For those who sugest that Nation articles are not biased against us

[Sandan]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2003/preview/rams/

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2003/preview/cardinals/

Take a look at these, the first paragraph sets the tone. The Cardinals offence is described as woeful. Which by thew end of the season was a reasonably accurate description.

The Rams on the other hand they say "coming off an injury-riddled 7-9 season".

There is no mention that we had far more injuries than they did. NONE, ZERO.

In reality its more leiky that they wanted to spend as little time bothering with the Cardinals as possible and so made no effort to really analyze the situation as there don't really care.

 

[Renz]

"Losing Kwame Lassiter is a concern", yet not even a mention of Dexter Jackson.

And on and on it goes.

 

[Sandan]

Dexter is of no importance, he was only the MVP of the SB and is a major leader on the field.

I can't imagine why anybod would mention him or that Faulk has lost his lead blocker to who ? Oh yes the Cardinals. Can't mention any of this it migh sound to hopful, much better to just trash them.

 

[Sandan]

Cheese, wern't you trying to tell me that there was no bias in the media against us ?

I might be mis-remembering the conversation so don't slam me if you wern't

 

[Evil Ash]

Defensively, S Kwamie Lassiter left for San Diego. His departure from the 29th-ranked defense is cause for concern, especially in light of the loss last year of CB Corey Chavous.

Did I miss something?!

Kwamie leaves and is replaced by Dexter Jackson (of course no mention of that)

We miss Corey Chavous even though he was starting to lose his starting job w/ Minnesota??

>> Impact Loss
QB Jake Plummer -- In his first full season as a starter in 1998, "Snake" guided the Cardinals to their first playoff appearance in 16 years. He struggled with injuries the next two seasons, but bounced back to throw a career-high 18 touchdown passes the past two seasons. Jeff Blake takes over for Plummer and had two exceptional years -- in 1995-96 with Cincinnati. Since leaving the Bengals after the '99 season, Blake has now played for three teams.

This is where this publication loses all credibility with their knowledge

Jake threw career-high number of TDs the past two seasons (but notice no mention of the turnovers)

They say it is bad that Jeff Blake played for 3 teams the past 3 seasons (but notice no mention that his stats were better than Plummer's those years)...and Sam Adams has switched teams the past 4 years but he is the greatest thing since sliced bread!

Can you say "double standard"? I knew you could!

 

[Duckjake]

Who cares about these articles?!? The Cardinals need to go out and kick some rears because I am tired of them getting more press in the off-season than they do during the season.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Originally posted by nidan
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2003/preview/rams/

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2003/preview/cardinals/

Take a look at these, the first paragraph sets the tone. The Cardinals offence is described as woeful. Which by thew end of the season was a reasonably accurate description.

The Rams on the other hand they say "coming off an injury-riddled 7-9 season".

There is no mention that we had far more injuries than they did. NONE, ZERO.

In reality its more leiky that they wanted to spend as little time bothering with the Cardinals as possible and so made no effort to really analyze the situation as there don't really care.

While I may not agree with the biggest loss for the Cards being Jake Plummer(him being gone is the best thing that happened to this franchise), the rest of it (minus the Kwammie Lassiter thing as well) I agree with. Also, our offense was woeful before we started losing every player we had and what did we do to upgrade that talent? Sign our own talented and top five WR - no we let him go without compensation.

And with the Rams - givce me a break -are you gonna compare Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Isaac Bruce and their O-line problems with ours. That's just ridicvulous IMO - their injuires hurt more because THEIR PLAYERS ARE SOME OF THE BEST IN THE LEAGUE. We were woeful to beign on offense last season with Jake and Boston healthy and proceeded to get even worse as the season wore on.

The article did mention signing the vets to add to the belly of the team, but comparing it with the Rams, who I believe are the odds on favorites to win our division and challenge for the Super Bowl just doesn't make sense to me.

Bias - blah, blah, blah! My God - the guy even shares the Anquan infatuation that everyone else does on this board. But hey, I guess that means Anquan is gonna suck because the natioonal sports writers don't know what they are talking about!

 

[red desert]

Originally posted by Duckjake
Who cares about these articles?!? The Cardinals need to go out and kick some rears because I am tired of them getting more press in the off-season than they do during the season.

You, sir, are correct.

