2018 1st round pick is Josh Rosen

[JeffGollin]

What I liked about Rosen and Bradford - albeit during early drills - was smooth delivery, clean footwork and pinpoint accuracy and timing on a consistent basis.

It's early, but so far so good.

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[cardncubfan]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

I keep saying the same thing. People are sleeping on Sam.

 

[Jetstream Green]

I guess you guys are going to soley post about Josh Rosen on his initial draft tread for the rest of his career... talk about efficiency lol

 

[Solar7]

Well yea, I think we did the best we could considering the corner BA painted us into over the last few years with no future plan for QB for when Palmer eventually declined/retired/got injured, let alone a backup plan (oh, that was Stanton!). That crap is what kept Stanton in the #2 spot for all those years, and you never know what could have happened, but if he had a solid backup in the wings instead of him things might have been different in 2014, and maybe even 2015. I'm really glad to see the BA era behind us, but he left us in a bad spot where we were forced to pick between a year of cycling thru retreads or drafting in one of the weakest QB years.

I'm not a Rosen fan (hopefully he can change that with his pro play), but the risk/reward ratio is favorable. I would have happily traded the QB roster we have today for the two years. I'm excited to see if Wilks will, like any consistently successful HC, run the team like a business instead of a social club. If BA could had the wherewithal to be continually trying to upgrade deficient positions despite the personal relationships, I feel like he could got to a SB here in AZ.

A big question I want to see is will SK thrive without BA here or continue to be mediocre. I think is was safe to say that BA had a lot of influence over SK, more so than I believe most HCs have in the GM role. Will SK have more flexibility to make the right moves, and patch holes quickly, or will it be more of the same? If SK doesn't step his game up this year he needs to hit the bricks too, whether or not Rosen turns out to be star or not - he can't keep hanging his hat on making one good move each year.

I'm not saying Stanton was an excuse for not taking a flier on QBs in Palmer's final two years, but very few teams have ready and waiting QBs of the future on their rosters... and Stanton's actually the second winningest QB in Cardinals history. So. There's that.

 

[Jetstream Green]

I'm not saying Stanton was an excuse for not taking a flier on QBs in Palmer's final two years, but very few teams have ready and waiting QBs of the future on their rosters... and Stanton's actually the second winningest QB in Cardinals history. So. There's that.

Whooooooooa, you mean the 2nd most winningest 'percentage', with a small sample size to achieve that too

 

[Solar7]

Whooooooooa, you mean the 2nd most winningest 'percentage', with a small sample size to achieve that too

Sorry, I actually meant to say that, but yeah. Still - lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the years for a player who came in and got it done, albeit in unspectacular fashion.

 

[PACardsFan]

Sorry, I actually meant to say that, but yeah. Still - lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the years for a player who came in and got it done, albeit in unspectacular fashion.

His record may have been serviceable, but Stanton was unwatchable for me. I literally would rather go to the dentist than watch Stanton under center.

 

[Jetstream Green]

Sorry, I actually meant to say that, but yeah. Still - lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the years for a player who came in and got it done, albeit in unspectacular fashion.

He was a great backup, regardless of what people say because his job is to win the game... style points do not count

 

[Covert Rain]

He was a great backup, regardless of what people say because his job is to win the game... style points do not count

He was not a great backup. Maybe a competent one. Great backups become legit starting QBs.

 

[Jetstream Green]

He was not a great backup. Maybe a competent one. Great backups become legit starting QBs.

No, I am absolutely right. I define him as a backup and for a backup he did a excellent job. If he was good enough to be a legit starter, I would not have called him a great backup but a undervalued starting caliber QB. My rating then is completely accurate because a backup at best is suppose to allot you to win at least half your games and allow you to stay in the mix for a short period till your starter can take over the reins again, and Stanton did better than that but I am under no illusions to think that means he can start. For what is expected of him and what a backup is, he is great for the role given to him

 

[Covert Rain]

No, I am absolutely right. I define him as a backup and for a backup he did a excellent job. If he was good enough to be a legit starter, I would not have called him a great backup but a undervalued starting caliber QB. My rating then is completely accurate because a backup at best is suppose to allot you to win at least half your games and allow you to stay in the mix for a short period till your starter can take over the reins again, and Stanton did better than that but I am under no illusions to think that means he can start. For what is expected of him and what a backup is, he is great for the role given to him

That makes zero sense. There are backups that need development and experience to reach their potential. Until that time they are not undervalued starting caliber QBs because they may never get there for a myriad of reasons.

Great is reserved for those that are better then the position they play. Sorry that’s not him.

 

[Solar7]

That makes zero sense. There are backups that need development and experience to reach their potential. Until that time they are not undervalued starting caliber QBs because they may never get there for a myriad of reasons.

Great is reserved for those that are better then the position they play. Sorry that’s not him.

In the NFL there are maybe two backup QBs at any given time that could be starters for other teams. Otherwise they wouldn't be backups. Pretending Stanton isn't a very good backup QB is to ignore the role of the "backup." He does things outside of just play on the field on Sundays that count a great deal toward how good or bad he is.

 

[Jetstream Green]

That makes zero sense. There are backups that need development and experience to reach their potential. Until that time they are not undervalued starting caliber QBs because they may never get there for a myriad of reasons.

Great is reserved for those that are better then the position they play. Sorry that’s not him.

