.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

How is being in the pro-bowl, alternate or otherwise, deemed not having success? Whether you like him or not, think he deserved it or not, he WAS in the pro bowl. Do you think everyone just voted for Rolle because he's a really nice guy and they like him? Where he finished in the voting was merited and it was the players vote that got him there. The Giants didn't just offer to make him the highest paid safety, with the Cards trying to match, for the hell of it..

Sweet!

Good thing for Jacksonville. There Pro-Bowl QB who is fighting for a starting spot against Luke McCown is a SHOE in for the job. I mean he made it in the Pro Bowl last year, and of course it had NOTHING to do with Peyton Manning playing in the Super Bowl last year. Nothing at all ...... competing against LUKE FLIPPIN' McCown. But a pro bowler none the less right ?

For the sake of argument, let's say the Jets had released Rhodes. You can't honestly think he would have attracted anywhere near the interest/ contract that Rolle did.

I guess we will never know since he never hit the open market.

 

[kerouac9]

Sweet!

Good thing for Jacksonville. There Pro-Bowl QB who is fighting for a starting spot against Luke McCown is a SHOE in for the job. I mean he made it in the Pro Bowl last year, and of course it had NOTHING to do with Peyton Manning playing in the Super Bowl last year. Nothing at all ...... competing against LUKE FLIPPIN' McCown. But a pro bowler none the less right ?

Because this is true...

http://jacksonville.com/sports/foot...=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+jacksonville/ksHE+(J

Even though quarterback David Garrard recently said he has to outplay backup Luke McCown in training camp to keep his job, Del Rio tried to nip the idea of a quarterback controversy in the bud.

Del Rio said Garrard probably said it because he understands how quickly it happened for him. Garrard became the starter nine days before the 2007 season started when Del Rio cut Byron Leftwich.

Del Rio also said at the Super Bowl that Garrard isn’t an elite quarterback.
Del Rio said, “It’s not really a criticism. I’m not really setting out to hack at him in any way or take him down a notch or anything like that. None of my comments have ever been like that. I’ve always said I like him.”

Assessing Garrard, he said, “One thing about him, Dave’s got the ability to beat you several ways. He is mobile enough, he can hurt you with his feet. He is intelligent and can make checks and do things to put you in the right play at the line. And he can make all the throws and he does it operating out of a phone booth. He can operate in tight quarters.”

Of McCown, he said, “I haven’t really said anything other than he’s our backup and all our backups are going to compete.”

“Dave’s our quarterback. Dave created that [quarterback controversy]. He just helped our local guys to have something to track during training camp. Dave is our guy, Luke’s the backup and we’ll continue to look for a third.”

 

[RugbyMuffin]

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/182970-garrard-under-pressure

This article was written around May 3rd.

So is Garrad safe or not. Say what you want, but it is strange for an "All-Pro QB" have so much talk about job security.



And if we don't want to use Garrad for the example of All-Pro B.S. Then the next post about Alan Faneca should be how he is one of the best guards in the league because he was an All-Pro last year as well. So, we should be happy to have one of the best guards in the league on our team.

 

[kerouac9]

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/182970-garrard-under-pressure

This article was written around May 3rd.

So is Garrad safe or not. Say what you want, but it is strange for an "All-Pro QB" have so much talk about job security.



And if we don't want to use Garrad for the example of All-Pro B.S. Then the next post about Alan Faneca should be how he is one of the best guards in the league because he was an All-Pro last year as well. So, we should be happy to have one of the best guards in the league on our team.

He's not an "All Pro" QB. There's a difference between All Pro and "Pro Bowl." The AP Votes the All Pro team, which only includes one position for each player (2 WRs and linemen, but only 1 QB and 2 [I think] RBs).

Here's the 2009 NFL All Pro team: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/01/04/awards/index.html

The Pro Bowl fields an actual roster, so you have three QBs from each conference, four WRs from each conference, etc., etc.

