Jo Sparkes article on front page.

[Skkorpion]

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/storypage.php?Story_ID=296&Category=cardinals

Jo gives a different outlook on the season than Harry Greene. Between the two of them, they voice the two prevailing opinions on the Cardinals espoused by most fans.

It is a privilege to publish them both. Enjoy. Both articles are on the front page right now.

 

[PortlandCardFan]

Just to damn good

 

[kerouac9]

It's funny that people like Harry, myself, cheese, and Ouchie take pessimistic/realistic views of the team and look at matchups, players' past performances, outside sources, strengths and weaknesses, and historical expecations in evaluating the chances for this team this year, while people like Nidan, Brighteyes, Oran, and Rugby, talk about players being "first in in the morning," "the last player to leave," "attitude," "chemistry," "leadership," and the like.

Just an observation.

 

[WizardOfAz]

Originally posted by kerouac9
pessimistic/realistic

Strange. I understand the pessimistic tag, but it's a little presuptious to just call yourself "realistic".

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by WizardOfAz
Strange. I understand the pessimistic tag, but it's a little presuptious to just call yourself "realistic".

I didn't say that for myself, at least not lately. To say that the 10-6 view is "realistic" defies comprehension. There are those, like Harry, who would characterize the view, perhaps, as "realistic." It's as much a semi-meaningless label as "optimistic," when the fact could be "actual."

I would defend the "realistic" tag as saying that it seems more logical to base predictions on the factors that I'd noted above than to divine results based on whether or not a Hall-of-Famer had caressed your tape recorder and whom came or left the facility when, but it's obviously a minority view.

 

[Sandan]

Part of it is that I don't see what "historical expecations" has to do with what we expect the team to do this year.

eg, What has Jake's performance over the last few years have to do with how Jeff Blake will perform.

Also the reason we talk about these things is because we see them for ourselves. Getting that kind of feedback to the ASFN is what we do. If I see bad stuff, I'll tell you that as well.

So far I see a team that is unusually focused on a team effort. You have to love what some of the new FAs are doing.

How much will it help ? I don't know but itr will help. I know for a fact that we won't see DBs quiting on plays like I saw Lassiter do last year and if I notice it it must be blatant.

 

[WizardOfAz]

Originally posted by kerouac9
I didn't say that for myself, at least not lately.

Funny, I took it from your post this morning.

 

[Sandan]

I think 10-6 is optimistic as well but at this time of year I'm allowed to be optimistic.

I've already been on record on the board as thinking 7-9 wins as realistic. But I guess that unless I willing to prdict 0-4 wins some people will class me as eternally optimistic but then they havn't seen the team up close.

 

[Rivercard]

Originally posted by nidan
I think 10-6 is optimistic as well but at this time of year I'm allowed to be optimistic.

I've already been on record on the board as thinking 7-9 wins as realistic. But I guess that unless I willing to prdict 0-4 wins some people will class me as eternally optimistic but then they havn't seen the team up close.

Don't let the darksiders get you down Nidan. Nothing wrong with being optomistic when the team has shown a lot of promise.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by nidan
Part of it is that I don't see what "historical expecations" has to do with what we expect the team to do this year.

What I'm talking more about is the historical performance of, say, your average rookie wideout, or how very, very young teams perform in the NFL, or the number of teams that Jeff Blake has led to a winning record.

As I've said before, winning makes for the best chemistry. The San Diego Chargers of the last 5 or 6 years have had one of the best team-spirit, good-lockerroom teams in the NFL, and have been sitting at home in January for all of those 5 or 6 years, usually waiting to exercise their high first-round draft choices.

"No quit" and "high motor" only gets you so far in this league, like to a 4-2 record. After that, level of talent starts to kick in as people start figuring out the smoke and mirrors. Can the talent of this team do better than a 1-9 record? Yeah. Can they make that 1-9 into 5-4? Personally, I don't think so, but I think that they have the talent, this year, to make it 3-6. Maybe.

 

[Sandan]

Originally posted by kerouac9
based on whether or not a Hall-of-Famer had caressed your tape recorder

That's called creative writing, it's there to make the article interesting and add a little humor. If you really think that anybody thinks that is a basis for predicting the teams record this year you need some serious consoling. In reality you were just taking a cheap shot at Jo.