Makes complete sense if you are judging him in a backup role, and that's what I am doing. Meaning one should consider what's great for a backup is not the same for a starter and interjecting him into the role of starter is what makes no sense because we are not discussing him under those pretexts and agree he is not one and does not have to be one or have the potential to be one to fulfill his job which is less demanding, hence a different rating system for being great. He has excelled at what is expected of him and he knows his place as a career backup. There is a difference in expectations for the level of a position and the corresponding grade. Just because some teams roll with a young guy with potential to be much more, that is not a variable when discussing a guy like Stanton

 

[Covert Rain]

Makes complete sense if you are judging him in a backup role, and that's what I am doing. Meaning one should consider what's great for a backup is not the same for a starter and interjecting him into the role of starter is what makes no sense because we are not discussing him under those pretexts and agree he is not one and does not have to be one or have the potential to be one to fulfill his job which is less demanding, hence a different rating system for being great. He has excelled at what is expected of him and he knows his place as a career backup. There is a difference in expectations for the level of a position and the corresponding grade. Just because some teams roll with a young guy with potential to be much more, that is not a variable when discussing a guy like Stanton

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say you are judging backups in the backup role AND call them undervalued starting QBs.

I think career backups can be competent and/or good at that role but I reserve great for those that show they potentially can do more.

I have seen backups come in and win games. I have seen them hang on to a lead. If they do that they are doing their job but that doesn’t make them great backups. We have seen great backups that after some experience, coaching and patience go on to starting careers. That doesn’t mean if you threw them to the wolves without all the above they would have the same outcome.

“Great” and Stanton don’t belong in the same sentence. Competent, decent or good? That’s a much better argument.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Great or Competent, semantics aside the guy won games when the team needed to. Label it however you want from there.

 

[cardsfanmd]

No, I am absolutely right. I define him as a backup and for a backup he did a excellent job. If he was good enough to be a legit starter, I would not have called him a great backup but a undervalued starting caliber QB. My rating then is completely accurate because a backup at best is suppose to allot you to win at least half your games and allow you to stay in the mix for a short period till your starter can take over the reins again, and Stanton did better than that but I am under no illusions to think that means he can start. For what is expected of him and what a backup is, he is great for the role given to him

Yup. He’s such an amazing backup that he’s currently 3rd string in Cleveland...

 

[Jetstream Green]

Yup. He’s such an amazing backup that he’s currently 3rd string in Cleveland...

Because they drafted starter material and signed starter material and have to navigate the selection which has nothing to do with career backup material (sort of like Glennon probably stepping in to be the all purpose backup after Rosen takes the reins)... geez, I am judging him as a backup, meaning he's a great backup but below average as a starter which is a huge jump in scale

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Ronin]

Josh Rosen getting a passing grade with Arizona Cardinals

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-cardinals-josh-rosen-20180731-story.html

 

[Ronin]

Rosen, billed as a brash QB at UCLA, won over his Cardinals teammates by being humble in the huddle

https://sports.yahoo.com/m/ab99c3c8-d1bc-3407-ba1f-f4a21d265559/rosen,-billed-as-a-brash-qb.html

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Mainstreet]

I'm not saying Stanton was an excuse for not taking a flier on QBs in Palmer's final two years, but very few teams have ready and waiting QBs of the future on their rosters... and Stanton's actually the second winningest QB in Cardinals history. So. There's that.

I was ready for the Cardinals to move on from Stanton. The Cardinals needed a fresh start and keeping Stanton seemed to be an obstacle... imaginary or not. Stanton was a nice backup QB so I give him this.

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[bojack]

Great or Competent, semantics aside the guy won games when the team needed to. Label it however you want from there.

Oh, c'mon... anyone claiming Stanton was a great backup is whitewashing this. Not only was he not a great backup comparitively, situationly he was a terrible backup for the Cards.

#1 *He* didn't win many games for us at all. Sure, he started in more games that we won than we lost (9-4 or somewhere around there?), but more often than not is was not because of a high level of play from him, and many times it was despite his play. I won't argue that he had some flash in the pan moments, but blind squirrels find a nut once in a while too.

#2 His career passer rating in Arizona was around 71 IIRC. That is the same as Derek Anderson's career avg, and only a smig higher than DA's rating when he helped lead us to a 2-7 record in 2010.

#3 We had an aging, injury prone QB who could be knocked out of the game, season or career at any snap at a much higher probability than the avg QB. If that QB2 is not potentially starter material then you have a terrible backup because you are conceding the season when your starter gets knocked out - which in our case was more of a *when* and not *if* situation.

 

[bojack]

BTW... I use the DA comparison because he had the lowest passer rating of any QB who played in the last 10 years that had a minimum of 1,500 pass attempts. If DA is the worst starter by that metric, then Stanton surely isn't on the same level as a "below average starter". Compartively speaking, I would say DS was a avg backup for a team with a healthy franchise QB. For the Cards though we could and should have done so much better, and it was only BA's stubborn loyalty that kept DS in that role. There isn't another coach in the league would have been using DS as the team's sole safety net for the last few years with CP as your starter between the injuries and the pending retirement.

Now, DS might be an amazing human being and bring smiles to those around him, and if so more power to him, but that doesn't change the fact we would never be a serious post season contender while he was our #2 with a better than not chance we would need him to be our starter for a prolonged period. If we had a young ace as our starter for the last couple years no one would ever talk about Stanton or be critical of him... he would just fly under the radar as a non-factor because he wouldn't see the field for any significant snaps like 90% of the other backups out there.

I'm just excited to fresh faces who at least have the possibility of being a solid QB1. We already knew what we had in DS and he was not going to cut it - so whether or not our current crop turns out any better at least there is a still chance.