Interesting Comment

[Krangodnzr]

LOL. I would love you to validate this opinion somehow. Here's a counterpoint from Ben Muth, former Stanford Offensive lineman, Arizona Cardinals fan, and Football Outsiders analyst:

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/word-muth/2019/word-muth-adios-arizona

You must be registered for see images attach

This was actually the first sack the Cardinals gave up in the game. Right tackle Justin Murray (71) just never really makes a stand. He starts kicking back and looks fine, but just keeps kicking and opening his hips. He never tries to sit down or really run the defensive end (Dante Fowler, 56) by the quarterback; instead he just keeps drifting away slowly. Just too mushy and unaggressive of a pass set.​

My philosophy on roster construction is that you don't get better by getting rid if the best players on your unit, you get better by replacing the worst players on your unit with better players, then hoping those players turn out to be your best ones. THis is like the dumb-dumbs who say our first offseason priority needs to be getting rid of Patrick Peterson.

If I'm the Cardinals, worst case scenario with DJ Humphries is that I franchise tag him and draft his replacement. I'm not happy with that approach, but like you said, you don't get better by creating roster holes that can only be filled in the draft. What happens when other teams that want tackle upgrades trade up and take the top three guys? Now the Cardinals HAVE TO take a LT and they are their reaching for second round prospects at #8 overall.

I think Humphries is a decent starting LT. He is not a great player, but he is not a bad player either. We have seen so many clowns at LT over the years and I'm leery of the idea of even letting a mid grade LT go.

 

[Solar7]

My philosophy on roster construction is that you don't get better by getting rid if the best players on your unit, you get better by replacing the worst players on your unit with better players, then hoping those players turn out to be your best ones. THis is like the dumb-dumbs who say our first offseason priority needs to be getting rid of Patrick Peterson.

Not to fight @BritCard's fight for him, but throwing Humphries' name out there with Patrick Peterson is definitely extreme.

The issue with DJ is the very real possibility that his play never ascends beyond this level, and for half a decade, we're either stuck with mediocre LT play or the concern of dead money hitting us on top of finding a replacement.

 

[gimpy]

Well, I'm not sure if I buy into the mediocre play. From what I've read on here (I don't research players, etc. on line or anything). Humphries only gave up two (?) sacks? The run game "seemed" to improve quite a bit as the season wore on and sacks decreased. I guess you can always improve, but at what cost?

I also want to improve the trenches (both sides), but certain, several people on here seem to think that we can just do this as a matter of fact so easy. Hey, let's give up this guy and get this other guy. He's a hof'er. No problem. Let's do this for every position/player. Let's bring in a hof guy. No problem. Get it done. Oh, wait. It's not quite that easy. Or we would have made the playoffs or won our division.

Enough of my frustrations for a while on here.

 

[BritCard]

LOL. I would love you to validate this opinion somehow. Here's a counterpoint from Ben Muth, former Stanford Offensive lineman, Arizona Cardinals fan, and Football Outsiders analyst:

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/word-muth/2019/word-muth-adios-arizona

You must be registered for see images attach

This was actually the first sack the Cardinals gave up in the game. Right tackle Justin Murray (71) just never really makes a stand. He starts kicking back and looks fine, but just keeps kicking and opening his hips. He never tries to sit down or really run the defensive end (Dante Fowler, 56) by the quarterback; instead he just keeps drifting away slowly. Just too mushy and unaggressive of a pass set.​

My philosophy on roster construction is that you don't get better by getting rid if the best players on your unit, you get better by replacing the worst players on your unit with better players, then hoping those players turn out to be your best ones. THis is like the dumb-dumbs who say our first offseason priority needs to be getting rid of Patrick Peterson.

That's one rep. The article actually says Murray has had a solid year. We had 6 sacks that game and one was on Murray.

It throws more criticism at the interior. Especially AQ calling protections.

 

[kerouac9]

Not to fight @BritCard's fight for him, but throwing Humphries' name out there with Patrick Peterson is definitely extreme.

