Week 17-Arizona Cardinals off season thread. 05/1/23-05/7/23

[ASUCHRIS]

This is everything we said. It's ugly. Maybe we are taking Caleb Williams without some vast improvement.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

I rarely watch videos like this, but man, this was depressing.

 

[TheCardFan]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[WisconsinCard]

Yep. Great plan lol

Did you really think they could fill in all the holes in one off season? I don't think you did. Now as far as the "plan", nobody knows for sure, but reading the tea leaves, I believe the plan is as follows. Don't waste money this year trying to fit round players into square holes, or trying to get long term contracts for player who may or may not fit what coaches are trying to do. Evaluate the players and teams needs over the course of this year, get a feel for what the new coaches need to run the offense/defense, and then move forward with their actual plan beginning with next years free agency period. So the "plan" is there is no real plan to win, at least for 2023, just to evaluate and proceed next year. At least that what I think the "plan" is for now.

 

[Stout]

Did you really think they could fill in all the holes in one off season? I don't think you did. Now as far as the "plan", nobody knows for sure, but reading the tea leaves, I believe the plan is as follows. Don't waste money this year trying to fit round players into square holes, or trying to get long term contracts for player who may or may not fit what coaches are trying to do. Evaluate the players and teams needs over the course of this year, get a feel for what the new coaches need to run the offense/defense, and then move forward with their actual plan beginning with next years free agency period. So the "plan" is there is no real plan to win, at least for 2023, just to evaluate and proceed next year. At least that what I think the "plan" is for now.

I'm on record that I don't think there was any world in which we would fill all the holes in one offseason. You should realize that by now. I think you nailed their plan on the head. The part of the plan I loathe is that, beyond the draft, they're 100 percent punting on doing anything beyond "analyzing" what will help this roster. The bolded above is ignoring the very real possibility of signing good players to long-term contracts. Happens all the time. That sets us behind the ball, IMO a full season, because one FA and one more draft isn't fixing this roster. I hate the thought of punting a further season as it's unwarranted in the modern NFL. If Monti didn't have the balls or the nous to "risk" signing long-term FA for a full season, for whatever reason, maybe he wasn't the guy to right the ship. The team didn't have to risk the rebuild to put some roster pieces in place for the future.

So, yes, I see the plan. I think it's an inherently flawed and overly conservative plan, but I do see it.

 

[BritCard]

I'm on record that I don't think there was any world in which we would fill all the holes in one offseason. You should realize that by now. I think you nailed their plan on the head. The part of the plan I loathe is that, beyond the draft, they're 100 percent punting on doing anything beyond "analyzing" what will help this roster. The bolded above is ignoring the very real possibility of signing good players to long-term contracts. Happens all the time. That sets us behind the ball, IMO a full season, because one FA and one more draft isn't fixing this roster. I hate the thought of punting a further season as it's unwarranted in the modern NFL. If Monti didn't have the balls or the nous to "risk" signing long-term FA for a full season, for whatever reason, maybe he wasn't the guy to right the ship. The team didn't have to risk the rebuild to put some roster pieces in place for the future.

So, yes, I see the plan. I think it's an inherently flawed and overly conservative plan, but I do see it.

Do you think that part of the plan might be that knowing that next year was already a write off (roster and cap turnaround, Kyler injured etc) they thought it best to analyze the roster first before making any costly long term signings?

FA started mid March. At that point the staff hadn't even met most players or settled on a scheme. Other than running around in shorts they still don't really know what they have.

Is it not smarter to see what you might have and what extra you can coach out of them first?

 

[Stout]

Do you think that part of the plan might be that knowing that next year was already a write off (roster and cap turnaround, Kyler injured etc) they thought it best to analyze the roster first before making any costly long term signings?

FA started mid March. At that point the staff hadn't even met most players or settled on a scheme. Other than running around in shorts they still don't really know what they have.

Is it not smarter to see what you might have and what extra you can coach out of them first?