If you don't think that having Emmit come in every day early to work out has an effect, then you know little about managing people. It makes a statement that working out at the facility together is important. If a future Hall of Fame player like Emmit thinks it is important who are [you] (insert player name here) to disagree.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by nidan
That's called creative writing, it's there to make the article interesting and add a little humor. If you really think that anybody thinks that is a basis for predicting the teams record this year you need some serious consoling. In reality you were just taking a cheap shot at Jo.

If you don't think that having Emmit come in every day early to work out has an effect, then you know little about managing people. It makes a statement that working out at the facility together is important. If a future Hall of Fame player like Emmit thinks it is important who are [you] (insert player name here) to disagree.

Settle down, now, nidan. I was exercising a little creative writing, also. What I'm saying is that the people who are all about making the playoffs this season seem to be riding a lot of "feeling," "aura," "gut," "impression," etc. For me, as a person that likes to look at hard numbers and performance, that's a hard arguement to respond to, since it rings a little hollow.

 

[Sandan]

Originally posted by kerouac9
What I'm talking more about is the historical performance of, say, your average rookie wideout, or how very, very young teams perform in the NFL, or the number of teams that Jeff Blake has led to a winning record.

As I've said before, winning makes for the best chemistry. The San Diego Chargers of the last 5 or 6 years have had one of the best team-spirit, good-lockerroom teams in the NFL, and have been sitting at home in January for all of those 5 or 6 years, usually waiting to exercise their high first-round draft choices.

"No quit" and "high motor" only gets you so far in this league, like to a 4-2 record. After that, level of talent starts to kick in as people start figuring out the smoke and mirrors. Can the talent of this team do better than a 1-9 record? Yeah. Can they make that 1-9 into 5-4? Personally, I don't think so, but I think that they have the talent, this year, to make it 3-6. Maybe.

But that wasn't what you said and we don't have a very, very young team anymore, just some young players. Last year most of the team was young. Again you are overstating the facts to support your position.

Nobody said that a good attitude will realut in more wins. It just It is just one factor but it is a factor and it helps.

As for "only gets you so far in this league, like to a 4-2 record", again you convieniently exclude information that does not support your view. In this case which talent are you talking about

a) The talent playing
OR
b) The Talent on IR (which was huge last year)

 

[Sandan]

I'm not worked up just politely challanging some of your negative/pessimistic opinions.

That's what the board is for.

 

[Sandan]

Originally posted by kerouac9
For me, as a person that likes to look at hard numbers and performance, that's a hard arguement to respond to, since it rings a little hollow.

But you don't have those numbers yet ?

Emmit for example has been running behind an appaling OL for a while with a joke for a QB. Small wonder that his numbers have delined.

And before you say it, I know he is older now and if we try to run him for 40 carries a game he won't make it. But I don't think we will and from what I see, when we do play him he makes something happen.

 

[JasonKGME]

Originally posted by kerouac9
I didn't say that for myself, at least not lately. To say that the 10-6 view is "realistic" defies comprehension. There are those, like Harry, who would characterize the view, perhaps, as "realistic." It's as much a semi-meaningless label as "optimistic," when the fact could be "actual."

I would defend the "realistic" tag as saying that it seems more logical to base predictions on the factors that I'd noted above than to divine results based on whether or not a Hall-of-Famer had caressed your tape recorder and whom came or left the facility when, but it's obviously a minority view.

Sorry but that is your "opinion" Realistic and opinion are ofter too very different things. To you and Harry realistic is "4-12" To other more optimistic fans "10-6" is "realistic" Both of these are opinions at best at this point of the season. I mean lets be "realistic" The year after the Rams went 4-12, did anyone "realistically" expect the turn-around that they had? No, and if you say you did tell me honestly how you could have come to that opinion?

"Realistic" in my opinion and the average fans opinion I think is somewhere in between the "pessimistic and optimistic" point of vies right aroudn the 7-9 or 8-8 mark, but evidence of improvement. I think it is "unrealistic" for this team to go 10-6, but I also think it is "unrealistic" that this team end up with a worse record then we did last year, because I do think we improved our club, plus I think we have an easier schedule this year then last, so I have a hard time believing we end up with fewer wins then last year.

As for predicting how teams will do based on what they did the year before I for one would say that is not a good judge of results for the following year. there have been a # of teams who have had a very good season 1 year, and then the next year are bottom dwellers and vice versa. I think there is a combination of factors that have to be looked at and all given thier due. This does include last years performaace, but it also includes things such as "character" "attitude" and "leadership", these should be taken into account as well as the statistical history. Thats why like I said I am middle of the ground on my beliefs of results and say 8-8, but wouldnt be suprise to go 6-10 or 10-6. I would only be suprised if we did end up at 4-12 or 12-4, either of those scenarios and yes I would be in shock.

