ESPN.com 2003 Overview

[SunCityCarl]

"What it all means?

The Cardinals will probably be pretty bad and as a result, Dave McGinnis might not be able to hold onto his head coaching job. While widely regarded as a good coach, another five-win season could be too much for McGinnis to overcome.

Playing in a division where they are clearly the No. 4 team, five wins is probably as optimistic as any Cardinals fan can be.

Sure, Emmitt Smith might put a few more fans in the seats at Sun Devil Stadium. But he probably won't produce any more wins, and in the end, that's all that really matters."

Ouch that hurt here is the link to all of the teams...

http://espn.go.com/nfl/overview2003/index.html

 

[SECTION 11]

The only way this team ends up with five wins again is if 26.3% of our team ends up on the IR again.

 

[Crimson Warrior]

Originally posted by SunCityCarl
"What it all means?

The Cardinals will probably be pretty bad and as a result, Dave McGinnis might not be able to hold onto his head coaching job. While widely regarded as a good coach, another five-win season could be too much for McGinnis to overcome.

Playing in a division where they are clearly the No. 4 team, five wins is probably as optimistic as any Cardinals fan can be.

Sure, Emmitt Smith might put a few more fans in the seats at Sun Devil Stadium. But he probably won't produce any more wins, and in the end, that's all that really matters."

Ouch that hurt here is the link to all of the teams...

http://espn.go.com/nfl/overview2003/index.html

I'm sure they picked tampa bay to win it all last year

 

[Lex]

"The Cardinals took a step backward in the offseason."

 

[Sandan]

That article is some arrucate and insightful it staggers me, I mean how can one person be so good.

Apart from the fact that in the first half he acuratly says that both Jake and DB were pretty bad

" David Boston, coming off a career year (98 receptions) that saw him emerge as one of the NFL's top receivers, battled injuries all season and finished with just 32 receptions. Add in another inconsistent season from QB Jake Plummer "

Then later he says they were our two best offenaive weapons and we will suck because we lost them.

Which is it ?

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by nidan
That article is some arrucate and insightful it staggers me, I mean how can one person be so good.

Apart from the fact that in the first half he acuratly says that both Jake and DB were pretty bad

" David Boston, coming off a career year (98 receptions) that saw him emerge as one of the NFL's top receivers, battled injuries all season and finished with just 32 receptions. Add in another inconsistent season from QB Jake Plummer "

Then later he says they were our two best offenaive weapons and we will suck because we lost them.

Which is it ?

Both. Jake and DB WERE our two best offensive weapons. They had down seasons last year. We WILL suck because we lost DB.

 

[Sandan]

So you know that DB would have returned to his 2001 performance do you.

What do you base that on ?

Was he a one year wonder or did he just hate it here so much he wrote his own ticket to get out by tanking the season.

 

[Sandan]

How can you not believe Jeff Balke is an upgrade over Jake ?

Every stat out there screams Jeff Blake is the better QB, I for one am looking forward to not seeing the pass behind the back play ever again. I'll leave that pleasure to Denver.

 

[kerouac9]

DB had an excellent season in 2000, too. He wasn't the #1 threat, and hadn't established himself, but had Peerless Price-type numbers. We ended up with the #2 overall draft pick, so his performance got lost in the mix. Regardless of whether or not he returned to his 2001 levels of production (and I believe he will), he'd still be head and shoulders above every other wideout on our roster right now if he was here, and that loss can't be discounted. Even at 85% of 2001, defenses would have to pay attention to him at all times, but my guess is that at least through the first quarter of 2003, Ds will basically ignore our present WRs until they show someone that they can do somthing. Just because Jake couldn't take advantage of the opportunities that the extra attention afforded, that doesn't mean they weren't there.

Overall, I think that Blake is an upgrade over Jake, but Plummer was a "playmaker" and Blake is more of a "caretaker." If you asked anyone in the nation who they'd rather have on a game-winning drive, you'd get at least 75% of the people saying Plummer. Plummer is the biggest weapon. Blake isn't going to lose games for you, but he's not going to win them for you, either.

 

[PDXChris]

Overall, I think that Blake is an upgrade over Jake, but Plummer was a "playmaker" and Blake is more of a "caretaker." If you asked anyone in the nation who they'd rather have on a game-winning drive, you'd get at least 75% of the people saying Plummer. Plummer is the biggest weapon. Blake isn't going to lose games for you, but he's not going to win them for you, either.