If the coaching staff and the GM were too immature to take on doing that without burning a season, they weren't ready for the big leagues. You simply cannot afford, in the modern NFL, to take a wash year to evaluate the roster. You have got to be able to do that on the fly. I can get behind a year of not competing on the field at an organizational level because of the mess Keim left the roster in. I cannot get behind a year of we're not even going to try to make the roster better long-term save via the draft because we have to take an entire season to figure out how we want to do things and what kinds of players we need. No bueno. Muy no bueno.

That said, I have no doubt that this is their approach. It's the only thing to explain what they're doing. It is the only way to rationalize the staunch refusal to sign any players for the long-term. Not one! Madness, IMO. Sets us back another year. Another reason our painfully slow coach/GM search set us back.

 

[BritCard]

If the coaching staff and the GM were too immature to take on doing that without burning a season, they weren't ready for the big leagues. You simply cannot afford, in the modern NFL, to take a wash year to evaluate the roster. You have got to be able to do that on the fly. I can get behind a year of not competing on the field at an organizational level because of the mess Keim left the roster in. I cannot get behind a year of we're not even going to try to make the roster better long-term save via the draft because we have to take an entire season to figure out how we want to do things and what kinds of players we need. No bueno. Muy no bueno.

That said, I have no doubt that this is their approach. It's the only thing to explain what they're doing. It is the only way to rationalize the staunch refusal to sign any players for the long-term. Not one! Madness, IMO. Sets us back another year. Another reason our painfully slow coach/GM search set us back.

I don't think if Kyler is healthy they would have taken the same approach. But it was already likely a wash year when they took over, maybe even if Kyler was healthy with the state of the roster and the cap.

To me it makes sense for them to see what they can coach out of the players we have. For example, Zach Allen didn't do anything until year 3. Last year was Lawrence's year 3 but he was mostly hurt. What if he's ready to make the leap? What if better coaching and scheme can get more out of him? What if he can replace Allen without having to pay Allen money?

 

[Stout]

I don't think if Kyler is healthy they would have taken the same approach. But it was already likely a wash year when they took over, maybe even if Kyler was healthy with the state of the roster and the cap.

To me it makes sense for them to see what they can coach out of the players we have. For example, Zach Allen didn't do anything until year 3. Last year was Lawrence's year 3 but he was mostly hurt. What if he's ready to make the leap? What if better coaching and scheme can get more out of him? What if he can replace Allen without having to pay Allen money?

If they could have done more with a healthy Kyler, there's no reason at all they couldn't have done more without him. A wash year on the playing field while evaluating the talent on this team only effects this season. The FO taking a wash year in FA and literally doing nothing to help the long-term future of this roster is crushing to long-term roster construction. That's a giant chunk of an offseason just completely punted. Not good for me.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Always such a realistic attitude lol

FTFY

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

David Boston was a coke head in luv with his body.
Boston was more talented than DK.
David came from a wealthy family and did not value greatness in the NFL.

Wealthy family? I thought his parents were in law enforcement.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Did you really think they could fill in all the holes in one off season? I don't think you did. Now as far as the "plan", nobody knows for sure, but reading the tea leaves, I believe the plan is as follows. Don't waste money this year trying to fit round players into square holes, or trying to get long term contracts for player who may or may not fit what coaches are trying to do. Evaluate the players and teams needs over the course of this year, get a feel for what the new coaches need to run the offense/defense, and then move forward with their actual plan beginning with next years free agency period. So the "plan" is there is no real plan to win, at least for 2023, just to evaluate and proceed next year. At least that what I think the "plan" is for now.

Lol. They didn’t fill a single hole. And there were square pegs for square holes and round pegs for round holes we just signed whatever pegs for $1M one year holes of whatever shape.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Do you think that part of the plan might be that knowing that next year was already a write off (roster and cap turnaround, Kyler injured etc) they thought it best to analyze the roster first before making any costly long term signings?

FA started mid March. At that point the staff hadn't even met most players or settled on a scheme. Other than running around in shorts they still don't really know what they have.

Is it not smarter to see what you might have and what extra you can coach out of them first?

