Meat to the Wolves: My Preliminary QB list for the draft

Discussion in 'Arizona Cardinals' started by RugbyMuffin, Feb 10, 2018.

  1. RugbyMuffin

    RugbyMuffin Registered

    Posts:
    27,911
    Likes Received:
    1,739
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    I get it. No risk it, no biscuit........and when the risk doesn't work out, are you prepared, to support the team's decision to sell the farm for a QB, and say, "Well, at least they went for it" and support them as they wait until the next opportunity arises in 2 or 3 years ?

    If so, then I can respect the risk mentality you want the organization to follow. If you were to turn your back on the organization for doing what you think is right, if the risk were to come up short, then what are you really selling here other than a catch-22 ?

    You will be unhappy if the team doesn't take a major risk, but also unhappy if they risk and do not come out on top, is not really anything to worry about if you are the person making the decisions.

    My personal rule, is when you find yourself in a catch-22 situation, do what you think is best, because either way you are screwed, and might as well be screwed and do what you believe in, then be screwed AND work on something you do not.

    Mind you I write this, not knowing your personal mindset, just justifying why some people are not willing to bet the farm. If you are more than prepared to deal with the repercussions, good and bad, of the team taking a big risk, and would stand by it, then I think that is a valid argument.

    I get from your posts that you think the Cardinals should bet the farm on Sam Darnold, which if it happened I would support. But, it is a BIG RISK. Yet, if you personally believe in Darnold, then I get it, 100% get it.

    It would be very hypocritical of me to question the risk in getting Darnold if you think he is that special, when I have the same belief in one Teddy Bridgewater, and think the Cardinals should jump at him if he hits free agency. Points can be made for and against both QB's in question but it is valid reasoning behind each, and yet each has its own risk.

    I am definitely the more conservative type, so I do not see any QB in the draft worth trading up for, and I do not think spending a large chunk of the team's cap on a QB that has yet to win a playoff game in this NFL is a smart move anyway.

    But, in my case, I am prepared to deal with the repercussions of the Cardinals being conservative, and going into the next season with a Tyrod Taylor and Lamar Jackson (for the sake of example) QB room.

    Coach hasn't coached a game, or even a practice. You think we can give the guy at least till week 1 of the season. Sean McVay was nothing more than a young, new coach until he hit the regular season. Any chance we give our own organization that time frame ?

    QB is not even on the team yet.

    Both are worst in the league already ?

    Based on just that statement, it looks like you have this team dead and buried, and are then wringing your hands about what they will do next ? The only question you are leaving yourself with is, what can the Cardinals possibly do that would be a positive in your eyes, cause you are not leaving much of an option there.

    Its February 12th.
     
  2. oaken1

    oaken1 Stone Cold

    Age:
    49
    Posts:
    8,490
    Likes Received:
    1,877
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Location:
    Modesto, California
    just like the vikes have bridgewater, keenum, and bradford right now...we have stanton, gabbert, and Barkley... so I agree with chopper that we have the "worst" QB in the division... because those are our guys until the new league year opens.

    I have never been a fan of the blockbuster trades before. But watching this team wallow in mediocrity for so many decades has changed my thinking.

    we signed Kurt Warner to a cheap contract after having some awesome rookies come in from great drafts... Kurt took us to the SB but we didnt win.. also on that team were a few free agents that made a huge difference for us... most notably off the cuff... Bertrand Berry.
    after that SB, we signed Kurt to a new contract more in line with his market value.... and we never returned to the super bowl... not being able to pay guys like Karlos Dansby is part of the reason why...we couldnt pay Dansby a market deal because our money was tied up.

    Later we get Palmer for a steal in a trade..awesome, Carson was a steadfast guy for us and he fit BA's offense to a T.... but due to his market value contract we couldnt bring in too many playmakers as FA... we got Iupati and Veldheer to try and help Palmer be successful...oline is always good... But we really needed to get impact players from our drafts because we didnt have much money to work with.... that got us destroyed in the NFC Championship game and nothing more because our draft picks were always sitting on the bench until this past year when they had to get on the field because we didnt have any other bodies to put out there.

    Now we need a QB again...but keep in mind that here in another year or so we have a young LT who is going to get around $13mil a year...either from us or from somebody else. we need that young LT to protect our new QB.... so do we spend our money on the QB knowing we have to draft and groom another young LT?
    we also have a franchise level RB who will be up for a contract in a year or so... if his agent is any good he will also be looking for around $12mil per year.
    at WR we have Larry...love Larry, but he only has a couple more years in him so we need to find his replacement... not only that but we also need to find guys to compliment him while he is still here.

    what our history shows is that our best chance at winning a SB was back when we had Warner on a cap friendly deal... but as soon as we started paying him market value the overall talent level on the team dropped and we never made it back to the big game.

    so...does it make more sense to spend our entire cap on a QB hoping the rest of the roster is SB ready?