The issue with DJ is the very real possibility that his play never ascends beyond this level, and for half a decade, we're either stuck with mediocre LT play or the concern of dead money hitting us on top of finding a replacement.

Even if our line is bad (an evaluation I'd disagree with), you don't get better by throwing your best players overboard. You get better by removing the WORST players. Even if you sign Humphries to a top 5 LT contract, in two years that deal is going to look like a bargain.

And that's fine, because you can then try to upgrade at RT and RG and make one of those guys the best guy on your line. I've said it many times: D.J. Humphries and A.Q. Shipley will never be the two best players on a good offensive line, but they can be the 3rd and 4th best players on a good line. That's the situation you want to build.

 

[kerouac9]

That's one rep. The article actually says Murray has had a solid year. We had 6 sacks that game and one was on Murray.

It throws more criticism at the interior. Especially AQ calling protections.

He's talking about Kyler Murray. That's why it says "solid rookie year." Jeebus.

Still waiting for you to justify your statement that Justin Murray was Actually Better than D.J. Humphries.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

I really tire of the talk of trying to save cap spare for other players.

We have to remember who is using the cap space.

I would rather deal with cap issues and pay for good talent then trying to be "cute" with all the signings.

If you have the opportunity and the coin then make the move.

We ended this year with some many botyom of the barrel dree agents starting on game day that it is a joke to think our front office can identify talent in the mid-tier of free agency.

Draft big school talents and sign talented free agents. It's no where near as hard as this all makes it out to be.

I think paralysis by analysis wreaks havoc on many a front office.

Sent from my mystical communication warp drive device thingy

 

[BritCard]

Well, I'm not sure if I buy into the mediocre play. From what I've read on here (I don't research players, etc. on line or anything). Humphries only gave up two (?) sacks? The run game "seemed" to improve quite a bit as the season wore on and sacks decreased. I guess you can always improve, but at what cost?

I also want to improve the trenches (both sides), but certain, several people on here seem to think that we can just do this as a matter of fact so easy. Hey, let's give up this guy and get this other guy. He's a hof'er. No problem. Let's do this for every position/player. Let's bring in a hof guy. No problem. Get it done. Oh, wait. It's not quite that easy. Or we would have made the playoffs or won our division.

Enough of my frustrations for a while on here.

He's trash. If you believe the PFF stat that says Hump gave up 2 sacks you have to believe thier stat that the whole starting O line only gave up 13 sacks.

These are all the LTs better than Hump.

Bakhtiari
Whitworth
Armstead
Smith
Stanley
Staley
Brown
Lewan
Peters
Tunsil
Williams
Fisher
Donovan Smith
Jake Matthews
Villanueva
Leno Jr
Castonzo
Okung
Dawkins
Solder
Rieff

And i could argue guys like Cordy Glenn too. I expect several rookies will over take next year too.

When there are 20+ guys better than you from 32 you are bad.

 

[Solar7]

Well, I'm not sure if I buy into the mediocre play. From what I've read on here (I don't research players, etc. on line or anything). Humphries only gave up two (?) sacks? The run game "seemed" to improve quite a bit as the season wore on and sacks decreased. I guess you can always improve, but at what cost?

I also want to improve the trenches (both sides), but certain, several people on here seem to think that we can just do this as a matter of fact so easy. Hey, let's give up this guy and get this other guy. He's a hof'er. No problem. Let's do this for every position/player. Let's bring in a hof guy. No problem. Get it done. Oh, wait. It's not quite that easy. Or we would have made the playoffs or won our division.

Enough of my frustrations for a while on here.

I don't think we can "just improve," but that Humphries has shown us the best he'll be, which is still not a Pro Bowl or All-Pro player. With a guy like Thomas, the sky is the limit.

Nearly every team in the playoffs this year has a player who has been to a Pro Bowl or an alternate on their OL. We have none. In the past 23 years we have sent one offensive lineman once to a Pro Bowl (Mike Iupati). Since the Cardinals moved to Arizona in 1987, we have sent three total to the Pro Bowl. Since the move to Arizona, we have not drafted a single player on the OL to be selected for the Pro Bowl.