All Pro designation is much more meaningful than Pro Bowl, because you're dealing with a smaller field. Anquan Boldin is a three-time Pro Bowler, but has never been named an All-Pro. Larry Fitzgerald is a four time Pro Bowler, but also a two-time first-team All Pro designate. Leonard Davis is a three-time Pro Bowler, but only was nominated to the All Pro team once, in 2007.

Hope this clears things up for you.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

He's not an "All Pro" QB. There's a difference between All Pro and "Pro Bowl." The AP Votes the All Pro team, which only includes one position for each player (2 WRs and linemen, but only 1 QB and 2 [I think] RBs).

Here's the 2009 NFL All Pro team: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/01/04/awards/index.html

The Pro Bowl fields an actual roster, so you have three QBs from each conference, four WRs from each conference, etc., etc.

All Pro designation is much more meaningful than Pro Bowl, because you're dealing with a smaller field. Anquan Boldin is a three-time Pro Bowler, but has never been named an All-Pro. Larry Fitzgerald is a four time Pro Bowler, but also a two-time first-team All Pro designate. Leonard Davis is a three-time Pro Bowler, but only was nominated to the All Pro team once, in 2007.

Hope this clears things up for you.

Clear as a bell.

FS Darren Sharper, New Orleans.

Thanks. Rolle is not an All-Pro.

So again Rolle went to the Pro-Bowl, and so did Garrad, and a host of other that are there in name more than skill. There were not All-Pro's as well for some reason. Maybe because the All-Pro team doesn't need another body to play for injured or Super Bowl bound players.

So are we going to use the Pro Bowl as gauge of talent or not ? Should we use the All-Pro team instead ?

All I ask for is some consistancy in the reasonnig. Because it seems that the arguements for any player that is not a Cardinals cannot be used when talking about the Cardinals themselves.

You can read in countless places on this board that even though Faneca is a pro bolwer he is not the talent that this title invokes.

Yet, Rolle whom got to the same water downed Pro Bowl as an alternate is suddenly the best safety in the league.

Again that is a catch-22. There is no room for debate when it is instantly worse case scenario because the guy is in red.

Sorry, but that sounds like if you read this thread.

Cause I need some proof about how Antrel Rolle, by the simple fact he was signed by the Giants, is instantly so much better than the guy who play FS for us while we got torched, time and time again in our passing defense this year.

Rolle is 27, he has been in the league for FIVE YEARS, and I still don't think he is a polished FS. He has amazing atheletic ability, and can run with the ball in his hands. But when it comes to base defense he doesn't seem to bring too much to the table.

If Rashad Johnson wasn't such a dissapointment I would have assumed Rolle would have been left to test the free market without much fan fare.

Furthermore, now that Rolle has left what is left on the roster is supposidely crap. Rhodes sucks, and even if his stats tell a different story then the competition he faced sucked, and if that reason fails another will be found to show his suckiness.

No matter that Rolle played in the supposid worse division in football his entire career. No, that is not valid. Why ? I don't know.

 

[kerouac9]

Clear as a bell.

FS Darren Sharper, New Orleans.

Thanks. Rolle is not an All-Pro.

So again Rolle went to the Pro-Bowl, and so did Garrad, and a host of other that are there in name more than skill. There were not All-Pro's as well for some reason. Maybe because the All-Pro team doesn't need another body to play for injured or Super Bowl bound players.

So are we going to use the Pro Bowl as gauge of talent or not ? Should we use the All-Pro team instead ?

All I ask for is some consistancy in the reasonnig. Because it seems that the arguements for any player that is not a Cardinals cannot be used when talking about the Cardinals themselves.

You can read in countless places on this board that even though Faneca is a pro bolwer he is not the talent that this title invokes.

Yet, Rolle whom got to the same water downed Pro Bowl as an alternate is suddenly the best safety in the league.

Again that is a catch-22. There is no room for debate when it is instantly worse case scenario because the guy is in red.

Sorry, but that sounds like if you read this thread.

Cause I need some proof about how Antrel Rolle, by the simple fact he was signed by the Giants, is instantly so much better than the guy who play FS for us while we got torched, time and time again in our passing defense this year.