    Or does it make more sense to draft a QB, have him on cost control for the next five years...keep our young talent and still have the flexibility to bring in free agents to fill holes with talent?

    Steve Keim does not draft as well as Denny Green and so far Dennys players have gotten us the closest...when we had cap space.

    Then there is the definition of "selling the farm"... is trading 2 firsts selling the farm? Hell,... it will take that long to see if the young guy is going to work out in some cases...unless dude goes all johnny manziel and completely destroys his life..... I would hope that any guy they trade up for would get at least three years to show he has what it takes...

    or do we have to trade 5 or 6 picks to be considered selling the farm?

    I aint a fan of blockbuster trades... but what we have done so far has not worked..and our own team history has proven that having a QB on a market value contract decreases our chances while having a good QB on the cheap and having cap space has gotten us further.

    I would trade our 2019 and 2020 first round picks to swap with cleveland and get the number 1 pick...probably even throw in a third rounder with it...and not consider that trading the farm.
    There is risk... the player may bust.
    But the reward is not only getting a franchise QB... but getting that QB and having enough cap flexibility for the next five years to build the team around him.

    if we fail, then we fail and the next few years will suck... but going 4-12 with a busted rookie QB...well... that aint any worse than going 8-8 with an over paid vet.

    at least with the busted rook...once we are back in the first round it will be a good enough pick to try for his replacement.... the overpaid vet just keeps us right here...8-8...mediocre....with no way out.
     
    schutd, GimmedaBall, WildBB and 2 others like this.
  3. POISON

    POISON Formerly known as Okieguy

    Age:
    51
    Posts:
    637
    Likes Received:
    115
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    Norman, Ok.
    Waaahhhh:grabs:
     
  4. POISON

    POISON Formerly known as Okieguy

    Age:
    51
    Posts:
    637
    Likes Received:
    115
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    Norman, Ok.
    The guy is catastrophic when it comes to turnovers, thats how...
     
  5. oaken1

    oaken1 Stone Cold

    Age:
    49
    Posts:
    8,490
    Likes Received:
    1,877
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Location:
    Modesto, California
    "catastrophic"...lol

    Yet somehow he has a 20-4 w/l record, a pac 12 title, a rose bowl win and an archie griffin award... rose bowl record for passing yards, and another for passing TD's


    yeah... the dude is a catastrophe...

    cat·a·stroph·ic
    ˌkadəˈsträfik/
    adjective
    1. 1.
      involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering.
      "a catastrophic earthquake"


    2. 2.
      extremely unfortunate or unsuccessful.
      "catastrophic mismanagement of the economy"
     
    Chopper0080 likes this.
  6. RugbyMuffin

    RugbyMuffin Registered

    Posts:
    27,911
    Likes Received:
    1,739
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003

    Great points.

    Is selling the farm two 1st's, etc., etc. <-- That is something to think about. Especially with the thought that if you give a guy 3 years, then you can "eat" those two years of 1st round picks. Interesting to say the least.

    BTW, Stanton, Gabbert and Barkley are free agents, so technically there are zero QBs on the roster right now.
     
  7. overseascardfan

    overseascardfan Registered User

    Posts:
    5,734
    Likes Received:
    325
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Location:
    Phoenix
    Oh, I am with you. Gambo claims to always be in the know but it seems like he’s in the know a couple of minutes before we know. I’m sure there is plenty of info he doesn’t know because team officials don’t want him publicly blabbing over the radio so everyone knows including other teams.
     
  8. Chopper0080

    Chopper0080 Skeptical

    Posts:
    12,006
    Likes Received:
    1,478
    Joined:
    May 15, 2002
    Location:
    Colorado
    A couple points to address with this, some have already been shared by Oaken.

    1-If we made this trade, we are doing to so to have our CHOICE of the best QB in this draft. If all of the QBs in this draft are terrible, than we made a move to just make a move. If we select the wrong QB, then we failed to identify the correct player, but the move was good. If we get the right guy, we made the right move and go the correct guy...awesome. The point being that it doesn't necessarily have to work out for it to be the right move. This is why I hate the idea of moving up to get the 3rd best guy. There is a higher chance that he won't succeed.

    2-Oaken pointed out that multiple 1st round picks shouldn't be considered the farm when it comes to the reward of getting a young QB to build your franchise around.

    3-Our coach has not coached a game yet, so yes, he is not as good at this point as any of the other coaches in our division. It could change, but I have a tough time seeing it do so without top end QB.

    4-What QB do you think we can get who is better than Goff, Wilson and Garappolo? The only option that I see we are competitive is if we go and get the best QB in this draft class. None of the FA options are better when you consider cost/age/talent.

