two more......

[jrjbritt]

signings that would make this offseason FA period the best ever for the cards..

1. bobby taylor.. he even says we would like to play for DG.. bring him in and sign him.. he is a little older and would provide some much needed experience in the back field.. this would also let on imcoming drafted CB time to learn and play a little nickel/dime..

2. Cosey Coleman.. plug him into the RG spot and this line can be very good.. he is young and has a mean streak.. would be a great pick-up also.. off th top of my head I cant remenber if he is a RFA or UFA.. if he is a RFA see what is needed to get him here..

looking forward to the draft.. I would be excited with Fitz or Williams, but I think that Fitz would be better with all the hype of knowing DG and not wanting to let him down..

then draft CB,DT,SS,OL,RB,WR and with a comp pick a CB.

GO CARDS

 

[vikesfan]

I agree 2 smart pick ups. Just don't overpay.

 

[Goldfield]

I agree with both those guys.

The Olineman most of all.

 

[BACH]

Originally posted by jrjbritt
signings that would make this offseason FA period the best ever for the cards..

1. bobby taylor.. he even says we would like to play for DG.. bring him in and sign him.. he is a little older and would provide some much needed experience in the back field.. this would also let on imcoming drafted CB time to learn and play a little nickel/dime..

2. Cosey Coleman.. plug him into the RG spot and this line can be very good.. he is young and has a mean streak.. would be a great pick-up also.. off th top of my head I cant remenber if he is a RFA or UFA.. if he is a RFA see what is needed to get him here..

looking forward to the draft.. I would be excited with Fitz or Williams, but I think that Fitz would be better with all the hype of knowing DG and not wanting to let him down..

then draft CB,DT,SS,OL,RB,WR and with a comp pick a CB.

GO CARDS

Just a hunch...
Bobby Taylor wants to play for Green and the Cards want Taylor, but they have major disagreements over the contract. The problem is not money, but the length of the deal. Taylor wants a 5-6 year deal, but given Taylor's age Graves is only wiling to give a 3 year deal.

Coleman would be a great pick-up, if the price is right. He was the best interior lineman along with Woody. I worries me, that he's not signed yet, because that could mean his asking price is too high.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

With Taylor,it will come down to bonus money.The length of the contract will be no big deal because no one expects Taylor to play 5 more years.The Cards won't want a big cap hit after year 2 by speading a 8 million dollar bonus over 5 years and then have to cut him in year 3 and take a 4-5 mill cap hit.A good contarct for Taylor would be about a 6 mill bonus with a base salary of 2 mill over 3 years.that's a 4 million dollar cap hit for each year and if they cut him in year 3 he'll only count 2 mill instead of 4.

 

[slanidrac16]

GO CARDS [/B][/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE2. Cosey Coleman.. plug him into the RG spot and this line can be very good.. he is young and has a mean streak.. would be a great pick-up also.. off th top of my head I cant remenber if he is a RFA or UFA.. if he is a RFA see what is needed to get him here..]

Coleman is UAF. He is good but not the best in past protection. I don't see us going after any of the OL that are left out there . Someone posted that Green likes to basically go after tackles and then move 1 inside to guard.

 

[john h]

Originally posted by vikesfan
I agree 2 smart pick ups. Just don't overpay.

when we talk about the Cards overpaying you can bet we will never spend the max. we always leave some for the owner and as many have pointed out we do not have the cash for the big bonus money up front that the big guys have so we have to probably over pay to get a decent player. i am ready for the team to over pay if that is what it takes but we from history will not do it often and not by much. if we save money by not over paying it is for the good of the owner not the team.

 

[40yearfan]

Originally posted by john h
when we talk about the Cards overpaying you can bet we will never spend the max. we always leave some for the owner and as many have pointed out we do not have the cash for the big bonus money up front that the big guys have so we have to probably over pay to get a decent player. i am ready for the team to over pay if that is what it takes but we from history will not do it often and not by much. if we save money by not over paying it is for the good of the owner not the team.

Yeah, it's really silly of the Bidwill's to expect to make money. They should blow every dime they have on this team just to make the fans happy.

