Cards coach to CofC: Expect 10-6 year

[joeshmo]

Talent assessment has been a problem. If you draft best player available or by need you have to be able to assess talent.

You dont say.

And regardless picking by need has a higher rate of busts then picking BPA and in the first round with the money your are paying these guys especially in the top 10 you cannot have a bust and be paying a guy more then he is producing.

 

[BigRedMO]

Almost everybody at this site focuses almost exclusively on coaching as the ONLY problem. The more critical problem has been assessing, developing and retaining talent. That is a problem that will take more than a year to fix and begin developing a talent base.

Joe Schmo I did not appreciate your sarcasm. My last point may have been obvious and simple but sometimes I realize I need to keep things simple here for some people to understand.

 

[ajcardfan]

Talent assessment and evelpment has been a problem. If you draft best player available or by need you have to be able to assess talent. I do not recall seeing Urlacher revive the Bears.

They went 12-4 and made the playoffs. I'd take it.

 

[BigRedMO]

The Bears had one winning season. That season they were not as good as their record as proven in the playoffs. They had a lot of breaks during the season. The Cards had them on the ropes that year until a couple of turnovers at the wrong time. They were moving the ball against them. One winning season folowed by numerous losing ones will satisfy you?

The notion that to avoid making draft mistakes you should only take sure things instead of trying to fill urgent needs will not lead to a winning team. The good teams find the diamonds in the rough. They have too if they want to build good teams. Look at the Cards picks form 69-73. One number one pick in the bunch. The Cards could assess talent at the lower rounds. Think how good they could have been if they could have had even half their number one picks work out in that period.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Almost everybody at this site focuses almost exclusively on coaching as the ONLY problem. The more critical problem has been assessing, developing and retaining talent. That is a problem that will take more than a year to fix and begin developing a talent base.

Joe Schmo I did not appreciate your sarcasm. My last point may have been obvious and simple but sometimes I realize I need to keep things simple here for some people to understand.

Here's a simple concept for you... Mensa Boy....

"assessing, developing" talent is a function of the draft/coaching staff, and that's why the focus on the overall coaching / player development issue by many on this board...

When you talk down to people, expect to get it back in spades

 

[BigRedMO]

Cannuck,

My comment was not directed at you. I did not appreciate Joeschmos pointless and hurtful sarcasm.

Fixing the talent problem will take more than a year. That is my point to the people who are predicting 10-6.

 

[ajcardfan]

The Bears had one winning season. That season they were not as good as their record as proven in the playoffs. They had a lot of breaks during the season. The Cards had them on the ropes that year until a couple of turnovers at the wrong time. They were moving the ball against them. One winning season folowed by numerous losing ones will satisfy you?

I remember the game well. And, yes, the Bears got some very good breaks that year. But that defense did play very, very well and put them in position for the breaks to actually matter. Urlacher was the reason that defense was so much better, any dummy knows that.

As for being satisfied, I've never known what it's like to root for a Cardinals division champion, a 12-4 team. Yes, I'll take it dammit. We can worry about the seasons to follow after that.

As for your talent evaluation point, maybe give it a rest for a while and people will not get sarcastic. Everyone knows it's been bad, our crappy record speaks for itself. We all know how you feel about it.

 

[slanidrac16]

Slanidrac,

If you focus on win loss record exclusively for 71 to 73 you are missing the picture. To win, regardless of who is coaching you have to draft and retain talent. The Cards did that in 69-73:

1969
#1 Roger Wehrli

1970
#8 Tom Banks

1971
#2 Dan Dierdorf
#6 Mel Gray

1972
#2 Mark Arneson
#5 Conrad Dobler

1973
#3 Terry Metcalf

That is 3/5 of one of the best offensive lines in NFL history. They traded for Bob Young in 72 giving 4 of the 5. There is also an excellent RB and WR drafted in that period. Six of seven of those guys played in Pro Bowls. That has a lot to do with the Cards, particularly their offense, getting good in 73. If you had just looked at records the rise of the Cardiac Cards would not have been predicted. There has to be an increase in the level of talent. The Cards have not done nearly that well in recent years. They have a severe talent deficit that will take time to fix.

Those players did not become one of the best offensive lines in history until Don Coryell came along. We drafted Shelton, Clement, Davis and added Kendall. We drafted, kept and now hope these players will develop under Dennis Green

Every football magazine I have seen rate WR as the single strength of the team. Many of those magazines wonder about selecting in an area of strength. I believe in the traditional method that bad teams should draft to fill biggest needs. That is the only area the Cards had a talent recognized as such by the rest of the league. Last year's pick of Bryant has not panned out. Are we just going to keep focusing on this area to the exclusion of the true NEED areas?