So then you are saying that Jeff Blake is just like a Trent Dilfer becuase he never lost or won games, he just controled the offense and gave teh team a chance. I will take that any day over a inconsistant jake. Plus how many super bowls have been won by "caretakers"? I would say Tampa had one last year, as weel a Baltamore a couple of years ago and I would even say that New England did in Tom Brady. Then you look at in recent years how many were won by Jake types, the last I can think of is only becasue every expert compared him to Montana so much when he was drafted are the 49er's in the mid to late 80's. I todays NFL you need "caretakers" with the way defenses are built. You make to many hasty decisions and you loose the games single handed for your team, and I feel at least 2 games were lost that way last year, most noticably the San Diego game.

 

[PDXChris]

Also, if you want to have to always be put in the position of game winning drives then watch Denver this years, I feel they will have a lot of them because Jake will put tehm in the situation many times and will be a hero because he will pull out a few. So what I am saying is he will be the next Elway only becasue he will thake 3 quarters to warm up and do something with there defense keeping them in it.

 

[JeffGollin]

(Bogus) NEWS ITEM - CARDS TO FORFEIT ALL 16 GAMES

The Cardinals will probably be pretty bad and as a result, Dave McGinnis might not be able to hold onto his head coaching job
NEWS ITEM - CARDS TO FORFEIT ALL 16 GAMES
Tempe - June 3, 02 - After reading ESPN's commentary on the Cardinals' prospects for the 2003 season, a member of the Bidwill family (who prefered to remain anonymous) exclaimed "What's more to be said? Why bother to compete? I have a migraine." and with that indicated that the entire Cardinal team and coaching staff would form a choral group and tour the country in lieu of playing out the regular season. Games will be forfeited and tickets refunded (less a 60% "management fee.")

"Let each of those weeks be considered an extra Bye Week" exclaimed NFL Executive Director Paul Tagliabue. "I'm sure the other teams will just love it."

# # # # #

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by bankybruce
So then you are saying that Jeff Blake is just like a Trent Dilfer becuase he never lost or won games, he just controled the offense and gave teh team a chance. I will take that any day over a inconsistant jake. Plus how many super bowls have been won by "caretakers"? I would say Tampa had one last year, as weel a Baltamore a couple of years ago and I would even say that New England did in Tom Brady. Then you look at in recent years how many were won by Jake types, the last I can think of is only becasue every expert compared him to Montana so much when he was drafted are the 49er's in the mid to late 80's. I todays NFL you need "caretakers" with the way defenses are built. You make to many hasty decisions and you loose the games single handed for your team, and I feel at least 2 games were lost that way last year, most noticably the San Diego game.

I guess we're not going to see eye to eye on this. I would say that Brad Johnson was more than a "caretaker" QB, because the Bucs didn't even HAVE a running game to speak of in 2002. Brady was pretty much one, but he had a good running game. Dilfer was one, and he had a good running game.

Warner WAS a playmaking QB, Young was a playmaking QB, Elway was a playmaking QB, Favre IS a playmaking QB. For SB losers, Ganno is a playmaking QB, Bledsoe is a playmaking QB, Collins is a caretaker QB, McNair is a playmaking QB, etc. Tell me again about how you'd rather have a caretaker than a playmaker. Would you rather have Mike Vick (playmaker), or Tim Couch (caretaker)?

 

[gnomepete]

Plummer was obviously a playmaker, but he obviously put the team in position to HAVE TO come back in the second half quite a few times too.

What I don't understand is calling a quarterback that throws (arguably) the best long ball in the business, a "caretaker". I can see saying that he takes care of the ball (although I haven't researched the stats to even know if it is apt), but a "caretaker" that loves to throw the bomb and does it well? Not MY definition anyway.

Pete

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by gnomepete
Plummer was obviously a playmaker, but he obviously put the team in position to HAVE TO come back in the second half quite a few times too.

What I don't understand is calling a quarterback that throws (arguably) the best long ball in the business, a "caretaker". I can see saying that he takes care of the ball (although I haven't researched the stats to even know if it is apt), but a "caretaker" that loves to throw the bomb and does it well? Not MY definition anyway.

Pete

Do you think that Jeff Blake is the kind of player that wants to be THE GUY in crunch time? The leader on the field? An All-Pro? I haven't seen anything to suggest that in his career. Cbus had a line from him on his sig line that said that he didn't want to be the leader or the go-to guy. That's how I always saw Blake. He's not a ferocious competitor, at least as I've seen, in the mold of Bledsoe, Favre, Plummer and McNabb. He's a couple levels down.

A "caretaker" can throw any type of pass he wants. Jeff George also threw a great deep ball, but that doesn't make him a playmaker, either.

 

[BuckeyeCardinal]

Well

"Overall, I think that Blake is an upgrade over Jake, but Plummer was a "playmaker" and Blake is more of a "caretaker." If you asked anyone in the nation who they'd rather have on a game-winning drive, you'd get at least 75% of the people saying Plummer. Plummer is the biggest weapon. Blake isn't going to lose games for you, but he's not going to win them for you, either."

