Arizona Sports Fans Network  

Go Back   Arizona Sports Fans Network > Arizona Teams > Arizona Cardinals


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 3rd, 2012, 06:48 PM   #16
Darkside
Registered
 
Darkside's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Surprise, AZ
Age: 44
Posts: 4,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardpa View Post
It seems that once you get in Whiz's doghouse it's almost impossible to get out of it. I remember when James ended up there for half a season. Then in the playoffs he was so instrumental in running the ball because THT could not get it done.
I just wanted to comment on this portion of your post. Totally agree. I think that's Whisenhunt's major flaw. Once you're in the doghouse you're done on this team, I think that's been proven time and again. Nothing you can do, no matter how hard you work, absolutely nothing, will get you out of it. You're done at that point. It's like once he makes up his mind, he just sections you off into a part of his mind that is like, he's a total waste of time to even contemplate. I totally agree with that assessment, and as I said I think that's his one major flaw. He has other flaws, don't get me wrong, but that's a glaring one. There's no chance to redeem yourself.

As a side note, Beanie is a smart man, because I think he was on the edge of that, but last year he played hurt and played in pain and Whisenhunt was glowing about him afterwards. But I really had the feeling that if Beanie hadn't sacrificed everything he had Whis would have been done with him.




Darkside is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2012, 09:42 PM   #17
Dayman
Registered
 
Dayman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 2,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeshmo View Post
You don't have to question it. Branch went from a 3-4 defense to a 4-3 defense. Him uping his game could be as simple as that.
I think this pretty much sums it up. Branch wasn't a fit for this scheme. He's an incredibly talented 325 lb player, so I understand what Whis was thinking. But his skills are much better suited for a four-man line. I'm not surprised he's doing well in Seattle. I just wish we didn't pass on Lamar Woodley to get him.
Dayman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2012, 05:08 AM   #18
RugbyMuffin
The Night Hawk
 
RugbyMuffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 23,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayman View Post
I think this pretty much sums it up. Branch wasn't a fit for this scheme. He's an incredibly talented 325 lb player, so I understand what Whis was thinking. But his skills are much better suited for a four-man line.
He can't be that talented if he can only play one position, and one type of scheme.

You are correct on one thing, the Cardinals totally whiffed on picking Branch, and trading up for him no-less. There must have been a reason so many teams passed him in the draft, and IMO, he is showing why every season. Branch knows what's best, even if what he thinks costs him millions in pay, and production.
__________________

2014 Current Roster: Click Here
Cardinals Instagram: Click Here
RugbyMuffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2012, 05:48 AM   #19
Crazy Canuck
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 10,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Assface View Post
Branch was a penetrating type of DL in college and expecting him to become a NT who occupies several linemen just because of his size is stupid. You draft the player that they are, not the player you want them to be.
Precisely.
Crazy Canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2012, 07:28 AM   #20
LarryStalling
Registered
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 986
Never could figure out how trying to fit a square peg into a round hole could work, but the Card staff sure has a strong tendency to do just that. This draft hopefully will be a departure from that problem.
LarryStalling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2012, 08:15 AM   #21
RugbyMuffin
The Night Hawk
 
RugbyMuffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 23,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryStalling View Post
Never could figure out how trying to fit a square peg into a round hole could work, but the Card staff sure has a strong tendency to do just that. This draft hopefully will be a departure from that problem.
Agreed.

This draft they drafted versatile players, that can play where you need them. Thank goodness for it.
__________________

2014 Current Roster: Click Here
Cardinals Instagram: Click Here
RugbyMuffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 06:52 AM   #22
JeffGollin
Registered User
 
JeffGollin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Holmdel, NJ
Age: 75
Posts: 16,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryStalling View Post
Never could figure out how trying to fit a square peg into a round hole could work, but the Card staff sure has a strong tendency to do just that. This draft hopefully will be a departure from that problem.
Didn't Branch get drafted while Pendergast was still our DC?