I know they're not the only measure of success, but is it so much to ask that we invest in the position that has been our achilles heel forever?

 

[Solar7]

Even if our line is bad (an evaluation I'd disagree with), you don't get better by throwing your best players overboard. You get better by removing the WORST players. Even if you sign Humphries to a top 5 LT contract, in two years that deal is going to look like a bargain.

And that's fine, because you can then try to upgrade at RT and RG and make one of those guys the best guy on your line. I've said it many times: D.J. Humphries and A.Q. Shipley will never be the two best players on a good offensive line, but they can be the 3rd and 4th best players on a good line. That's the situation you want to build.

I'm all for upgrading at RT. There isn't really the ability to upgrade at RG right now. Maybe next year, but no one is beating out Sweezy or worth investing in.

I'm all for upgrading from AQ as well, but the team seems to want to bring him back.

All in all I just want a major upgrade somewhere, but I'm getting concerned the Cardinals are just gonna bring back the same five guys and we'll watch Kyler pressured all day long again.

 

[BritCard]

He's talking about Kyler Murray. That's why it says "solid rookie year." Jeebus.

Still waiting for you to justify your statement that Justin Murray was Actually Better than D.J. Humphries.

Still you posted this link like it proved something. It was one rep. The guy was equally critical of other players.

Justin Murray finished 1.5 grade points behind Hump after being in the low 50s through 4 games to the point they gave Mills reps. Through the 2nd half of the season he had several games higher than Hump to claw that back. Including an NFL team of the week award.

Hump cost 10m. Murray cost 600k.

Im not saying Murray is awesome. But if you consider Murray trash then so is Hump. There's nothing between them.

 

[BritCard]

Even if our line is bad (an evaluation I'd disagree with), you don't get better by throwing your best players overboard. You get better by removing the WORST players. Even if you sign Humphries to a top 5 LT contract, in two years that deal is going to look like a bargain.

And that's fine, because you can then try to upgrade at RT and RG and make one of those guys the best guy on your line. I've said it many times: D.J. Humphries and A.Q. Shipley will never be the two best players on a good offensive line, but they can be the 3rd and 4th best players on a good line. That's the situation you want to build.

Signing Hump to a top 5 LT contract will never be a bargain because

1, He will likely be injured
2, His ceiling is average

No good O line could have Hump and AQ on it. That's an oxymoron. You don't get a good line by having below average players on it. Especially at 2 of the more crucial positions.

 

[kerouac9]

Signing Hump to a top 5 LT contract will never be a bargain because

1, He will likely be injured
2, His ceiling is average

No good O line could have Hump and AQ on it. That's an oxymoron. You don't get a good line by having below average players on it. Especially at 2 of the more crucial positions.

You can't have All Pros at every position. That's maddness.

LOL. PFF ratings.

 

[GuernseyCard]

That's IF he can stay out on the field.

The IF applies to anyone who suits up for a Sunday battle.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

It is why I would be ok picking up Murray's RFA contract or just extending him and then drafting Wirfs (or Wills or Thomas). The next RT can earn his spot instead of just being thrown to the wolves. (though honestly, if a top 10 OT can't beat out Murray, we got issues.)

Yes this. I’m good with drafting a young talented tackle. I’m not good with relying on him outta the gate. And I know Solar will be up in arms about a first round pick not starting, but there’s nothing wrong with him having to wrest the position away from a vet.

 

[BritCard]

You can't have All Pros at every position. That's maddness.

LOL. PFF ratings.

No. But you can have good players. Not players the whole league considers ranked in the bottom 3rd.

Everyone using PFF sack numbers when it suits them but not thier grades. I'll take the grades of people paid to do that job (and used by all Pro teams) over a bunch of ball watching fans (and include myself in that).

 

[BritCard]

The IF applies to anyone who suits up for a Sunday battle.

It applies more to players that average 10.75 games a year.

