Which was worse in 2003, Offense or Defense?

[SECTION 11]

Offense:
280.6 yards per game (27th)
4.6 yards per play (29th)
16.0 first downs per game (29th)
14.1 points per game (32nd)
25 total TD's (32nd)
5 rushing TD's (32nd)
403 rushing attempts (30th)
1531 rushing yards (29th)
95.7 rushing yards per game (29th)
80 rushing first downs (29th)
5 rushes over 20+ yards (29th)
56.7 completion percentage (23rd)
184.9 receiving yards per game (23rd)
18 receiving TD's (19th)
44 sacks (31st)

Defense:
344.0 yards per game (26th)
5.5 yards per play (27th)
20.4 first downs per game (30th)
28.2 points per game (32nd)
55 total TD's (32nd)
17 rushing TD's (25th)
475 rushing attempts (24th)
1915 rushing yards (19th)
119.7 rushing yards per game (19th)
120 rushing first downs (25th)
8 rushes over 20+ yards (13th)
62.6 completion percentage (30th)
224.3 receiving yards per game (29th)
29 receiving TD's (31st)
21 sacks (30th)


The first thing that pops out is.... Good Lord are we bad.

The second thing that pops out is that I see nothing here in the stats that refutes what I saw on the field last season.... That our rushing game stinks. It's worse than our passing game. It's worse than our run defense. It's worse than our pass defense. It's worse than our special teams. It's worse than the flag boys. It's worse scoring wise than anyone last year. And this is with a Pro Bowl receiver and TE who barely missed out.

Throw to score. Run to win.

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
Offense:
280.6 yards per game (27th)
4.6 yards per play (29th)
16.0 first downs per game (29th)
14.1 points per game (32nd)
25 total TD's (32nd)
5 rushing TD's (32nd)
403 rushing attempts (30th)
1531 rushing yards (29th)
95.7 rushing yards per game (29th)
80 rushing first downs (29th)
5 rushes over 20+ yards (29th)
56.7 completion percentage (23rd)
184.9 receiving yards per game (23rd)
18 receiving TD's (19th)
44 sacks (31st)

Defense:
344.0 yards per game (26th)
5.5 yards per play (27th)
20.4 first downs per game (30th)
28.2 points per game (32nd)
55 total TD's (32nd)
17 rushing TD's (25th)
475 rushing attempts (24th)
1915 rushing yards (19th)
119.7 rushing yards per game (19th)
120 rushing first downs (25th)
8 rushes over 20+ yards (13th)
62.6 completion percentage (30th)
224.3 receiving yards per game (29th)
29 receiving TD's (31st)
21 sacks (30th)


The first thing that pops out is.... Good Lord are we bad.

The second thing that pops out is that I see nothing here in the stats that refutes what I saw on the field last season.... That our rushing game stinks. It's worse than our passing game. It's worse than our run defense. It's worse than our pass defense. It's worse than our special teams. It's worse than the flag boys. It's worse scoring wise than anyone last year. And this is with a Pro Bowl receiver and TE who barely missed out.

Throw to score. Run to win.

Defense Wins Championships!

 

[asugrad96]

How were we not last in sacks with 21? Which teams were worse?

Those stats are just painful to look at. I guess I would have to go with the a tie between offense and defense being equally bad.

 

[football karma]

11—

I will officially cast my vote for……………………offense

I remember many games last year where the defense hung in there for a half or three quarters and I thought “if the offense could do anything, the Cards would be up by 17 points already.”

Instead, by mid 3rd quarter or the fourth, the defense would crack and the floodgates would open—end result – another road blowout.

This is not to say the defense is good – but I think sometimes we overlook how poorly this team has put points on the board over the last three seasons.

 

[SECTION 11]

Re: Re: Which was worse in 2003, Offense or Defense?

Originally posted by LVCARDFREAK
Defense Wins Championships!

And that's why we'll spend 3/4 of our first-day draft picks and practically all of our free agent signings on defense, and our first round pick on a back that can keep them off the field.

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Re: Re: Re: Which was worse in 2003, Offense or Defense?

Originally posted by SECTION 11
And that's why we'll spend 3/4 of our first-day draft picks and practically all of our free agent signings on defense, and our first round pick on a back that can keep them off the field.

Maybe, but if we take a back in the1st round it will be Jones not Jackson....at least at #3 anyway.

 

[SECTION 11]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Which was worse in 2003, Offense or Defense?

Originally posted by LVCARDFREAK
Maybe, but if we take a back in the1st round it will be Jones not Jackson....at least at #3 anyway.

Jones taken ahead of Jackson?

I smell a wager...

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which was worse in 2003, Offense or Defense?

Originally posted by SECTION 11
Jones taken ahead of Jackson?

I smell a wager...

I will have to wait for the combine. I like Jones b/c of his 'able-to-score-from-anywhere-on-the-field' speed.