 

[HoodieBets]

Re: Re: For those who sugest that Nation articles are not biased against us

Originally posted by cheesebeef
While I may not agree with the biggest loss for the Cards being Jake Plummer(him being gone is the best thing that happened to this franchise), the rest of it (minus the Kwammie Lassiter thing as well) I agree with. Also, our offense was woeful before we started losing every player we had and what did we do to upgrade that talent? Sign our own talented and top five WR - no we let him go without compensation.

And with the Rams - givce me a break -are you gonna compare Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Isaac Bruce and their O-line problems with ours. That's just ridicvulous IMO - their injuires hurt more because THEIR PLAYERS ARE SOME OF THE BEST IN THE LEAGUE. We were woeful to beign on offense last season with Jake and Boston healthy and proceeded to get even worse as the season wore on.

The article did mention signing the vets to add to the belly of the team, but comparing it with the Rams, who I believe are the odds on favorites to win our division and challenge for the Super Bowl just doesn't make sense to me.

Bias - blah, blah, blah! My God - the guy even shares the Anquan infatuation that everyone else does on this board. But hey, I guess that means Anquan is gonna suck because the natioonal sports writers don't know what they are talking about!

I agree with you more and more each day. I do not believe in the bias either but some people have the attitude that the world is out to get the cards when they are not. Reporters have their job for a reason. They might make the occasional error but i have never heard an unwaranted rip against the cards. Most writters are objective and view the cards the same way they view the rams,49ers, and seahawks. I just dont understand where this whole bias orginated from. Maybe you can fill me in nidian because i have no clue.

 

[Sandan]

My point is that these articles go out of their way to make excuses for the Rams due to injuries while totally failing to mention any injuries the Cards had.

This is depite the fact that we had more injuries than any other 2-3 teams combined.

 

[Shuesters2]

National Media,
The respect will come when the Cards start winning ballgames.

Shuesters

 

[Sandan]

I know, it's just the obviously bias ticks me off

 

[gnomepete]

I don't think that the national media is out to get the Cards, BUT . . .

As there is no respect (at least somewhat deservedly so), they DON'T do their homework (UNPROFESSIONAL!) thereby making numerous mistakes that WE, as fans, know better than. We (as a rule - NOT everyone) seem to be sensitive to this, maybe moreso than we should be.

Nonetheless, when they don't do their homework properly, they DO put a bit of bias in there because they don't know all the facts which skews their perceptions.

I don't think they're out to get us, I just think they're lazy and get paid too well to "play" without doing their homework. In my view, writing about sports is almost as much play as actually playing them. If they don't want to do their homework, I think they should get a "real" job.

Pete

 

[traveler49]

You are confusing bias with stupidity. the football magazines regurgitate the last season's standings with very few exceptions. Everyone on this board has more football knowledge than those idiots. Jim Hart said that they picked the Cardinals to come in last before the 1974 season. Ilove picking them up in the grocery and paging to the NFC West. They all say last place automatically. You heard it here, 13-3

 

[JeffGollin]

Cheese, wern't you trying to tell me that there was no bias in the media against us ?
I'm shocked and dismayed.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Originally posted by nidan
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2003/preview/rams/

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2003/preview/cardinals/

Take a look at these, the first paragraph sets the tone. The Cardinals offence is described as woeful. Which by thew end of the season was a reasonably accurate description.

The Rams on the other hand they say "coming off an injury-riddled 7-9 season".

There is no mention that we had far more injuries than they did. NONE, ZERO.

In reality its more leiky that they wanted to spend as little time bothering with the Cardinals as possible and so made no effort to really analyze the situation as there don't really care.

well, let's see, the rams finished one game under .500 and beat us twice. their offense was never anemic. ours was even before the injuries. yeah, the national reporters just hate us. they HATE us i tell you!

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Originally posted by nidan
My point is that these articles go out of their way to make excuses for the Rams due to injuries while totally failing to mention any injuries the Cards had.

This is depite the fact that we had more injuries than any other 2-3 teams combined.

maybe that's because prior to the injuries the rams have repeatedly proven that they were good, hence the injuries had an effect on the team, whereas the cardinals have had only a track record of putridity with this offense with or without the injuries, so the injuries are not really seen as a causal factor in their offense stinking. makes sense, doesn't it? hmmmm, logic . . .

 

[Sandan]

Ouchie what don't you get.