Maybe. Of course virtually no other new staff seems to decide to punt on an entire offseason. At least not to my memory.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I don't think if Kyler is healthy they would have taken the same approach. But it was already likely a wash year when they took over, maybe even if Kyler was healthy with the state of the roster and the cap.

To me it makes sense for them to see what they can coach out of the players we have. For example, Zach Allen didn't do anything until year 3. Last year was Lawrence's year 3 but he was mostly hurt. What if he's ready to make the leap? What if better coaching and scheme can get more out of him? What if he can replace Allen without having to pay Allen money?

Lawrence make a leap. That’s a funny sentence.

It can be a wash year on the field without it being a wash year in rebuilding the roster. But dismiss punting on adding talent beyond next season because of . . . reasons.

 

[Stout]

Lawrence make a leap. That’s a funny sentence.

It can be a wash year on the field without it being a wash year in rebuilding the roster. But dismiss punting on adding talent beyond next season because of . . . reasons.

Exactly. You can tank while still putting long-term pieces in place. People pretending the two are mutually exclusive, I don't know what to tell you. Seems like folks feel as if sucking for longer will guarantee success? I think the Texans have very much proved otherwise. Also folks are so convinced it takes multiple years to turn a roster around enough to compete, when we know that isn't true either.

 

[BritCard]

Exactly. You can tank while still putting long-term pieces in place. People pretending the two are mutually exclusive, I don't know what to tell you. Seems like folks feel as if sucking for longer will guarantee success? I think the Texans have very much proved otherwise. Also folks are so convinced it takes multiple years to turn a roster around enough to compete, when we know that isn't true either.

You can't tank while putting long term pieces in place because "long term pieces" have multiple options and don't want to sign for a tanking team or a team with an injured QB that they know will have a losing season.

This is a very basic premise we all have a good grasp on. You don't choose to eat at the roach infested diner if the Michelin star restaurant is an option.

 

[slanidrac16]

You can't tank while putting long term pieces in place because "long term pieces" have multiple options and don't want to sign for a tanking team or a team with an injured QB that they know will have a losing season.

This is a very basic premise we all have a good grasp on. You don't choose to eat at the roach infested diner if the Michelin star restaurant is an option.

I agree to a certain extent. However, there are some pretty good free agents out there still available. Yes, a team in this situation may have to overpay a bit but if it’s a solid building block that can fill a crucial spot for years to come I’d like to see us sign him.
An Example would be Ben Jones. He would be a guy calling blocking assignments, providing leadership and working hand in hand with Murray. He’s a guy that would be here, barring injury for the next 4 years. But hey, that’s just me.

 

[Stout]

You can't tank while putting long term pieces in place because "long term pieces" have multiple options and don't want to sign for a tanking team or a team with an injured QB that they know will have a losing season.

This is a very basic premise we all have a good grasp on. You don't choose to eat at the roach infested diner if the Michelin star restaurant is an option.

Yeah, man, keep saying it over and over again and maybe you're completely black and white, inflexible opinion on the topic will become reality. I don't care that you think it's absolutely impossible for us to have signed a few long-term FA deals this offseason. We could have, but Monti and Co consciously decided not to. This was a decision and not a "woe is me, it would be impossible" scenario.

 

[BritCard]

I agree to a certain extent. However, there are some pretty good free agents out there still available. Yes, a team in this situation may have to overpay a bit but if it’s a solid building block that can fill a crucial spot for years to come I’d like to see us sign him.
An Example would be Ben Jones. He would be a guy calling blocking assignments, providing leadership and working hand in hand with Murray. He’s a guy that would be here, barring injury for the next 4 years. But hey, that’s just me.

Ben Jones turns 34 in July, he's not here for the next 4 years.

There's something we don't know with Ben Jones.

His Titan's contract was good value. His cap hit this year was only $8.2m and the Titans took a $4.5m dead cap hit to do it. Why cut a top 10 C earning none top 10 money to save only $3.7m? The backup Center that's taking over is not good either, it's a huge downgrade for $3.7m.

He was cut with a failed physical designation and missed 5 games last year with concussions, eventually going on IR in mid December with it.

I'm guessing teams think he has a year max left in him and with the recent concussion history they don't think it's worth the risk.