 

[GuernseyCard]

He's trash. If you believe the PFF stat that says Hump gave up 2 sacks you have to believe thier stat that the whole starting O line only gave up 13 sacks.

These are all the LTs better than Hump.

Bakhtiari
Whitworth
Armstead
Smith
Stanley
Staley
Brown
Lewan
Peters
Tunsil
Williams
Fisher
Donovan Smith
Jake Matthews
Villanueva
Leno Jr
Castonzo
Okung
Dawkins
Solder
Rieff

And i could argue guys like Cordy Glenn too. I expect several rookies will over take next year too.

When there are 20+ guys better than you from 32 you are bad.

"He's trash if you believe PFF'.

True.

You do... I don't.

I trust having watched every game at least twice and paying close attention to our O-line, particularly L-T.

I can think of one other who doesn't have your low opinion of our L-T. - Kyler Murray.

 

[GuernseyCard]

It applies more to players that average 10.75 games a year.

No it doesn't.

It applies equally.

 

[BritCard]

"He's trash if you believe PFF'.

True.

You do... I don't.

I trust having watched every game at least twice and paying close attention to our O-line, particularly L-T.

I can think of one other who doesn't have your low opinion of our L-T. - Kyler Murray.

Come on dude. PFF are trained professionals trusted by the football world. From GMs to draft analysts.

Are they perfect? No. But they are far, far better than any of us.

If Kyler trusted his LT he wouldn't spend half his time running around and loading 22 sacks on himself and the other half throwing instant 5 yard passes.

 

[Krangodnzr]

No. But you can have good players. Not players the whole league considers ranked in the bottom 3rd.

Everyone using PFF sack numbers when it suits them but not thier grades. I'll take the grades of people paid to do that job (and used by all Pro teams) over a bunch of ball watching fans (and include myself in that).

I've seen Chandler Jones have 2 sack games and get a 70 rating from PFF. David Johnson's over 200 yard rushing game he had a below 80 rating. That game, David Johnson had one of the best runs I've ever seen a RB have.

It's a tool, but I dont trust their judgement on what I see. Justin Murray DID improve, but pressure came from his man significantly more than Humphries man.

 

[GuernseyCard]

No. But you can have good players. Not players the whole league considers ranked in the bottom 3rd.

Everyone using PFF sack numbers when it suits them but not thier grades. I'll take the grades of people paid to do that job (and used by all Pro teams) over a bunch of ball watching fans (and include myself in that).

So you take what you like, pass on the rest and then imply that others are blind or biased.

Too funny!

 

[GuernseyCard]

Come on dude. PFF are trained professionals trusted by the football world. From GMs to draft analysts.

Are they perfect? No. But they are far, far better than any of us.

If Kyler trusted his LT he wouldn't spend half his time running around and loading 22 sacks on himself and the other half throwing instant 5 yard passes.

Trained professionals, respected by all... Really!

It's pretty clear that you spend very little time actually reviewing game tape.

And don't Dude me!

 

[BritCard]

I've seen Chandler Jones have 2 sack games and get a 70 rating from PFF. David Johnson's over 200 yard rushing game he had a below 80 rating. That game, David Johnson had one of the best runs I've ever seen a RB have.

It's a tool, but I dont trust their judgement on what I see. Justin Murray DID improve, but pressure came from his man significantly more than Humphries man.

And if we were contemplating giving Murray 50m+ I'd say that was dumb also.

The difference is Murray was thrown in the deep end and did significantly better than expected. Hump in his 4th year has starter and first injury free was rank average.

He's just not good. Has never been good and likely never will be.

If you don't want to roll with Hump we can pick up Cordy Glenn for 9.5m or Riley Reiff for 10.9m. Both better than Hump without long term commitments.

 

[BritCard]

Trained professionals, respected by all... Really!

It's pretty clear that you spend very little time actually reviewing game tape.

And don't Dude me!

Every NFL team and 60 FBS teams must just pay for thier data for fun I guess. Anyone here getting paid for thier analytics data? No?

The constant railing against PFF by some fans baffles me. If its good enough for every team including the Pats it's good enough for me.