EVERY football magazine is WRONG more than half the time. It's not their fault. Thats the way the draft is. They were praising us when we selected Andre Wadsworth and how did that turn out. As far as wr being a strenght on this team what did we have besides Bolden? You contradict yourself going on to say Bryant Johnson has not panned out. It appears to me DG is attempting to become dominant on one side of the ball that being offense which is his forte'.

Plus a WR needs a QB to get the ball to him. We spare no expense on the WR position and go cheap at QB. That point is also being wondered at by professional analysts.

In McCown , although unproven, we have a kid thats been around for 3 years. He has shown some grit and leadership and is mobile. On top of all that DG sees him as a commodity that has the ability to run his type of offense. I know you've heard this already. DG has made the playoffs with 7 different QB's. If he didn't beleive in Josh then why in the world would Dennis Green sabotage his first year? One more point about the QB. If Josh falls short of Greens evaluation we will not be looking to draft a QB #1 next year either. My guess is we will go out and get a guy like Brad Johnson to run the show.

I like to add, BIG RED MO, I agree it's going to take more than 1 off season and that 10-6 is quite a lofty goal, but I'm not going to blast DG for saying it nor am I going to question the method or path Dennis Green feels he must take to get there. There will be plenty of time to blast Dennis Green in the future if his methods fail.

 

[Crimson Warrior]

In McCown , although unproven, we have a kid thats been around for 3 years. He has shown some grit and leadership and is mobile. On top of all that DG sees him as a commodity that has the ability to run his type of offense. I know you've heard this already. DG has made the playoffs with 7 different QB's. If he didn't beleive in Josh then why in the world would Dennis Green sabotage his first year? One more point about the QB. If Josh falls short of Greens evaluation we will not be looking to draft a QB #1 next year either. My guess is we will go out and get a guy like Brad Johnson to run the show.

I like to add, BIG RED MO, I agree it's going to take more than 1 off season and that 10-6 is quite a lofty goal, but I'm not going to blast DG for saying it nor am I going to question the method or path Dennis Green feels he must take to get there. There will be plenty of time to blast Dennis Green in the future if his methods fail.

I'm with you Slan, and I think that bigredmo is not accounting for the possibility that the talent might already be in place.

He cites the great drafts of 69 -72 as proof that talent wins games. How many games were those "talent" guys winning in 69, 70, 71 and 72?

Another example is the arrival of Bob Stoops on the OU campus. in 98, OU was horrific, going 5-6, and getting crushed by texas, texas a&m and <shiver> oklahoma state.

In 99, Stoops took basically the same 98 team and immediately had a winning record with a tough schedule. They were in every ball game, including losing leads late at south bend and in the cotton bowl vs UT.

The fact is, we don't really know how much talent we have on this team, because they have been coached so poorly.

Almost anything is possible this year.

 

[Loyal Card 17]

bigredmo,

you need to develope some thicker skin if sarcasm hurts. quit being a whimp. besides i said this on other message boards also. the cardinals have 2 directions to go. sideways and up. obviously things in the past havn't been working. so it time to change the philosphy. eithier start supporting what going on or route for someone else. this team can't win without the support from everyone.

 

[ajcardfan]

He cites the great drafts of 69 -72 as proof that talent wins games. How many games were those "talent" guys winning in 69, 70, 71 and 72?

And, didn't that winning happen with the best coach in Cardinals history?

 

[Bobcat]

I'd rather hear 10 wins than to hear we are rebuilding for the future. IN 71' we were 4-9-1....in 72' we were 4-9-1....in 73' , you guessed it, we were 4-9-1. In 74? 10-4!!!

I have said it before, and I loved Mac, but this team was under coached and over matched EVERY WEEK. We will now see players put in a position to succeed. Coaching is worth at least 4 games a year.

Anybody bitchin about choosing Larry Fitzgerald, read this. What in the hell makes you think we were "so strong" at this position? How much better would ANY other player chosen have made us? Would taking a less talented player at DT put your mind at ease about this up coming season. AND HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE FOR YOU FITZ NAYSAYERS TO BLAST GREEN AND THE ORGINIZATION FOR NOTTAKING HIM IF HE TURNS OUT TO BE ANOTHER RANDY MOSS? Truth is when you draft, especially in the top 5, you take the surest thing. Larry Fitzgerald makes this team and offense better TODAY. He will play a key role in making us strong on the offensive side of the board. Our offense is the key to making us competitive TODAY. The defense will be the next project.

You are so right!!!!!! And they are so wrong!!!!!!

