Free Agency

Ouchie-Z-Clown

I'm better than Mulli!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
60,164
Reaction score
51,727
Location
SoCal
At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves, has the team improved from free agency compared to last years team. So far easy no to me. After the draft same question will the team be better than last year’s team.

If Monti can’t improve the team year over year then he is failing at his job. Don’t care if it’s his first year or 20th. His job is to improve the team year over year so it can compete at a high level. I wish him the best but so far he’s floundering.
Correct. Nothing says you have to have a worse roster during a year down, just a different roster. Each year the target should be improving the talent. And age should play a component (no need for older talent in a rebuild). So far we are a less talented team today than last season.
 

BullheadCardFan

Go for it
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Posts
60,102
Reaction score
22,670
Location
Bullhead City, AZ
Correct. Nothing says you have to have a worse roster during a year down, just a different roster. Each year the target should be improving the talent. And age should play a component (no need for older talent in a rebuild). So far we are a less talented team today than last season.
This

Start building this year, no need to wait
 

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Murray
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
34,497
Reaction score
30,575
Location
Orange County, CA
Fair. If they had replaced them with commensurate talents on long-term deals, at least we would have begun as the same sucky roster as we had before, not well below that level.
I don't know man. It's really hard to evaluate this team. They had so many injuries last year. And then coaching issues.

Sometimes the best players on bad teams really aren't all that good.

The hope for the CB is Marco Wilson can provide similar or better play than Byron Murphy for a FRACTION of the cost. Some of the same people barking about losing Murphy are the same people who talked about how he was only a nickel. Wilson was good down the stretch last year, probably better play than we really ever saw from Murphy.

The defensive line is a whole other issue. The line was bad last year with Watt and Allen. It's a scary bad group right now. The hope right now is that Anderson is a big piece on the DL. Add another young guy and the DL doesn't look as bad.
 

ajcardfan

I see you.
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
36,740
Reaction score
21,099
I don't know man. It's really hard to evaluate this team. They had so many injuries last year. And then coaching issues.

Sometimes the best players on bad teams really aren't all that good.

The hope for the CB is Marco Wilson can provide similar or better play than Byron Murphy for a FRACTION of the cost. Some of the same people barking about losing Murphy are the same people who talked about how he was only a nickel. Wilson was good down the stretch last year, probably better play than we really ever saw from Murphy.

The defensive line is a whole other issue. The line was bad last year with Watt and Allen. It's a scary bad group right now. The hope right now is that Anderson is a big piece on the DL. Add another young guy and the DL doesn't look as bad.
I never saw Murphy as a nickel. He had some great games as our #1. If a team has a more elite CB and Murphy is #2, then that team is very solid at CB.
 

Chopper0080

2021 - Prove It
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
26,720
Reaction score
34,984
Location
Colorado
I don't know man. It's really hard to evaluate this team. They had so many injuries last year. And then coaching issues.

Sometimes the best players on bad teams really aren't all that good.

The hope for the CB is Marco Wilson can provide similar or better play than Byron Murphy for a FRACTION of the cost. Some of the same people barking about losing Murphy are the same people who talked about how he was only a nickel. Wilson was good down the stretch last year, probably better play than we really ever saw from Murphy.

The defensive line is a whole other issue. The line was bad last year with Watt and Allen. It's a scary bad group right now. The hope right now is that Anderson is a big piece on the DL. Add another young guy and the DL doesn't look as bad.
This is what I feel is overblown. That contract isn't a bad contract for a team building through the draft. Even if Murphy ends the year being the 3rd best CB because a CB you drafted beats him out, you start next year with three solid CBs totaling 14 mil in cap space.

Same with Allen. In 2024, Allen, Will Anderson, Cam Thomas, and Sanders would be a combined 30 mil cap hit. That would be 12th highest in the NFL but also at a position of need. Way better than being the 10th highest in the NFL for RB cost when our offensive line is crap like we are this year. Or 10th highest at off-ball LB, like we are this year.
 

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Murray
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
34,497
Reaction score
30,575
Location
Orange County, CA
This is what I feel is overblown. That contract isn't a bad contract for a team building through the draft. Even if Murphy ends the year being the 3rd best CB because a CB you drafted beats him out, you start next year with three solid CBs totaling 14 mil in cap space.

Same with Allen. In 2024, Allen, Will Anderson, Cam Thomas, and Sanders would be a combined 30 mil cap hit. That would be 12th highest in the NFL but also at a position of need. Way better than being the 10th highest in the NFL for RB cost when our offensive line is crap like we are this year. Or 10th highest at off-ball LB, like we are this year.
I think the further argument though, is can you find a player who can perform about as well as Murphy for cheaper? I don't think it's too crazy of a proposition. Murphy played around league average for a CB. That's actually a harder thing to do than most realize, but I think you can find a mid-tier veteran who can replicate Murphy's performance.