You've surveyed the wrong people.

Your survey is biased.

The survey needs to be of those people who have seen Blake and Plummer for at least a 4 year period.

I'm one of those and have seen as a Cards fan Plummer lose...well let's say not win games for us. Sure he's the comeback kid....but he had to comeback because he sucked in the first 3 quarters....I've also seen Blake for 4 years stretch defenses and improve the running game.

Blake has better physical qualities as a QB.

Anyone disagree?

 

[PDXChris]

Originally posted by kerouac9
Do you think that Jeff Blake is the kind of player that wants to be THE GUY in crunch time? The leader on the field? An All-Pro? I haven't seen anything to suggest that in his career. Cbus had a line from him on his sig line that said that he didn't want to be the leader or the go-to guy. That's how I always saw Blake. He's not a ferocious competitor, at least as I've seen, in the mold of Bledsoe, Favre, Plummer and McNabb. He's a couple levels down.

A "caretaker" can throw any type of pass he wants. Jeff George also threw a great deep ball, but that doesn't make him a playmaker, either.

Know what seperates Plummer fro the rest of the elite playmakers? Two things, preperations and brains. The others are a step above him because they are so much more prepared and that is why it does not take them 3 quartars the figure things out and they could make adjustments during a play because of there football smarts. If jake made a adjustment it usually ment a turnover.

 

[ajcardfan]

Originally posted by kerouac9
Bledsoe, Favre, Plummer and McNabb.

Sesame Street music:

"One of these things is not like the others, one of these things doesn't belong....."

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by ajcardfan
Sesame Street music:

"One of these things is not like the others, one of these things doesn't belong....."

No doubt. What does qualities does Plummer have that would possibly lump him in with that group.

 

[kerouac9]

Look: I agree with you. Blake IS better than Plummer for this team. What I'm saying is that the article was correct in stating that we lost our two best offensive weapons in the offseason. That's true. I'm not arguing that they're the best offensive weapons in the league, but they WERE our two best offensive weapons. That hurts the team, because it sets us back, as the NEW weapons have to learn new systems, language, etc.

I'm saying, that this can't be argued with, that Blake and Plummer are two very different TYPES of QBs. Blake is a safe QB, who will either put the ball where only the WR can catch it or toss it out of bounds. He's not going to win a game for you, but he's not going to lose it, either. Plenty of QBs have successful careers playing like this. Dilfer, O'Donnell, George, Fiedler, Griese, Chandler.

Plummer is a riskier, sexier QB who tries to make plays. He'll win a game for you, but will also lose as many, if not more. Fewer of these QBs have successful careers, but those that do usually end up in the hall of fame and on posters affixed to the walls of children's bedrooms. Teams are usually drafting players like this high to take the jobs from the players listed above. Favre, Elway, Montana, Young, Vick.

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by kerouac9
Plummer is a sexier QB

Oh really?

 

[ajcardfan]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
Oh really?

Don't believe him? Just ask Tango how sexy Plummer is.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
Oh really?

Yeah, that's right. I want to have sex with him. That's what I mean. Me and Tango are meeting him for drinks after work, and Tango's bringing the GHB.

Anyway, I'm not saying that Plummer's on the same level as the guys I've listed; I'm saying that they have the same competitive drive and want the ball in their hands when it comes down to crunch time. From what I've seen from Blake, he seems to be at his worst in the 4th quarter crunch time, and would prefer to have someone have the ball when the game's on the line.

 

[SECTION 11]

I agree about the Plummer and Blake take, BTW.



You never send me flowers any more.

 

[gnomepete]

Originally posted by kerouac9
Do you think that Jeff Blake is the kind of player that wants to be THE GUY in crunch time? The leader on the field? An All-Pro? I haven't seen anything to suggest that in his career. Cbus had a line from him on his sig line that said that he didn't want to be the leader or the go-to guy. That's how I always saw Blake. He's not a ferocious competitor, at least as I've seen, in the mold of Bledsoe, Favre, Plummer and McNabb. He's a couple levels down.

A "caretaker" can throw any type of pass he wants. Jeff George also threw a great deep ball, but that doesn't make him a playmaker, either.

1. How OLD is that quote? And how old was Blake when he said it? If memory serves, he was much younger and in Cincy.

2. If not an All-Pro, he WAS a Pro-Bowler.

3. A caretaker INFERS that the guy can't win games for you, but a QB that can throw a good bomb WILL win games for you.

4. I just think he's a DIFFERENT type of competitor now. When he was younger, I think he had a "personal" chip on his shoulder. I think he's grown up enough to have it translate into something good for the team. I HOPE so anyway. Come th eseason, we'll all know.

5. Jeff George? COME ON! He was SO AFRAID to get hit that he has ZERO relevance to a discussion of Blake.

Pete