 

[PACardsFan]

I agree to a certain extent. However, there are some pretty good free agents out there still available. Yes, a team in this situation may have to overpay a bit but if it’s a solid building block that can fill a crucial spot for years to come I’d like to see us sign him.
An Example would be Ben Jones. He would be a guy calling blocking assignments, providing leadership and working hand in hand with Murray. He’s a guy that would be here, barring injury for the next 4 years. But hey, that’s just me.

Do you really think that Ben Jones will last another 4 years? Unless I’m wrong, he’s 33 & has played for 11 years in the NFL. He was extremely durable until 2021, but has missed many games since, and has had a slew of concussions. The Titans cut him with a failed physical designation. I just don’t see the Cardinals being interested.

 

[Krangodnzr]

You can't tank while putting long term pieces in place because "long term pieces" have multiple options and don't want to sign for a tanking team or a team with an injured QB that they know will have a losing season.

This is a very basic premise we all have a good grasp on. You don't choose to eat at the roach infested diner if the Michelin star restaurant is an option.

You can if you overpay them...which could be a bad idea from a cap perspective.

 

[BritCard]

Yeah, man, keep saying it over and over again and maybe you're completely black and white, inflexible opinion on the topic will become reality. I don't care that you think it's absolutely impossible for us to have signed a few long-term FA deals this offseason. We could have, but Monti and Co consciously decided not to. This was a decision and not a "woe is me, it would be impossible" scenario.

You keep saying it's not impossible when it is. You know it is because it's basic logic. Let's put it to the board eh?

You're a 26-28 year old free agent that's considered a good young player. You have several teams interested in signing you because, as we established, you're a good young player and teams like good young players. You haven't hit your peak either and you're coming off a below average season so you're not attracting top dollar offers, you're considered a player with upside.

The Steelers, Ravens, Patriots, Broncos, Niners, Giants, Jets, Chargers, Lions, Vikings, Jags and Saints have all shown interest besides the Cardinals.

You're from Texas, have never been to Arizona. Have no ties there. All teams are offering roughly similar money and terms over 3 years.

Who would choose to sign a multi year deal with the Cardinals?

(For the purposes of this example we'll ignore that good players coming off down years that deflate their value often don't want a multi year deal and just want a 1 year deal where they can show their true talent and get a better multi year offer in the next FA window)

 

[BritCard]

You can if you overpay them...which could be a bad idea from a cap perspective.

I've had this conversation before and Stout says we don't have to overpay them, we just give them a better upfront money / cash structure.

As if the agent wouldn't use that to go back to the players prefered destinations to get them to match it.

I guess Monti should say "This offer expires when I put down the phone" in a gravelly voice or something.

 

[Stout]

Let's just say I think the size of the free pass Monti and Co are getting for this FA period is over the top, with people stating absolutes and impossibilities in a league that is anything but, and leave it at that. I'm tired of posters lecturing that everything is black and white, it's impossible, stating their logic is the only logic, etc. Hate to break it to yinz, but there isn't only one way; the choices weren't simply overpay for long-term FAs or only sign 1-year nobodies. Creativity can do a lot in the NFL, and I don't think anybody can argue the FO has even tried to be creative in FA to build for the long-term.

Now cue the train of "Stout doesn't understand" and "logic dictates" and "the FO is Teflon" replies. Because I cannot hold these opinions; apparently it flies in the face of all that is holy or something lol We're truly into the silly season and I'm done with logic. Logic isn't called for or accepted at this point, so why bother wasting time explaining?

 

[Stout]

I've had this conversation before and Stout says we don't have to overpay them, we just give them a better upfront money / cash structure.

As if the agent wouldn't use that to go back to the players prefered destinations to get them to match it.

I guess Monti should say "This offer expires when I put down the phone" in a gravelly voice or something.

You're wrong, full stop. No sense explaining how or why.

 

[Stout]

You can if you overpay them...which could be a bad idea from a cap perspective.

Another in the "it would have been impossible" type of responses, eh? You're quite wrong, of course. We just haven't been creative.