Fenton's career numbers (passer rating allowed) up until last year was comparable to Murphy's. I know some question the efficacy of QB Rating being attributed to corners, but what other metrics do we really have to rate performance?

I guess my point is that the Cardinals likely look at Murphy and think they can find a guy who can perform nearly as well and spend the money elsewhere. The obvious counter to this argument is "where are they spending the money?" I think they plan on resetting the cap this year, figuring out what they have on the roster (to include this years draft class), and then filling in holes next offseason.
 

oaken1

Stone Cold
Supporting Member
Banned from P+R
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Posts
16,342
Reaction score
12,674
Location
Modesto, California
I think the further argument though, is can you find a player who can perform about as well as Murphy for cheaper? I don't think it's too crazy of a proposition. Murphy played around league average for a CB. That's actually a harder thing to do than most realize, but I think you can find a mid-tier veteran who can replicate Murphy's performance.

Fenton's career numbers (passer rating allowed) up until last year was comparable to Murphy's. I know some question the efficacy of QB Rating being attributed to corners, but what other metrics do we really have to rate performance?

I guess my point is that the Cardinals likely look at Murphy and think they can find a guy who can perform nearly as well and spend the money elsewhere. The obvious counter to this argument is "where are they spending the money?" I think they plan on resetting the cap this year, figuring out what they have on the roster (to include this years draft class), and then filling in holes next offseason.
and Murphy has a back issue. I cant overstate how unpredictable that makes his ability to contribute.
 

ajcardfan

I see you.
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
36,740
Reaction score
21,099
I think the further argument though, is can you find a player who can perform about as well as Murphy for cheaper? I don't think it's too crazy of a proposition. Murphy played around league average for a CB. That's actually a harder thing to do than most realize, but I think you can find a mid-tier veteran who can replicate Murphy's performance.

Fenton's career numbers (passer rating allowed) up until last year was comparable to Murphy's. I know some question the efficacy of QB Rating being attributed to corners, but what other metrics do we really have to rate performance?

I guess my point is that the Cardinals likely look at Murphy and think they can find a guy who can perform nearly as well and spend the money elsewhere. The obvious counter to this argument is "where are they spending the money?" I think they plan on resetting the cap this year, figuring out what they have on the roster (to include this years draft class), and then filling in holes next offseason.
Then find one if he is so easy to replace. If the answer is "Antonio Hamilton" that is a not a good answer.
 
OP
OP
Harry

Harry

ASFN Consultant and Senior Writer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Posts
10,752
Reaction score
22,573
Location
Orlando, FL
This is the thing with Murphy. We already have a CB2 in Wilson and Murphy is never going to be a legit CB1. It's highly statistically improbable with his athletic profile. He's too short, too slow, too unathletic by NFL standards to ever realistically be that good. He could be a solid #2 but I don't even think he's that yet.

I think his deal was good value but I can see why they thought it was a duplication of talent and could replace him for less. Or maybe Murphy just wanted a change. Who knows?
This whole Murphy dialog is odd. He was badly injured. People are saying he signed for a low number. He did and if teams really valued him higher, he would have been offered more. I like his competitiveness, but he a risk the Cards weren’t in position to take.
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,086
Reaction score
37,199
Location
UK
This whole Murphy dialog is odd. He was badly injured. People are saying he signed for a low number. He did and if teams really valued him higher, he would have been offered more. I like his competitiveness, but he a risk the Cards weren’t in position to take.

Yes ultimately what he signed for combined with when he signed shows that there wasn't much market for him and his agent thought that was his best option.

He signed on the 2nd day of the tamper window. Didn't even bother to let things play out for a few days. To me that says there wasn't a lot of interest to play off each other for a better deal.

Good CB's simply don't sign 2 year deals at 25 for sub $9m.
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,086
Reaction score
37,199
Location
UK
People still talking themselves around on this lol If we'd signed Murphy for that number it would be all "What a smart move" and "Good thing we didn't let him get away."

Sure. I would have said it was a good price for a solid but middling CB. I have said that I would have paid him that number.

But I can also see why they didn't because it's too much to pay for a middling slot and and on the outside we already have a CB2.

At the same time it shows the league seems him as a mediocre CB. Which he is.

I think he should consider a switch to safety. I think he might have a higher ceiling there.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
38,051
Reaction score
20,670
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Sure. I would have said it was a good price for a solid but middling CB. I have said that I would have paid him that number.

But I can also see why they didn't because it's too much to pay for a middling slot and and on the outside we already have a CB2.

At the same time it shows the league seems him as a mediocre CB. Which he is.

I think he should consider a switch to safety. I think he might have a higher ceiling there.
Wow. Double down? You said naw, let's quadruple down!
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,086
Reaction score
37,199
Location
UK
Wow. Double down? You said naw, let's quadruple down!

