10 thoughts - Rams game

Gandhi

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Posts
1,787
Reaction score
2,292
Location
Denmark
1 – The problem with the defense is that it is full of backups. I would not mind several of them in a rotation, but only Jalen Thompson and Budda Baker should play significant snaps.

2 – A dominant wide receiver would do wonders for this offense. Thus, Marvin Harrison Jr. will go back to school.

3 – Not long ago I was sure that James Connor was easily replaceable. Not now. He has been a big addition to the offense.

4 – Difficult to judge Murray much with a o-line this inept…

5 – Halleluja for Marco Wilson getting benched.

6 – Congratulation to Budda Baker for playing his 100th game, and now having registered 700 tackles, including 500 solo tackles and 200 assisted tackles.

7 – This year I am thankful for the coaching staff. I still believe.

8 – (#2 continued) … but it is not so good that he can’t hit open receivers deep.

9 – This was the sixth game this season where the Cards won the turnover battle. They are 1-5 in those games.

10 – Hollywood Brown could be a good #2. He surely sees himself as a #1, but hopefully he realize that staying with the team and his BFF might be the best structure for him.
 

slanidrac16

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Posts
14,979
Reaction score
14,367
Location
Plainfield, Il.
I’d let Brown walk based on what he’s going to ask for and the current state of the Wr room.
I’d love MHJ and add a guy like Michael Pittman.

Good write up. Agree with everything except I don’t find it hard to judge Murray with a realistic eye… and he still is falling short.
 
Last edited:

Goodyear Card

Link Guy
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Posts
1,954
Reaction score
1,363
10 – Hollywood Brown could be a good #2. He surely sees himself as a #1, but hopefully he realize that staying with the team and his BFF might be the best structure for him.
Hollywood would make a good #2, but we have Wilson at a much lower price. I can see Hollywood over pricing himself and then taking a one-year deal.
 
OP
OP
Gandhi

Gandhi

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Posts
1,787
Reaction score
2,292
Location
Denmark
Good write up. Agree with everything except I don’t find it hard to judge Murray with a realistic eye… and he still is falling short.
I kind of agree, Slanidrac. Recently I heard a theory from Rick Spielman (former GM of the Vikings) that a great WR is more important for a quarterback than the offensive line, and directly in the case with Murray I understand the thinking. He can get the ball out quick, and he is obviously good at evading pass rush and difficult to catch, so an above average o-line should be enough.

Of course, Spielman was the one drafting Justin Jefferson, so in a way it is probably no wonder that he values a WR highly. On the other hand he has witnessed the affect closely.

That said, a bad offensive line can break even the best quarterback (case in point - Mahomes in the Super Bowl against the Bucs.)
 

slanidrac16

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Posts
14,979
Reaction score
14,367
Location
Plainfield, Il.
I kind of agree, Slanidrac. Recently I heard a theory from Rick Spielman (former GM of the Vikings) that a great WR is more important for a quarterback than the offensive line, and directly in the case with Murray I understand the thinking. He can get the ball out quick, and he is obviously good at evading pass rush and difficult to catch, so an above average o-line should be enough.

Of course, Spielman was the one drafting Justin Jefferson, so in a way it is probably no wonder that he values a WR highly. On the other hand he has witnessed the affect closely.

That said, a bad offensive line can break even the best quarterback (case in point - Mahomes in the Super Bowl against the Bucs.)
No doubt. I’m more concerned about Murray’s missing some throws high, underthrown and the choices of where he chooses to throw the ball even when he does have time.
 
OP
OP
Gandhi

Gandhi

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Posts
1,787
Reaction score
2,292
Location
Denmark
No doubt. I’m more concerned about Murray’s missing some throws high, underthrown and the choices of where he chooses to throw the ball even when he does have time.
I agree, especially about the accuracy issues. I think it would be fair to give him more than three games, after being out for so long, before we start panicking about him, but I went from being sure that he was the future after seeing the first drive, to after the first half questioning if it might be the right choice to go in another direction.