 

[Tangodnzr]

Originally posted by john h
when we talk about the Cards overpaying you can bet we will never spend the max. we always leave some for the owner and as many have pointed out we do not have the cash for the big bonus money up front that the big guys have so we have to probably over pay to get a decent player. i am ready for the team to over pay if that is what it takes but we from history will not do it often and not by much. if we save money by not over paying it is for the good of the owner not the team.

That's such a ridiculous load of garbage, its incredible. :roll:

 

[Tangodnzr]

The Cards (like I imagine most teams would) usually have tried to stay a little under the cap going into the season in order to keep some money free as a contingency in case of injury during the course of the season.
But it's not big amount when they do.

 

[SECTION 11]

I expect they'll be 1M or so under, like most intelligent teams are.

 

[spanky1]

Originally posted by Tangodnzr
The Cards (like I imagine most teams would) usually have tried to stay a little under the cap going into the season in order to keep some money free as a contingency in case of injury during the course of the season.
But it's not big amount when they do.

Right you are.....allow for $1-$1.5MM

 

[vince56]

Yeah, but a lot of teams out there give much larger signing bonuses than the cardinals do, and that's been the knock on them Tango. The cards have a fantastic cap situation right now and I'd also love to see them wrangle a superstar in here (Moss, Sapp, etc.).

 

[spanky1]

Originally posted by Tangodnzr
That's such a ridiculous load of garbage, its incredible. :roll: [/B]

Everyone who thinks the Bidwills are starving, please remember, The Cardinal franchise is virtually free of debt and as Yogi Bera might say.....that's as good as cash.

 

[nidan]

Originally posted by john h
when we talk about the Cards overpaying you can bet we will never spend the max. we always leave some for the owner and as many have pointed out we do not have the cash for the big bonus money up front that the big guys have so we have to probably over pay to get a decent player. i am ready for the team to over pay if that is what it takes but we from history will not do it often and not by much. if we save money by not over paying it is for the good of the owner not the team.

John while I might a little more polite than Tango, you are throwing out just a tiny Cheap Shot there aren't you. Lack of cash flow for signing bonuses has nothing to do with your cheap shot.

I've seen much incompetancy/bad luck from the Cardinals front office over the last few years but frankly I havn't seen them trying to "save" money so the Bidwills can pocket it.

What I do see is meaningless rants from folks like Gambo and Bickley saying this type of stuff with nothing to substantiate it. In fact the evidence points in the other direction.

I heard much wailing over us having money left under the cap and how the Bidwills were evil and planning to pocket it. In reality they were planning to use it to resign some of our players.

 

[D-Dogg]

Originally posted by john h
when we talk about the Cards overpaying you can bet we will never spend the max. we always leave some for the owner and as many have pointed out we do not have the cash for the big bonus money up front that the big guys have so we have to probably over pay to get a decent player. i am ready for the team to over pay if that is what it takes but we from history will not do it often and not by much. if we save money by not over paying it is for the good of the owner not the team.

:roll:

 

[Tangodnzr]

The Cards have been one of the best cap managed teams in the NFL for the past 3+ years.

To me, where this franchise started making a turnaround was with the signing of Grutts in 2000.
Then Kendall the next year and the drafting of Big.

Ever since they have gone out an paid good money for free agents, and have been one of the best cap managed teams, and every year spent right up to the limit, (actually just slightly under, which they have stated they do purposely in case of injuries during the season).

I challenge anyone who says different to produce some tangible evidence of their claim rather than just spewing a bunch of hot air.

 

[RLakin]

Originally posted by Tangodnzr
The Cards have been one of the best cap managed teams in the NFL for the past 3+ years.

Ever since they have gone out an paid good money for free agents, and have been one of the best cap managed teams, and every year spent right up to the limit, (actually just slightly under, which they have stated they do purposely in case of injuries during the season).

I challenge anyone who says different to procuce some tangible evidence of their claim rather than just spewing a bunch of hot air.

Probably hot air, but it seems those that spent the "worst" way (03' Oak, 04' Ten, 02' Bal) played the "best." Purely coincidental I'm sure.

 

[Tangodnzr]

Originally posted by RLakin
Probably hot air, but it seems those that spent the "worst" way (03' Oak, 04' Ten, 02' Bal) played the "best." Purely coincidental I'm sure.

And how long and enduring of a dynasty did they ultimately create?

I assume the years you quoted were the years following their actual big spending, otherwise they make no sense at all.

