Josh Rosen and Kyler Murray?

cardsunsfan

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Posts
4,735
Reaction score
162
Location
Arizona
I know some have said the option of keeping both would be ridiculous... I would tend to agree if it causes locker room problems or it makes it difficult to see which one is better. Without those concerns though I think it would be the best choice... Obviously we have a lot of holes to fill.. but it is somewhat dreaming thinking that any other player other than QB is going to make a huge difference, especially on defense.

If you added up all players and you gave them a value you for the team.. I wouldn't be surprised if the QB ended up being 2/3rds of the equation or at least 50%... If you have a player worth 50% to your team and at best another player was 5-10% of the team.. then trying to get the 50% player right would be even more important.. and you would want as many shots as possible.

I do think the Oline would also be very important... no QB could survive well I believe with the worst Oline..although Russell Wilson has survived pretty well with little time and Brady had as well. I think Carr from Texas was actually a pretty good QB initially but he got sacked so often it ruined his career. That is something you want to avoid.

I kind of mentioned this in a previous thread. Sorry for rehashing. I love defense in football, probably more than offense but NFL is offensive driven these days. It seems like with a good game plan a great defensive player can often be neutralized.. I saw it a lot in the playoffs. The star defensive player did not make as much of a difference.. team defense did help.. but I think the QB needs to come first.
 
OP
OP
C

cardsunsfan

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Posts
4,735
Reaction score
162
Location
Arizona
I hadn't really brought up keeping both QB's previous to this and after Harry's comments and I only saw a couple comments that the worst thing to do would be to keep both QB's.. now today the radio stations and some articles say that might be exactly what they'll do and it might be the best plan.
 

NYCARDS

Registered
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Posts
956
Reaction score
248
Location
Gone
Keeping both would be absolutely ridiculous. Not happening.
 
OP
OP
C

cardsunsfan

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Posts
4,735
Reaction score
162
Location
Arizona
Just listening to Colin Cowherd the other day and how Russell Wilson most likely saved Pete Carroll's job because the Seahawks weren't very good before him and most likely would have stayed that way. Basically he said it doesn't matter what a team does around a QB if you don't have one of the better ones it won't matter what you do. There are some outliers in the last few decades.. less than 5% of the time an average qb's team is really good? If the QB ends up 2/3rds of the equation to being successful.. gambling on two might be a smarter decision than a player that is only worth 1/20th of the equation... Gambling on having the right when you don't know for sure could be the biggest gamble you can do. Worry about that getting that right, then build around the QB...
 

Veer

All Star
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Posts
863
Reaction score
890
There are basically 3 ways you can build a contender:

1. You can build an elite defense and go all the way with an average QB. Although even your average QB absolutely has to go on a hot streak during the playoff run, like Flacco did. On the flip side, you can't realistically keep an elite defense together any longer than 3 years in the modern FA era. Having a good defense for many years, maybe that's possible. But elite defense? No way.

2. You can go all the way with a backup QB as well, see Foles, but catching a hot run with a strong supporting cast around him, as well as the defense stepping up in the playoffs, is something which very rarely happens. Maybe once in 10 years. We did it once with Warner remember.

3. Imo the "easiest" way to build a multi-year contender is having a franchise QB. Matt Ryan, Eli Manning or Drew Brees each went through quite a few terrible losing seasons over their careers. But ultimately, they gave their teams a fighting chance in years the team around them wasn't hot garbage, which ultimately lead to Superbowls and/or deep playoff runs. If you have that franchise QB, you ride with him and try to build for a run during his 10-15 year window. Every season won't be pretty, but in seasons where your defense, run game or special teams is able to step up, you are a real contender.

3rd option is the best way to get consistent success. You can't plan a hot run with an average QB or your average defense stepping up. Building an elite defense isn't easy, keeping it together is even tougher. That's why I'm for swinging the fences on a franchise QB until you hit. We have the right to pick 1st among all 32 teams. If Murray is deemed a legit franchise QB prospect, you take him regardless of Rosen. Even in bad circumstances, Rosen has shown nothing to make you pass on a potential franchise QB. We will survive the "wasted" pick if one of them turns out to be a franchise QB.
 

Dr. Jones

Has No Time For Love
Joined
Nov 2, 2004
Posts
24,908
Reaction score
13,611
Since the rookie salary scale changed.......The more All pro's and pro-bowlers you have on rookie contracts.... the better your team can be. It's that simple IMO.

Brady - Below market value - Always going cheap on defense.
Philly - Foles and Wentz Cheap
Denver - Talib, Miller, both cheap. Peyton.... Average ish I think.
Seattle - Wilson cheap.
Ravens - Flacco cheap
Packers - Rodgers cheap

Not sure about Giants or Saints, but they had a ton of cheap on defense.
 

PACardsFan

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
10,000
Reaction score
11,428
Location
York, PA
Years. It will be years.

It's going to be Ayton / Doncic for the Suns

Who the hell are the Suns?????????? Do people actually follow the NBA in Phoenix:eek: And to think I was a huge fan back in the day. For me, watching the NBA is akin to watching the Cardinals offense last year. Again, that’s just me.
 
Top