Rolle is 27, he has been in the league for FIVE YEARS, and I still don't think he is a polished FS. He has amazing atheletic ability, and can run with the ball in his hands. But when it comes to base defense he doesn't seem to bring too much to the table.

If Rashad Johnson wasn't such a dissapointment I would have assumed Rolle would have been left to test the free market without much fan fare.

Furthermore, now that Rolle has left what is left on the roster is supposidely crap. Rhodes sucks, and even if his stats tell a different story then the competition he faced sucked, and if that reason fails another will be found to show his suckiness.

No matter that Rolle played in the supposid worse division in football his entire career. No, that is not valid. Why ? I don't know.

I would say that Pro Bowl consideration is a good gauge of talent at some positions, but not all. If you're elected to the Pro Bowl, you're probably pretty good (although this isn't always the case--the consensus among "those in the know" seems to be that Alan Faneca and Flozell Adams were Pro Bowl electees based more on rep than on performance the last year or two [at least]). The case is less clear if you're from a "public" team--like the Cowboys, Vikings, Colts, or any of the New York teams. Those guys get a huge boost from media publicity and national fan bases. If you're from a small-market team or a team that doesn't have a national following (like the Cards or Jags) and you're named to a Pro Bowl, you're probably better, because that means that your peers and the coaches voted for you more than the fans.

All Pro teams are an interesting gauge because it's a more exclusive club, but the team is named by AP writers, so are they really experts. I think that if you find a guy who was a Pro Bowler and an All Pro at a skill position, you're looking at someone who's very good. Along the offensive line, I think that the writers just tend to vote for the same guy(s) until they retire or are cut.

I think that Rolle being a first alternate at the Free safety position means that he's pretty good. I think that it belies the "getting torched over and over" that you're asserting. I don't think that anyone here is saying that he's the best safety in the league. I'm certainly not.

You have a couple of factors saying that Rolle is good. You have his Pro Bowl status, and you have the fact that he was viewed as a high enough priority for two teams to give him enormous contract offers. On the debit side you have yourself and a bunch of other guys who are saying that he always sucked and is overpaid. The same thing that was said by some of the same people about Thomas Jones, Jake Plummer, Leonard Davis, Calvin Pace, etc., etc.

You have some credits on behalf of Kerry Rhodes. One is that he was named All Pro in 2006. Another is that he played for the best and most playmaking defense in the NFL last year. Another are the stats that Joe posted earlier on the thread. But there are also debits. Like the fact that he was benched at the end of last season. And these fun facts from this NJ.com article (http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/2009/11/a_potential_pro_bowler_turned.html):

Rhodes, 27, is having his worst season as a pro. He has no interceptions, no sacks, no forced fumbles and no fumble recoveries — the worst type of stats for someone who is supposed to be a play-making safety.

The reasons for his struggles range from how he has alienated teammates, to his fledgling model and acting pursuits, to his early success being a mirage, to his lack of aggression, to his obsession with Twitter.

After hosting film study sessions at his home on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday nights for the secondary the past two seasons, Rhodes discontinued the home movies this season. He and cornerback Darrelle Revis, once close, are now lukewarm friends, in part, because Revis’ career has eclipsed Rhodes'.

...

During last Sunday’s 31-14 loss to the Patriots, Rhodes was bulldozed by Patriots running back Laurence Maroney. He shied away from contact on a couple of plays over the middle, including one glaring play involving diminutive slot receiver Wes Welker.

...

Off the field, Rhodes traveled with an entourage, complete with a personal assistant, tailor and barber. He dabbled in acting with bit parts in two movies, shot magazine covers, had his home featured on MTV cribs and generally cashed in on his newfound celebrity.

Quietly, however, some of his teammates thought Rhodes was more a media creation than an elite player.


“I never thought Kerry was as good as the perception,” said another teammate who requested his name not be used. “I always felt the `big plays' he made was because of teams unfamiliarity with him. The Jets made him the face of the franchise on defense and I'm not sure he deserved it.”