Baltimore got a ring on 2001, but going into 2002 lost Shannon Sharpe, Sam Adams, Rod Woodson, Duane Starks, Jamie Sharper, and Jermaine Lewis because of the cap hell they'd put themselves in. 2002 they went 7-9 and 3rd in their division.

The Raiders made it to the superbowl in 2002 before Tampa kicked their butts 48-21. Then last year.....

Seems to me the Titans came up a little short last year too, and look at the probems they are having to deal with this year.

I can see sometimes if a team thinks they can make a legitimate run at being Super Bowl champ, then they might overspend a little to try and make it over the hump.
But history has generally shown that's only robbing Peter to pay Paul and your "examples' are perfect proof of that.
And for Oakland and Tennessee, what did it really buy them????

 

[AZCB34]

On Bobby Taylor...last thing I hheard was he had contacted the Cards but they hadn't called him back. I admit that was a few days ago but so far nothing else...therefore, assuming there isn't new info out there, it has nothing to do with a bonus since nobody has negotiated, or even spoken for that matter.

The interesting thing is, assuming he is REALLY interested in playing for Green and AZ, you might not have to pony up such a huge bonus as he might be more willing to play for "less" to get what he wants.

I want Taylor brought in here and quite frankly I am disappointed it doesn;t appear as though the Cards have even bothered to call a FAQ who has publically said he wants to play here. Costs nothing to make the call other than a bit of time.

 

[RLakin]

Originally posted by Tangodnzr
And how long and enduring of a dynasty did they ultimately create?

I assume the years you quoted were the years following their actual big spending, otherwise they make no sense at all.

Baltimore got a ring on 2001, but going into 2002 lost Shannon Sharpe, Sam Adams, Rod Woodson, Duane Starks, Jamie Sharper, and Jermaine Lewis because of the cap hell they'd put themselves in. 2002 they went 7-9 and 3rd in their division.

The Raiders made it to the superbowl in 2002 before Tampa kicked their butts 48-21. Then last year.....

Seems to me the Titans came up a little short last year too, and look at the probems they are having to deal with this year.

I can see sometimes if a team thinks they can make a legitimate run at being Super Bowl champ, then they might overspend a little to try and make it over the hump.
But history has generally shown that's only robbing Peter to pay Paul and your "examples' are perfect proof of that.
And for Oakland and Tennessee, what did it really buy them????

What did the Cards "not buying" buy them.
A Super Bowl berth, and two divisional playoff round appearances versus the 13th, 6th, and 3rd worst records in the NFL. Spending "responsibly" sure pays. I know which one I'd take.

 

[Tangodnzr]

Originally posted by RLakin
What did the Cards "not buying" buy them.
A Super Bowl berth, and two divisional playoff round appearances versus the 13th, 6th, and 3rd worst records in the NFL. Spending "responsibly" sure pays. I know which one I'd take.

Weak......really really weak.

So how many more super bowls than the Cards did the Raiders or Titans win?

Baltimore did get one, but haven't come close since.

What about coaching? Does that not enter into the equation?

If money spent equaled guaranteed results Daniel Snyder and the Skins should have been perenniel super bowl champs.

Go peddle your usual negative garbage somewhere else, where there may be people stupid enough to buy it.

Amazing, simply amazing.

 

[RLakin]

Originally posted by Tangodnzr
Weak......really really weak.

So how many more super bowls than the Cards did the Raiders or Titans win?

Baltimore did get one, but haven't come close since.

What about coaching? Does that not enter into the equation?

If money spent equaled guaranteed results Daniel Snyder and the Skins should have been perenniel super bowl champs.

Go peddle your usual negative garbage somewhere else, where there may be people stupid enough to buy it.

Amazing, simply amazing.

The Titans and Raiders went to one more Super Bowl and played in two more Januarys than did the Cardinals. As for coaching, that hypothetical can work both ways. Who’s to say that better coaching wouldn't have pushed the Raiders or Titans over the edge like your suggestion (seemed) to push the Cardinals a few spots back in the draft.
And what's more stupid, making the argument that the Cardinals financial model has been more successful or half of the last 4 AFC representatives for the Super Bowl. (Not to mention a perennial title contender in Tennessee.)
Case in point is the Ravens. Two years ago they were dumping salary after spending in an "irresponsible" (or anti-Cardinal) way. Now they're back in the hunt, and (in most realistic estimations) ahead of the Cardinals again. So where did all that "responsible" spending get you. Right behind the teams that did the opposite a few short years ago. I agree, that is amazing.