Allan

 

[joeshmo]

I realize I need to keep things simple here for some people to understand.

Better to use a little light hearted sarcasm then a back handed insult towards the board as a whole.

 

[joeshmo]

The Bears had one winning season. That season they were not as good as their record as proven in the playoffs. They had a lot of breaks during the season. The Cards had them on the ropes that year until a couple of turnovers at the wrong time. They were moving the ball against them. One winning season folowed by numerous losing ones will satisfy you?

One player does not making a winning team. But we can all agree that Having Urlacher in our D instead of McKinnon would be a big step in the right direction in getting our D on track faster, instead of the fiasco that was Jones.

Baltimore took Suggs when LB wasnt a need at all, and WR was a huge need. Should they have taken the next best WR in BJ instead of Suggs. I think not. NE's needs for a TE was probably last on there list yet they took BPA at the end of the 1st round. Sorry I am not going to second guess the drafting of one of the best drafting teams the last 3 or so years and a 2 time super bowl team in 3 years with probably the best depth of any team in a long time. There are plenty more examples of this. So there is a big place for the BPA theory especially in the 1st round.

 

[Wild Card]

... there is a big place for the BPA theory especially in the 1st round.

Joe:

Yes, there is, unless the "best player available" plays a position at which the selecting team is absolutely set. The Ravens, to use one of your examples, haven't been taking a lotta OLTs in the first round since drafting Jon Ogden, have they? Or RBs, since they got Jamal Lewis?

Picking the BPA in the higher rounds only makes sense, in the salary cap era, if there's something for that player to do with your team in the near future besides sit on the bench. On the other hand, if your team has one or more glaring needs, and you can reach slightly for a good--not great--prospect to potentially fill a need, that may be the right thing to do.

There's no one right answer or theory. Too many variables. What it comes down to, I think, is identifying players who are good enough to win a roster spot on your team, and for whom a spot exists once they do.

Because, ultimately, a need is a need. And--hypothetically speaking, of course--if none of your QBs are talented enough to be an NFL starter, it's not gonna matter how good your top three wideouts are.

WC

 

[joeshmo]

Joe:

Yes, there is, unless the "best player available" plays a position at which the selecting team is absolutely set. The Ravens, to use one of your examples, haven't been taking a lotta OLTs in the first round since drafting Jon Ogden, have they? Or RBs, since they got Jamal Lewis?

Picking the BPA in the higher rounds only makes sense, in the salary cap era, if there's something for that player to do with your team in the near future besides sit on the bench. On the other hand, if your team has one or more glaring needs, and you can reach slightly for a good--not great--prospect to potentially fill a need, that may be the right thing to do.

You are correct. That is what I think of when I think of BPA. I guess to many times people think of it as just a general term for literally picking the BPA when there is more to it then that as you have pointed out.

 

[Redsz]

I guess that lack of talent knock is directed at me. Just exactly how many players do the Cards have that have made a Pro Bowl game? I am not talking about former Cardinals. There are plenty of those. Last in points scored and last in points allowed. That is a fact.

How many players a team has in the Pro Bowl is irelevant. Individual stars are great. They are great for leadership and adding that 'X' factor to a team. But they aren't the be all and ends all of a teams sucess. How a group of players performs as a team is far more important.

How many players did the Super Bowl Champions Patriots have in the Pro Bowl this year? Three. What about the runners up? Three. That is all. NE nor CAR are full of stars, but they know how to get the job done.

Whats that old saying? A team full of champions doesn't mean it will be a champion team.

I guess you believe we had a playoff caliber team and McGinnis kept the team out of the playoffs?

I'm not denying we had a terrible year(s). But a coaching change and change of 'D' and "O' schemes can change and influence the players on a team for the better.

I don't soley blame Coach Mac. I believe that this team was riddled with people on the coaching staff who, quite frankly, are not good enough. For gods sake, they didn't even know when to call a time out!

This year will determine what calibur players are on this team. Because I believe we have a better coaching staff this year who actually seem to have direction and know what they are doing.

Setting expectations with the players is fine. What other NFL coach has gone into a season telling the world how many games they will win? That is a prediction he is almost guaranteed on being wrong. Being wrong is not a habit he should start.

He isn't setting expectations. He is setting goals and trying to install a positive winning culture within the organisation. If you want to turn a business around that is what you do.

He wouldn't be sucessful in doing those two things if he came out looking down at the floor and saying 'maybe we will do this'. That is no way to inspire or motivate anybody.

There are worse things in the world than being wrong. So what if the Cards don't go 10-6? If you set the bar low you won't achieve anything.