Our offense was offensive last year, I agree, the Rams beat us last year, I agree. It's not what they say it's how they say it and what they don't say.

When talking about the Cardinals there is always, always a assumption that we suck, have always sucked and will always suck. Because we of the lack of national respect (probably deswerved) they feel they can head scorn on us. This is a requirement as they can't do it to the Bengals now for fear of being called racist, so we are the designated whipping boy.

What they don't say is why we have had problems. For the Rams they are happy to put it doen to injuries, despite the fact that the Rams had far less than us. If anybody mentions injuries for the Cardinals we are "just making excuses".

No, I am not surprised that this happens and I know it will only change when we win. But at least you could admit that it is real.

 

[Sandan]

btw: I don't think they hates us, your words not mine.

I think they like to assume themselves at the expense of a team tham they feel can't fight back (ie fans won't trash them/stop buying mags).

It's a bit lick the schollyard were the bully will go after the percieved weakest gut to beat up.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Originally posted by nidan
I think they like to assume themselves at the expense of a team tham they feel can't fight back (ie fans won't trash them/stop buying mags).

not trying to be an arse here, but i don't even understand this paragraph.

and you're not being realistic here. our offense stunk BEFORE the injuries hit. the experts are basing their predictions on what they've seen of the cardinals, not what WE HOPE will happen with them. and can you honestly say that the cards have shown them anything to report in a manner other than the manner in which they currently report on us? if you dislike speculation then why read the pre-season mags at all?

i don't think i missed ANY point. i think you're somewhat deluded.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Originally posted by nidan

YOUR WORDS:
Ouchie what don't you get.

It's not what they say it's how they say it and what they don't say.

MINE:

Don't they say the bloom is off the Rams and now they must prove that they are what they were to get it back. To me that doesn't sound like : "PRAISE JESUS -THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH IS BACK AND BETTER THAN EVER BEFORE AND THEY WILL PISS ON THE POOR PATHETIC CARDINALS! PISS ON THEM I SAY!"

YOUR WORDS:

This is a requirement as they can't do it to the Bengals now for fear of being called racist, so we are the designated whipping boy.

MINE:

Are you serious on this? Who is the main source of criticism this off-season? Is it Coach Mac? No - does Bidwill get his share? Sure. But who was laughed at during the draft, who was blasted when we lost Boston for nothing? Rodf Graves and if memory serves me correct, the color of his skin matches Marvin Lewis' exactly! Where is the racism as far as the scorn Rod Graves has recieved - you're way out of line here Nidan and that sentence is ridiculous.

Good try though.

 

[HoodieBets]

Originally posted by nidan
But at least you could admit that it is real.

What a classic when you can not admit the truth about the cardinals. Let me guess you think the cards can go 10-6. People who think the cards will go anything above 8-8 or even 9-7 should not use the words real,realistic,truth or truthful. Look at the team and all the unprovens. This team might win 6 or 7 and that is pushing it. Look at the schedule, all the teams they play have improved while we are still stuck in neutral. I have cardinal blood running through my veins but the truth is the truth. I'm sorry to say it but this team will not have a better record than last year's team IMO. Until people see a winning reocrd we will not be considered a good team and rightfully so.

 

[40yearfan]

Look at the schedule, all the teams they play have improved while we are still stuck in neutral.

This is out and out baloney!!! How can you say the other teams have improved more than the Cardinals when their draft and FA acquistions were similar to or less than what the Cards did. Are you saying their rookies are all going to contribute this year while all the Cards rookies won't? Because they made FA acquistions or coaching changes, they have improved, but the Cards changes have caused them to lose ground and be a worse team than last year?

Talk about speculation and negativity.

 

[HoodieBets]

Originally posted by 40yearfan
This is out and out baloney!!! How can you say the other teams have improved more than the Cardinals when their draft and FA acquistions were similar to or less than what the Cards did. Are you saying their rookies are all going to contribute this year while all the Cards rookies won't? Because they made FA acquistions or coaching changes, they have improved, but the Cards changes have caused them to lose ground and be a worse team than last year?

Talk about speculation and negativity.

name a team and i will tell you how they improved. And yes some rookies have a better chance to be productive than our rookies. It is enviornment coaches and players around them.

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by azcardsfan1616
name a team and i will tell you how they improved

Niners?