And the fact that there was no trade market for him and the Cards got him for garbage.

I don't think that Rhodes sucks, but I don't think that he's the massive upgrade over Rolle that some here (apparently including you) are anticipating. I think that Rhodes will be better than Rashard Johnson, but that isn't saying much, is it?

 

[cardsfanmd]

But, sadly, I trust other teams' estimations of our free agents more than I trust ours.

The problem with this argument K9 is that Rolle played FS for us and was not signed by NY to play that position. He will be a SS there, which he is much better suited to play. He is being payed for what they think he can do at SS, not for what he can do as a FS. We then brought in Rhodes who is a true FS. I am not blasting Rolle or praising Rhodes, just stating the facts. Rolle will be a great SS IMO, but he was not as well suited to play with A-Dub as Rhodes is IMHO.

 

[Buckybird]

Rolle will be a great SS

I agree 100%

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Rolle was added to the roster after 1 guy, Sharper couldn't play. Garrard was added, because they needed 3 QB's, after Manning, Brady, Rivers, Schaub, Roethlisberger, and even Vince Young. So the went through about half the AFC before Garrard was selected and Rolle because one guy made the Super Bowl. Good argumet though.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

And the fact that there was no trade market for him and the Cards got him for garbage.

I don't think that Rhodes sucks, but I don't think that he's the massive upgrade over Rolle that some here (apparently including you) are anticipating. I think that Rhodes will be better than Rashard Johnson, but that isn't saying much, is it?

Fair enough.

And while it is more than fair in assuming that I think Rhodes is a major upgrade since I am here debating the issue with you, I don't think that. Heck we can take Rhodes out of the discussion as far as I am concerned.

My real gripe, more than anything, is this notion Rolle was a top safety. That Rhodes or even Matt Ware is this HUGE drop off because Rolle is a Pro-Bowl caliber FS.

I just do not see or understand it. Sorry, not worth a huge contract, and has not shown much improvement in my eyes in the 5 or so years in the league. I have been quite consistent about that since day one of this offseason.

And I have my reasons for calling this a "well, the Cardinals let him go so he HAS to be good." situation.

You can only evaluate talent that is in front of you. If you can predict the future then please, go get a job with the Cardinals, cause it would be AWESOME.

I can understand outrage and frustration from losing guys like Dansby, or Boldin.

But the guys like Rolle, A.Smith, and C.Pace really worth going crazy over losing ? Did these three really make themselves indespensible while with the Cardinals ? Do we want to get in the habit of extending the 3 year rookie window that is given to most players, to 5 or 6 years ?

I don't think so. I would keep any of the players above at a fair salary, but these three players got BIG BIG time money from other places. This is not the Redskins. A big money contract from the Cardinals is a BIG deal to this organization. They won't throw the money around just to do so, and have been consistent with that. Yes, a great and fair case is that the Cardinals don't get the job done when it is time for a big money deal, but that is another story. I am talking about who do they choose to keep for big money.

So as you can see, I am apprehensive about the logic being all the guys we lose are top talent, and all the guys we bring in are gargbage.

That some how our organization cannot gauge talent, while it seems that all other teams do, is pick players off our roster, and practice squads.

Gotta be doing something right if all our players are commanding attention and or big money from other teams. Gotta be doing something right that our biggest problem is how to spread the money around to all the talent on the rosters.

A modicum of respect for what the organization is doing would be nice every once and a while.

Especially when saying things like the Giants, might I add, an organization that didn't look to good last year, has this superior ability to gauge talent over our club.

How much money did they give to Michael Boley last year again ?

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Rolle was added to the roster after 1 guy, Sharper couldn't play. Garrard was added, because they needed 3 QB's, after Manning, Brady, Rivers, Schaub, Roethlisberger, and even Vince Young. So the went through about half the AFC before Garrard was selected and Rolle because one guy made the Super Bowl. Good argumet though.

Good counter arguement. Not much I can say to that.