To me it is about showing promise for next year. I don’t expect Murray to be great now, but I do want to see him take right steps. I think it would be horrible if they drafted a quarterback based on a need-pick, and not because that guy blew them away.

What is your take on the future direction?
 

slanidrac16

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Posts
14,979
Reaction score
14,367
Location
Plainfield, Il.
I agree, especially about the accuracy issues. I think it would be fair to give him more than three games, after being out for so long, before we start panicking about him, but I went from being sure that he was the future after seeing the first drive, to after the first half questioning if it might be the right choice to go in another direction.

To me it is about showing promise for next year. I don’t expect Murray to be great now, but I do want to see him take right steps. I think it would be horrible if they drafted a quarterback based on a need-pick, and not because that guy blew them away.

What is your take on the future direction?
I don’t quite understand the cap implications but I do know money. Bidwill is paying two GM’s two head coaches and more.
It might be possible to move on from Murray, however, I don’t think Billy Boy is going to want to take another hit by cutting Murray and I highly doubt he is ready to give up on him yet.

So I think we will see us build up the roster with the assumption that Kyler is the man. If Kyler is the man, then should see a better 2024. If he’s not the man then at least the next Qb will have a better supporting cast.
 
OP
OP
Gandhi

Gandhi

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Posts
1,787
Reaction score
2,292
Location
Denmark
I don’t quite understand the cap implications but I do know money. Bidwill is paying two GM’s two head coaches and more.
It might be possible to move on from Murray, however, I don’t think Billy Boy is going to want to take another hit by cutting Murray and I highly doubt he is ready to give up on him yet.

So I think we will see us build up the roster with the assumption that Kyler is the man. If Kyler is the man, then should see a better 2024. If he’s not the man then at least the next Qb will have a better supporting cast.
It also seems to me that would be a good plan. I think that Murray have shown glimpses of how explosive he can be, so to give him more time in the system, and upgrade the offense around him, could give jackpot.
 

oaken1

Stone Cold
Supporting Member
Banned from P+R
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Posts
15,905
Reaction score
11,937
Location
Modesto, California
I kind of agree, Slanidrac. Recently I heard a theory from Rick Spielman (former GM of the Vikings) that a great WR is more important for a quarterback than the offensive line, and directly in the case with Murray I understand the thinking. He can get the ball out quick, and he is obviously good at evading pass rush and difficult to catch, so an above average o-line should be enough.

Of course, Spielman was the one drafting Justin Jefferson, so in a way it is probably no wonder that he values a WR highly. On the other hand he has witnessed the affect closely.

That said, a bad offensive line can break even the best quarterback (case in point - Mahomes in the Super Bowl against the Bucs.)
Agree...while a Hall of Fame level oline would be nice it's not required.... solid is good.... if you can look at your starters and honestly say any one of these guys would start on at least 20 other teams...then your in excellent shape....
But as Cardinal fans we spent years watching Larry bail out QB's who wouldn't complete 25% without him....when in doubt, throw it three feet over Larry's head...he will catch it.
I'm a trench guy...but a QB benefits greatly from a dependable WR...
Would Montana have 4 rings without Rice? What about Aikman and Irvin? Favre and Sharpe? ....
A great WR is a valuable piece...it's just hard to consider them if your qb is on his back.
 

Dback Jon

Killer Snail
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
75,168
Reaction score
31,633
Location
Scottsdale
I kind of agree, Slanidrac. Recently I heard a theory from Rick Spielman (former GM of the Vikings) that a great WR is more important for a quarterback than the offensive line, and directly in the case with Murray I understand the thinking. He can get the ball out quick, and he is obviously good at evading pass rush and difficult to catch, so an above average o-line should be enough.
Had the same thoughts on this - watching other QB "make" plays I am struck by how often it is really the WR making the play - whether running the right route, recognizing the QB is in trouble and coming back, getting separation, or even fighting for balls/knocking interceptions away - the Cardinal receivers for the most part are lacking in that.
 

bankybruce

All In!
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2003
Posts
24,735
Reaction score
15,340
Location
Nowhere
I see 3-5 players who could be starters on a winning team.