His knock is catching the ball where as Jacksons knock is he cant block a lick

If both improve on that and show it at the combine, who knows where they will go.

 

[SECTION 11]

I hear ya, but not very many backs coming out of college can pass protect at first. Neither Va Tech or Oregon State were pass happy teams, so I'd imagine their blocking skills at this point aren't too far off.

 

[MadRob]

Offense was a let down, defense played up to their potential...


Watching a team play against the Cards defense reminded me of that team playing a very good college defense: The defense will hold their own for a while, but in the end there just is no chance of a college defense against an NFL offense....

BUT

Watching our offense against another teams defense reminded me of our offense playing a college defense- and the college defense wining?: they are much bigger and should just pulverize them, but they just got it handed to them it seemed.


Does that make sense???

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
I hear ya, but not very many backs coming out of college can pass protect at first. Neither Va Tech or Oregon State were pass happy teams, so I'd imagine their blocking skills at this point aren't too far off.

True!

Maybe we will bet after the combine then.

 

[Wild Card]

Originally posted by asugrad96
Those stats are just painful to look at. I guess I would have to go with the a tie between offense and defense being equally bad.

S11:

What he said. Fewest points scored, most points allowed. If that's not a deadheat in futility, I don't know what is.

WC

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Offense! By far and away.

Where to begin!

At some points I thought,"Wow, they could snap the ball and simultaniously all fall down flat on their faces, and get the same effect as when they try to run a play."

Now lets play word association with the Cardinals 2003 offense.

Clement - sucked
Gilmore - sucked worse than Clement
Larry Foster - who?
Emmitt Smith - broken
Davis - slow
Kendell - out of position
Blake - INT, Fumble, horror, sickness, "Cause I am on bad teams"


Our offense was about as fun as smashing you face into a cheese grater.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Originally posted by asugrad96
How were we not last in sacks with 21? Which teams were worse?

Those stats are just painful to look at. I guess I would have to go with the a tie between offense and defense being equally bad.

Houston - 19

Chicago - 18

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
Offense:
The second thing that pops out is that I see nothing here in the stats that refutes what I saw on the field last season.... That our rushing game stinks. It's worse than our passing game. It's worse than our run defense. It's worse than our pass defense. It's worse than our special teams. It's worse than the flag boys. It's worse scoring wise than anyone last year. And this is with a Pro Bowl receiver and TE who barely missed out.

Throw to score. Run to win.

Yeah but remember, rushing stats are held down when you're on a losing team , passing stats are inflated. Teams that are always behind don't run the ball, they throw it.

In the games we were competitive in, we largely had success running. The real question is chicken or egg, did we win because we ran the ball well, or did we run the ball well because we weren't way behind?

I'd bet my house that we run the ball better this year with Green in charge. Of course I rent an apartment so that's a pretty easy bet for me to make (-:

 

[AZCB34]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
Throw to score. Run to win.

This statement I agree with 100% but I also believe that if Shipp can stay healthy and this OL gets motivated like I expect them to, Shipp can put up 1300+ yards and hit paydirt 10 times

IMO, no question the defense sucked worse. The defense put the offense in precarious positions and forced Blake to try and win the game and as it turns out, I severely over-rated Blake's ability. If the D could have just been average, I believe 8 wins or more was certainly possible and probably likely.

This is why I am crying out for defense, defense and more defense. Defense can be vastly improved while the offense has only one real hole I see and that is a WR across from Quan.

 

[Renz]

Re: Re: Which was worse in 2003, Offense or Defense?

Originally posted by LVCARDFREAK
Defense Wins Championships!

Then draft this guy:

 

[SunCityCarl]

Thanks S11 now I'm gonna need an afternoon pick me up! I can't believe I spent $$ to watch that S&$t!!

 

[Bobcat]

Re: Re: Which was worse in 2003, Offense or Defense?

Originally posted by LVCARDFREAK
Defense Wins Championships!

Which was worse in 2003, Offense or Defense? No guy's it was

Coaching!!!!


Allan

 

[Duckjake]

Definitely the defense.

The offense had no experience at WR, a new QB, a new center, a new FB, a new LG, an over the hill RB, and a new Offensive Coordinator with only 2 years with the team as WR coach. Their failure rests squarely on the Cardinals staff who made the decision to play under those circumstances. They played with one hand tied behind their backs so the results were to be expected.

The defense on the other hand had 9 starters who were at least in their 2nd year with the team-even after the injuries to Starks and KVB- and a staff that had both a Head Coach and Defensive Coordinator that had been involved with the defense for SEVEN years. To be unable to field a rock solid defense under those conditions was inexcusable and McGinnis deserved to lose his job because of it.

 

[azdad1978]

The Defense was undermanned and lack quality starters. We need talent infusion in the DL, CB and maybe a heir apparent in MLB. The time of having lunch pail guys in this defense needs to go and bring some talented athletes and more speed to this defense.