In the early days of the Wiz-era, our defense was in the very beginnings of transition from Dennis Green's 4-3 (NT/UT) defensive scheme to what would eventually be a Pittsburgh-style 34.

That transition typically does not magically occur at the push of a button because the two approaches require different prototypical players.

As I recall it, Pendergast eased us into a hybrid defensive employing both 4-3 and 3-4 fronts depending on the situation. (You could see brief flashes of dazzling plays being made, but equally as often, a defensive player would take a risk and get caught with his pants down).

Branch apparently did not fit the new scheme (He was originally drafted to become a NT in an eventual 3-4, but it turned out he was more effective playing defensive end in a 3-4 and apparently, he's even better-suited to play inside in a 4-3).

With the addition of more and more defensive players suited to the scheme, our defense continued to gradually morph each year into a more traditional (LeBeau-style) 3-4, but it wasn't until Horton arrived on the scene that the conversion was close to being fully implemented (We're still a couple of Woodley/Harrison-type OLB's away from fully fitting Horton's Pittsburgh model). But even so, our defense is operating at a higher level now than it has in recent history.
__________________
ONE HEARTBEAT.
Later (GBR/RIP40 - RIPSKKORP)
JeffGollin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 07:34 AM   #23
Crazy Canuck
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 10,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffGollin View Post
Didn't Branch get drafted while Pendergast was still our DC?

In the early days of the Wiz-era, our defense was in the very beginnings of transition from Dennis Green's 4-3 (NT/UT) defensive scheme to what would eventually be a Pittsburgh-style 34.

That transition typically does not magically occur at the push of a button because the two approaches require different prototypical players.

As I recall it, Pendergast eased us into a hybrid defensive employing both 4-3 and 3-4 fronts depending on the situation. (You could see brief flashes of dazzling plays being made, but equally as often, a defensive player would take a risk and get caught with his pants down).

Branch apparently did not fit the new scheme (He was originally drafted to become a NT in an eventual 3-4, but it turned out he was more effective playing defensive end in a 3-4 and apparently, he's even better-suited to play inside in a 4-3).

With the addition of more and more defensive players suited to the scheme, our defense continued to gradually morph each year into a more traditional (LeBeau-style) 3-4, but it wasn't until Horton arrived on the scene that the conversion was close to being fully implemented (We're still a couple of Woodley/Harrison-type OLB's away from fully fitting Horton's Pittsburgh model). But even so, our defense is operating at a higher level now than it has in recent history.
I think this often repeated point ignores the type and quality of our D-ends. At no point, to my recollection, did LeBeau have the talents of a DD and CC at his disposal. Horton has adjusted his scheme given this fact.
Crazy Canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 07:40 AM   #24
Duckjake
Registered
 
Duckjake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 32,190
Quote:
That transition typically does not magically occur at the push of a button because the two approaches require different prototypical players.
Whisenhunt even said that they wanted to go to the 3-4 in 2008 but didn't have the proper personnel. Found that in a couple of articles researching Karlos Dansby's production when people were claiming he played ILB in a 3-4 in 2008.

Heck of a player, Dansby, first 5 years in the NFL he had 24.5 sacks, 9 interceptions, and 10 Forced Fumbles. And of course we all saw what he did vs Green Bay in the '09 playoffs. You'd be hard pressed to find many NFL LBs over the last 10 years who had those kind of number across the board. Oddly enough one LB who had similar type numbers was Joey Porter. 35.5 sacks 5 INTs and 10 FFs his first 5 seasons.

Glad we got to watch Karlos play for 6 seasons.
__________________
Founding member #2 of the n'er do well club.

Last edited by Duckjake; May 6th, 2012 at 07:44 AM.
Duckjake is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Sitemap:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
 



Latest Threads
- by az jam
- by cardpa
- by Brak
- by Brak
 







All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2002 - 2014 ArizonaSportsFans.com
Inactive Reminders By Icora Web Design