Locks for next year
Baker
Thompson
Kyzir White

Rookies who are showing potential
Garrett Williams
BJ Ojulari

Roles players who could/should stick
Kei'Trel Clark
Dante Stills

Vets who should be back in some role.
Zaven Collins
Kevin Strong

It's bare for sure
 
Last edited:

DaHilg

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 12, 2021
Posts
1,292
Reaction score
1,772
Location
Boston
I’d let Brown walk based on what he’s going to ask for and the current state of the Wr room.
I’d love MHJ and add a guy like Michael Pittman.

Good write up. Agree with everything except I don’t find it hard to judge Murray with a realistic eye… and he still is falling short.
Pittman would be an awesome pairing with MHJ… my goodness. Pittman is an elite #2, hopefully he isn’t asking for #1 money. (Colts are my team after the Cards)
 
OP
OP
Gandhi

Gandhi

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Posts
1,787
Reaction score
2,292
Location
Denmark
I see 3-5 players who could be starters on a winning team.

Locks for next year
Baker
Thompson
Kyzir White

Rookies who are showing potential
Garrett Williams
BJ Ojulari

Roles players who could/should stick
Kei'Trel Clark
Dante Stills

Vets who should be back in some role.
Zaven Collins
Kevin Strong

It's bare for sure
BB, I think you are a little too hard. For sure no one else than those three would have the biggest roles, but I do think there are several rotation-players on the team. You have mentioned most, but I would not mind having players like Gardeck, Cam Thomas, Starling Thomas, Antonio Hamilton, and even Jonathan Ledbetter in backup-roles.

I think the main problem is the lack of bigtime players. Two or three studs would do wonder for the entire defense, I think.
 

Crimson Warrior

Dangerous Murray Zealot
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Posts
7,476
Reaction score
7,059
Location
Home of the Thunder
BB, I think you are a little too hard. For sure no one else than those three would have the biggest roles, but I do think there are several rotation-players on the team. You have mentioned most, but I would not mind having players like Gardeck, Cam Thomas, Starling Thomas, Antonio Hamilton, and even Jonathan Ledbetter in backup-roles.

I think the main problem is the lack of bigtime players. Two or three studs would do wonder for the entire defense, I think.

Agree with the bolded. I think generally you need a playmaker at each level of the defense. DL, LB and CB/S.

Then guys who are at least "average" at all the other positions.
 

oaken1

Stone Cold
Supporting Member
Banned from P+R
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Posts
15,905
Reaction score
11,937
Location
Modesto, California
Agree with the bolded. I think generally you need a playmaker at each level of the defense. DL, LB and CB/S.

Then guys who are at least "average" at all the other positions.
Yeah...we don't even need a "playmaker" at DT... a guy just needs to consistently draw the double team...that alone puts our edge guys 1 on 1...if he can push that double team back a couple yards to collapse the front of the pocket that's a huge bonus...splitting the double and getting sacks is a double bonus from interior D line.
 

bankybruce

All In!
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2003
Posts
24,735
Reaction score
15,340
Location
Nowhere
BB, I think you are a little too hard. For sure no one else than those three would have the biggest roles, but I do think there are several rotation-players on the team. You have mentioned most, but I would not mind having players like Gardeck, Cam Thomas, Starling Thomas, Antonio Hamilton, and even Jonathan Ledbetter in backup-roles.

I think the main problem is the lack of bigtime players. Two or three studs would do wonder for the entire defense, I think.
You're probably right. Watching Gardeck play 50% of the snaps and making mistakes in coverage drives me crazy. He should be playing 15% of the snaps in pass rush situations only, plus STs. Hamilton gets injured way too much for my liking, but he would be a great 4 at CB. Both Cam and Starling can be situational reserves who play STs. Same with Ledbetter.
 

Latest posts

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
532,341
Posts
5,224,975
Members
6,268
Latest member
Alastair
Top