Why? He's a sound tackler, doesn't shy a way from contact, he's better with his eyes downfield than his back to the ball. And while his cover skills are middling for a CB they would be elite at safety.

He's the exact same size as Jalen. His athletic profile is always going to limit him at QB whereas at safely he could be very good. Good safeties are getting $13m+ all day. He may never break $11m as a CB.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
38,051
Reaction score
20,670
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Why? He's a sound tackler, doesn't shy a way from contact, he's better with his eyes downfield than his back to the ball.

His athletic profile is always going to limit him at QB whereas at safely he could be very good. Good safeties are getting $13m+ all day. He may never break $11m as a CB.
Dude, you could've let it all die down when folks stopped arguing about the lack of signing, because most of us tried to put it in the rear view. You kept nattering on about it being a smart move, and you are so stanning for the FO that now you think he shouldn't even be a CB. I mean, yes, you were always going to try to tear down players people were upset with not bringing back, but now saying he should change positions? That's powerful stanning.
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,086
Reaction score
37,199
Location
UK
Dude, you could've let it all die down when folks stopped arguing about the lack of signing, because most of us tried to put it in the rear view. You kept nattering on about it being a smart move, and you are so stanning for the FO that now you think he shouldn't even be a CB. I mean, yes, you were always going to try to tear down players people were upset with not bringing back, but now saying he should change positions? That's powerful stanning.

Whatever. It's nothing new. Neither is it inconsistent with what I've said about Murphy for years.

You're acting like this is new. I've called Murphy and Allen JAGs for years.
 

SECTION 11

vibraslap
Joined
Oct 11, 2002
Posts
15,868
Reaction score
3,413
Location
Between the Pipes
Dude, you could've let it all die down when folks stopped arguing about the lack of signing, because most of us tried to put it in the rear view. You kept nattering on about it being a smart move, and you are so stanning for the FO that now you think he shouldn't even be a CB. I mean, yes, you were always going to try to tear down players people were upset with not bringing back, but now saying he should change positions? That's powerful stanning.
Omg who cares. Put him on ignore or something.
 

Chopper0080

2021 - Prove It
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
26,720
Reaction score
34,984
Location
Colorado
I think the further argument though, is can you find a player who can perform about as well as Murphy for cheaper? I don't think it's too crazy of a proposition. Murphy played around league average for a CB. That's actually a harder thing to do than most realize, but I think you can find a mid-tier veteran who can replicate Murphy's performance.

Fenton's career numbers (passer rating allowed) up until last year was comparable to Murphy's. I know some question the efficacy of QB Rating being attributed to corners, but what other metrics do we really have to rate performance?

I guess my point is that the Cardinals likely look at Murphy and think they can find a guy who can perform nearly as well and spend the money elsewhere. The obvious counter to this argument is "where are they spending the money?" I think they plan on resetting the cap this year, figuring out what they have on the roster (to include this years draft class), and then filling in holes next offseason.
The counter point is that you don't have to. There are times to pinch pennies on contracts and there are times not to. If the intention of this org was to build through the draft, you can afford to slightly overpay to retain players and miss on players with 2 or 3 year deals to give your picks time to develop.

Heading into the 2025 season looking to cut Allen and/or Murphy because they are being pushed out by drafted players would have been the ideal scenario.
 

ASUCHRIS

ONE HEART BEAT!!!
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Posts
14,973
Reaction score
11,621
but he a risk the Cards weren’t in position to take.
I'd say it is a risk they didn't want to take, not that they weren't in the position to take it. Worst case scenario he never plays and you wasted 8m. Looking at all the players we're playing not to play, that would be SOP.
 

Chopper0080

2021 - Prove It
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
26,720
Reaction score
34,984
Location
Colorado
I'd say it is a risk they didn't want to take, not that they weren't in the position to take it. Worst case scenario he never plays and you wasted 8m. Looking at all the players we're playing not to play, that would be SOP.
I agree. If the team is indifferent about winning in 2023 (which their roster moves indicate), there is no world where Murphy hurts that.
 

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Murray
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
34,497
Reaction score
30,575
Location
Orange County, CA
The counter point is that you don't have to. There are times to pinch pennies on contracts and there are times not to. If the intention of this org was to build through the draft, you can afford to slightly overpay to retain players and miss on players with 2 or 3 year deals to give your picks time to develop.
Now I want to make sure you understand that I don't feel this way, but the argument can be made that an overpay is an overpay and that when you clear the cap the way the Cardinals are, why would you turn around and add what could be bad contracts?
Heading into the 2025 season looking to cut Allen and/or Murphy because they are being pushed out by drafted players would have been the ideal scenario.
My bet is that the new regime sees Cam Thomas as Allen's replacement.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
536,077
Posts
5,255,340
Members
6,275
Latest member
PicksFromDave
Top