Please tho, dont say that anothers views are incomprehnsible, they are an opinion just as much as yours is an opinion and incomprehnsible to some of the "optimistic" croud. Say rather that you disagree, but that you hope that thier optimism proves your beliefs incorrect.

 

[Minix]

The author of the story wrote:

And some of the most entrenched fans will always find something to criticize. Even when the Redskins won their fourth Superbowl, someone was yelling about lack of consistency from the quarterbacks

Just out of curiosity and for a bit of journalistic integrity, can someone educate me on the four Redskin Super Bowl victories? Maybe I read it out of context.

 

[Brighteyes]

Sorry, Guys, my mistake.

The Redskins have appeared in 5 Superbowls, but only won 3.

They lost to Miami in Superbowl 7.

They beat Miami in Superbowl 17.

They also won Superbowl 22 and 26.

They lost Superbowl 18, to the Raiders.

- Jo

 

[RLakin]

Originally posted by JasonKGME

but I also think it is "unrealistic" that this team end up with a worse record then we did last year, because I do think we improved our club, plus I think we have an easier schedule this year then last, so I have a hard time believing we end up with fewer wins then last year.

As for predicting how teams will do based on what they did the year before I for one would say that is not a good judge of results for the following year. there have been a # of teams who have had a very good season 1 year, and then the next year are bottom dwellers and vice versa.

I'd hold off on the 1999 Rams analogies. Sullivan does have a good handle on the playcalling and I think the offense will be better but forgive me if I don't see the Warner/Faulk/Holt/Bruce/Pace equivalent on this 2003 Cards squad.

As to these other two paragraphs, isn't it contradictory to claim the Cards will be better because of a weak schedule but then say the previous year (by which that very schedule is based off of) is "misleading judge of results for the following year?"

 

[Minix]

Originally posted by Brighteyes
Sorry, Guys, my mistake.

The Redskins have appeared in 5 Superbowls, but only won 3.

They lost to Miami in Superbowl 7.

They beat Miami in Superbowl 17.

They also won Superbowl 22 and 26.

They lost Superbowl 18, to the Raiders.

- Jo

Great. Now you tell me.

I lost a $100 bar bet that the Redskins won 4 of them because of you.

I'm going get drunk. But a lot less drunk than I should be.

 

[KingofCards]

Originally posted by Minix
Great. Now you tell me.

I lost a $100 bar bet that the Redskins won 4 of them because of you.

I'm going get drunk. But a lot less drunk than I should be.

Thats not her fault, thats YOUR fault.

 

[JasonKGME]

Originally posted by RLakin
I'd hold off on the 1999 Rams analogies. Sullivan does have a good handle on the playcalling and I think the offense will be better but forgive me if I don't see the Warner/Faulk/Holt/Bruce/Pace equivalent on this 2003 Cards squad.

As to these other two paragraphs, isn't it contradictory to claim the Cards will be better because of a weak schedule but then say the previous year (by which that very schedule is based off of) is "misleading judge of results for the following year?"

No, because I dont base the weak schedule off of the idea of last years results but rather off of what I have seen from last year, added to the moves made by teams in draft, free agency, aging of younger players improving, aging of older players starting to lose some of thier speed/abilities, injuries, coaching changes, changes in offensive or defensive philosophies or styles, changes in ownership stances, player attitudes, leadership changes, team chemistry issues or pluses, and about a dozen other things.

Thats actually why I think it is so hard now and days to predict what one team will do in the upcoming season. There are SOOOOOO many offseason moves now and days with coaches and players, that it has become very difficult unless you can spend every waking moment checking out every team in the NFL to say for sure what will happen. This is often why the Cards are much maligned and we dont get much good peress, is simply because the national writers have to have some life outside of football, so they have a tendenancy to not spend too much time on certain teams they have "pigeon holed", thus the suprise emergence of the rams. The Rams were pigeon holed back then as being a really crappy team that would continue to be crappy because they had a crappy owner. Well, guess what, turns out the media and public were wrong. And my guess is if the media hadn't pigeon holed the team as being crappy and maybe spent some hard earned time on the team while maybe not predicting a super bowl win, might have at least put them in the playoffs.