 

[kerouac9]

Fair enough.

And while it is more than fair in assuming that I think Rhodes is a major upgrade since I am here debating the issue with you, I don't think that. Heck we can take Rhodes out of the discussion as far as I am concerned.

My real gripe, more than anything, is this notion Rolle was a top safety. That Rhodes or even Matt Ware is this HUGE drop off because Rolle is a Pro-Bowl caliber FS.

I just do not see or understand it. Sorry, not worth a huge contract, and has not shown much improvement in my eyes in the 5 or so years in the league. I have been quite consistent about that since day one of this offseason.

And I have my reasons for calling this a "well, the Cardinals let him go so he HAS to be good." situation.

You can only evaluate talent that is in front of you. If you can predict the future then please, go get a job with the Cardinals, cause it would be AWESOME.

I can understand outrage and frustration from losing guys like Dansby, or Boldin.

But the guys like Rolle, A.Smith, and C.Pace really worth going crazy over losing ? Did these three really make themselves indespensible while with the Cardinals ? Do we want to get in the habit of extending the 3 year rookie window that is given to most players, to 5 or 6 years ?

I don't think so. I would keep any of the players above at a fair salary, but these three players got BIG BIG time money from other places. This is not the Redskins. A big money contract from the Cardinals is a BIG deal to this organization. They won't throw the money around just to do so, and have been consistent with that. Yes, a great and fair case is that the Cardinals don't get the job done when it is time for a big money deal, but that is another story. I am talking about who do they choose to keep for big money.

So as you can see, I am apprehensive about the logic being all the guys we lose are top talent, and all the guys we bring in are gargbage.

That some how our organization cannot gauge talent, while it seems that all other teams do, is pick players off our roster, and practice squads.

Gotta be doing something right if all our players are commanding attention and or big money from other teams. Gotta be doing something right that our biggest problem is how to spread the money around to all the talent on the rosters.

A modicum of respect for what the organization is doing would be nice every once and a while.

Especially when saying things like the Giants, might I add, an organization that didn't look to good last year, has this superior ability to gauge talent over our club.

How much money did they give to Michael Boley last year again ?

I'm not sure who here is saying that Rolle is a top safety. I'm not.

But I think that the distinction between "Free" and "strong" safety in this defense is a little overstated. I think that it's pretty clear that if you watch the games that Rolle and Wilson were doing much of the same things from opposite sides of the field. Rolle might have had deep-third coverage a little more frequently, but I'm not sure that it's enough to really make that problem. It was usually Matt Ware or the 3rd safety who were doing that in nickle situations, and Rolle and Wilson were working man coverage or intermediate zones in the middle of the field.

I think that if the Cards manage to extend two of Dockett/Fitz/Breaston over the next eight months, a lot of the strum and drang over these free agent departures will evaporate. But that hasn't happened, and the Cards' last big money extension was for Adrian Wilson, who promptly had one of his worst seasons, production-wise.

I won't go over the list of the guys who we lost in the last five or six years and the guys we've brought in. Not again. But you have to admit that the guys that we've brought in through free agency in the last four years have been garbage. That's why they're off the roster ten months later.

This team drafted exceptionally well under Denny. They have also drafted some good players under Whis (although not as many). But when it comes time to gauge the value of players on our own roster, we don't seem to be doing as good a job as the rookies we look at. There is a problem with our in-league scouting department and our self-scouts. I'm not sure that it's just "the disease of me."

Do you really want to debate the relative merits of the New York Giants organization over the Arizona Cardinals'? Do you really feel like that's a debate that you can win?

For what it's worth, the Giants gave Michael Boley 5 years, $25 million, $11 million guaranteed (http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2009/02/new_york_giants_officially_sig.html). His cap charge was $300,000 more than Reggie Torbor's and $500,000 more than Gerald Hayes'.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Do you really want to debate the relative merits of the New York Giants organization over the Arizona Cardinals'? Do you really feel like that's a debate that you can win?

Short term, yes, long term no.

So no, no need to get into that whole situation.