    5-I don't think we are dead and buried at this point, but I don't believe that we are on the verge of that. It is Feb 12, and already those statements are true. I don't see how any of that changes unless we take a more aggressive approach this off-season which will have to revolve around making a big move at the QB position.

    The score card reads right now...

    Pete Carroll / Russell Wilson (Super Bowl winning coach and QB, top 5 QB in the NFL)
    Sean McVay / Jared Goff (made playoffs and set career highs in their first year)
    Kyle Shannahan / Jimmy Garappolo (6-10 first year, 5-0 when the combo started together)
    Steve Wilks / ??? (no previous head coaching experience, no QB on the roster)
     
    cardncubfan and RugbyMuffin like this.
  9. WildBB

    WildBB BB - BIG BIRD

    Posts:
    12,259
    Likes Received:
    298
    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    The Sonoran Jungle - West
    Chopper you'd need the #1 pick to guarantee Darnold. That's even if Clevland would consider it. The cost would be steep, very steep.
     
    Solar7 likes this.
  10. RugbyMuffin

    RugbyMuffin Registered

    Posts:
    27,911
    Likes Received:
    1,739
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003

    Agreed.

    To put it bluntly, the question on the table is:

    If the QB of the future is going to get 3 years to prove himself, then why not put in two 1st round picks to get him since you have a QB solution for the next 3 years anyway.

    Plus, if you do not spend the two 1st round picks to get said "can't miss" QB, then are the two players you choose in the first round in the following years going to produce enough to make this team competitive for a title without a top QB ?

    Good question if you ask me.
     
  11. CardLogic

    CardLogic .

    Posts:
    12,563
    Likes Received:
    167
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2002
    Location:
    SE Valley
    It is very likely that at least one or two very good NFL QB's come out of this years draft class. However, there is not one iota of consensus on which QB in this draft will be the "best"! There is no Andrew Luck equivalent this year; if anything, all of the candidates are significantly flawed. So moving up to take "the best" QB in this years's draft has a much higher chance for failure than for success.

    I'm not suggesting that the Cardinals don't make any moves to attempt to secure a QB in this draft. In fact, they should! But I wouldn't "sell the farm" to do so; maybe just a cow or two! :)
     
    RugbyMuffin and daves like this.
  12. RugbyMuffin

    RugbyMuffin Registered

    Posts:
    27,911
    Likes Received:
    1,739
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003

    I am in agreement that I do not think strongly of any of the QB's to take the risk, but many are on board with Sam Darnold and/or Josh Rosen being at the "Andrew Luck level".

    And I believe it is a fair argument for both QB's and in my personal opinion, I think Sam Darnold has a lot of potential, especially if you watch a little bit of what he was doing two years ago. It was impressive.
     
  13. juza76

    juza76 Registered

    Posts:
    6,025
    Likes Received:
    753
    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Location:
    milan-italy
    Am I wrong? Sam darnold looks like the more closest version to brett favre
     
  14. Chopper0080

    Chopper0080 Skeptical

    Posts:
    12,006
    Likes Received:
    1,478
    Joined:
    May 15, 2002
    Location:
    Colorado
    Carson Wentz wasn't an Andrew Luck level QB and now he is great. Goff wasn't, and now looks ok. Watson...same.

    If the plan is to wait for a 6'5, 240lb QB with an NFL arm from a pro style college system, we are going to be waiting for a long time. If the goal is to get a guy with similar traits...there are options this year. Darnold has the arm strength and aggressiveness but is not from a pro style system, and is raw. Rosen is more polished, but is not as mobile as Darnold, nor does he have that type of arm. Both seem like hard workers. Rosen, I have more questions about. These are as good of guys as any recent class.

    This sell the farm nonsense is just that. How many draft picks is Matt Ryan worth? Russell Wilson? Carson Wentz?
     
    cardncubfan likes this.
  15. WildBB

    WildBB BB - BIG BIRD

    Posts:
    12,259
    Likes Received:
    298
    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    The Sonoran Jungle - West
    Ryan and Wentz were proven winners/leaders in college. So was Watson last year. Don't think any of them really check that box this year. Darnold is probably closest. Clevland will take him. Giants may make them an offer. We'd have to give up this and next years 1 and 2's, and then some to pry that pick away. And they already have a boat load of picks. They might not even need more.

    More realistic would be to target one of the other QB's (Mayfield, Allen) after Darnold is off the board and move into the top 10 to secure said player. Thus eliminating teams that would jump ahead of you and take their QBOF. I think that's their best bet.

    Unless they really plan to go another direction, stay put and put their faith in one of the longer shots or at OL.

    If they go OL first, they could look to trade back into the first for Jackson, Faulk or Rudolph if they last into the 20's.
     
    Solar7 and daves like this.

Share This Page