 

[Tangodnzr]

Originally posted by RLakin
The Titans and Raiders went to one more Super Bowl and played in two more Januarys than did the Cardinals. As for coaching, that hypothetical can work both ways. Who’s to say that better coaching wouldn't have pushed the Raiders or Titans over the edge like your suggestion (seemed) to push the Cardinals a few spots back in the draft.
Hmmmmm, let me see if I have this right.....are you now saying that it was poor coaching by Jeff Fisher that prevented them from winning the super bowl? Callahan ,maybe a case could be made for...but I don't see the Raiders even close to sniffing a Super Bowl anytime soon, even with him gone. (the whole point being, you just don't automatically buy a superbowl by sacrificing the future by putting yourself in cap hell in an attempt to buy a ring. You keep conveniently side stepping mentioning Snyder in all your rants. I wonder why?
Further you also suspiciously omit any reference to the Pats, and their success, yet they didn't sacrifice their future, cap-wise, to do it.
Your overly simplified reductionism fails to address the fact that its not just spending, per se, but whom the money is specifically spent on.... were the players "bought" productive as hoped, did the coaches and management spend it in the right places, etc., and a myriad of other factors.

And what's more stupid, making the argument that the Cardinals financial model has been more successful or half of the last 4 AFC representatives for the Super Bowl. (Not to mention a perennial title contender in Tennessee.)
which way are you gong to have it?.....did Jeff Fisher's coaching help or hinder the Titans in their, so far, futile attempt to WIN a superbowl?
The Cards salary cap management has not been the primary, by any means, reason they have not been Super Bowl contenders.
That's what I mean about your over simllified reductionism.
Take Colvin, last year, for example, since that's a favorite "whipping boy" for Card bashers. The Cards had the money to offer him...and did....he just didn't want to take it. Most teams couldn't even afford to make it to that point. So go blow your smoke somewhere else.

Case in point is the Ravens. Two years ago they were dumping salary after spending in an "irresponsible" (or anti-Cardinal) way. Now they're back in the hunt, and (in most realistic estimations) ahead of the Cardinals again. So where did all that "responsible" spending get you. Right behind the teams that did the opposite a few short years ago.
Now tell me once again....how many superbowls did the Ravens win last year? Are you guaranteeing they will have a better record than the Cards in 04?
I agree, that is amazing.
Yes indeed it is.

 

[RLakin]

For someone who uses the term "oversimplification " as much as you do, you sure do a lot of it yourself. The point on coaching wasn't that Jeff Fisher was a bad coach. It was simply (maybe too much for you) that hypotheticals involving coaching don't always benefit the "underachieving" Cardinals and their departed staff. In fact, (hypothetically speaking) I think it was more of a reach to believe that the Cardinals were a .500 team than the Titans were not a championship one. Not that's not to say that the Titans should have been in a Super Bowl or that Jeff Fisher is a bad coach (which was your oversimplified inference, by the way). Rather that, in the event of Herculean coaching task, the odds favored the Titans (or Raiders in 03') taking the next step to Super Bowl glory than the Cardinals moving out of the top 10 of the NFL Draft. I guess you could say that (in my opinion) the team that lost to the Super Bowl champions (Ten) by one score had a better chance of reaching their goal (Super Bowl) than the franchise that lost by double digits to the teams picking 6th, 7th, 11th, and 14th did in reaching theirs (8-8).
Now, onto the other stuff, for which I again stay the "oversimplified" route. Rather than broaden the argument to other teams, as you repeatedly keep trying to do, lets keep this on the 4 teams that I mentioned. (Face it the Cardinals do not belong in any comparisons with the Patriots or Eagles.) It seems to me that there is a clear cut choice here. Either you believe that risking short term success for short term failure is the model or you believe that long term failure will suddenly bring long term success. Yes, the Raiders are on decline along with Tennessee. But wouldn't you as a Cardinal fan rather have that "financially unstable" Super Bowl run followed with a quick downtime rather than the continual rebuilding process that happens to be financial stable. Face it, the proof is in the pudding and no amount of "amazingly oversimplified" spin will show that any other way.