LoyaltyisaCurse
IF AND WHEN HEALTHY...
I emailed this to [email protected] and I urge everyone here to let him have it. Lets show him how many Cardinals fans are out there!!!
Reineking ,
You might want to consider getting your facts straight before writing a garbage Op/Ed piece. Now I realize you're not a real journalist, but that does not excuse your mistakes. Below I will show what you wrote and underneath in red I will correct your mistakes or rebut your some of your "claims".
YOU:
Yes, Dennis Green (winner of exactly zero Super Bowls in his 10-year tenure with the Vikings, a traditional contender we might add), coupled with a slick new logo, will turn this moribund franchise around. Good luck, 23 coaches before him — including the legendary Curly Lambeau and a gentleman actually named "Winner" (Charley Winner) couldn't get the Cardinals on top.
The Vikings have never won a Super Bowl; therefore they have never truly been on top. Plus, your assertion that Dennis Green benefited from this franchise's history and not from his coaching is a complete farce.
You: But, who's really a Cardinals fan? Or, more important, who'd ever admit to being a Cardinals fan?
There are plenty of loyal Cardinals fans, simply go to ArizonaSportsFans.com to see and read the real intelligent discussions of Cards' football. Secondly, I--along with many others--am not afraid to admit to being a true fan. It is easy for the average "fan" of football to be a huge fan of winning teams. How many new Patriots fans have sprouted since they have become perennial Super Bowl participants? I have a lot more respect for the true fans that stick by their franchise through thick and thin, not the winning flavor of the year.
YOU: Something rare happened in 2004 that gave Cardinals fans hope for 2005 ... the team didn't finish in last place (of course in some strange form of poetic justice, the last-place 49ers beat the Cardinals twice).
Although there have been some very, very, lean years in Cardinal land, the team has only finished in last place 11 times since 1980--last I looked that is 24 years of football. And yes, it is almost 50% of the time (which is terrible) I would hardly call it rare.
YOU: Obviously, a uniform change — and not an off-season or two of shrewd moves and clever draft selections — will make the team a contender.
Here is another example of your failure to get your facts straight: Last off-season Dennis Green and the Cardinals brought in Bert Berry, 15 1/2 sacks later Berry is on his way to Hawaii. Then in the 2004 draft, Green/Cardinals had one of the strongest rookie classes in the draft: Larry Fitzgerald, Darnell Dockett, Karlos Dansby, and Alex Steopanovich. All of these rookies became starters and contributed in huge ways to the team. I would argue that no other team in last years draft had a deeper more impact effect on a team than the Cardinals.
YOU: Mediocrity wasn't just relegated to the offense. The Cardinals also sported the NFL's 21st-ranked defense in 2004.
Now this is the one that truly takes the cake! A simple fact check on NFL.com or Pro-Football-reference.com would tell you that the Cardinals finished #12 in total defense. That is a whole lot better than mediocre. Now, you may have sorted the rankings by an individual stat and picked the lowest ranked category to fit the skewed picture of the Cardinals you are trying to portray.
I don't know what is more embarrassing you not getting your facts straight, or your editor not checking and verifying your claims before the story is published. Or--better yet--maybe the editor let it slide to expose what a hack you to show the country that you can’t even apply the most basic concepts in Journalism 101.
Op-Ed pieces do not shield you from the need to support your claims with strong evidence and facts. It is that fact alone that renders any valid point you have moot, because it is clouded with mistakes and outright disregard for the truth.
YOU: Look at what that did for the Broncos in 1997 (Super Bowl victory in first year with new uniforms), Buccaneers in 1997 (suddenly competitive after years of futility after going from florescent orange to pewter power, and then eventually winning a Super Bowl too), Titans in 1999 (Super Bowl appearance, but bitter last-second loss to Rams) and Giants in 2000 (Super Bowl appearance, but complete throttling at hands of Ravens, another team that features a sleeker, meaner bird as its logo).
Cardinals players haven't been able to deliver a championship.
So in 2005, the Cardinals will put their hopes in a new wardrobe to help erase a half century of misery.
Nobody in the Cardinals organization or their fan base believes that a uniform change is the key to winning games. What the uniform change does do is symbolize the Cardinals desire to tell the fans and the NFL that this is a team that is now committed to change, to not be the same ol' Cardinals, and to show the NFL community, fans, and players that this will be a team that has a new commitment to winning.
Reineking ,
You might want to consider getting your facts straight before writing a garbage Op/Ed piece. Now I realize you're not a real journalist, but that does not excuse your mistakes. Below I will show what you wrote and underneath in red I will correct your mistakes or rebut your some of your "claims".
YOU:
Yes, Dennis Green (winner of exactly zero Super Bowls in his 10-year tenure with the Vikings, a traditional contender we might add), coupled with a slick new logo, will turn this moribund franchise around. Good luck, 23 coaches before him — including the legendary Curly Lambeau and a gentleman actually named "Winner" (Charley Winner) couldn't get the Cardinals on top.
The Vikings have never won a Super Bowl; therefore they have never truly been on top. Plus, your assertion that Dennis Green benefited from this franchise's history and not from his coaching is a complete farce.
You: But, who's really a Cardinals fan? Or, more important, who'd ever admit to being a Cardinals fan?
There are plenty of loyal Cardinals fans, simply go to ArizonaSportsFans.com to see and read the real intelligent discussions of Cards' football. Secondly, I--along with many others--am not afraid to admit to being a true fan. It is easy for the average "fan" of football to be a huge fan of winning teams. How many new Patriots fans have sprouted since they have become perennial Super Bowl participants? I have a lot more respect for the true fans that stick by their franchise through thick and thin, not the winning flavor of the year.
YOU: Something rare happened in 2004 that gave Cardinals fans hope for 2005 ... the team didn't finish in last place (of course in some strange form of poetic justice, the last-place 49ers beat the Cardinals twice).
Although there have been some very, very, lean years in Cardinal land, the team has only finished in last place 11 times since 1980--last I looked that is 24 years of football. And yes, it is almost 50% of the time (which is terrible) I would hardly call it rare.
YOU: Obviously, a uniform change — and not an off-season or two of shrewd moves and clever draft selections — will make the team a contender.
Here is another example of your failure to get your facts straight: Last off-season Dennis Green and the Cardinals brought in Bert Berry, 15 1/2 sacks later Berry is on his way to Hawaii. Then in the 2004 draft, Green/Cardinals had one of the strongest rookie classes in the draft: Larry Fitzgerald, Darnell Dockett, Karlos Dansby, and Alex Steopanovich. All of these rookies became starters and contributed in huge ways to the team. I would argue that no other team in last years draft had a deeper more impact effect on a team than the Cardinals.
YOU: Mediocrity wasn't just relegated to the offense. The Cardinals also sported the NFL's 21st-ranked defense in 2004.
Now this is the one that truly takes the cake! A simple fact check on NFL.com or Pro-Football-reference.com would tell you that the Cardinals finished #12 in total defense. That is a whole lot better than mediocre. Now, you may have sorted the rankings by an individual stat and picked the lowest ranked category to fit the skewed picture of the Cardinals you are trying to portray.
I don't know what is more embarrassing you not getting your facts straight, or your editor not checking and verifying your claims before the story is published. Or--better yet--maybe the editor let it slide to expose what a hack you to show the country that you can’t even apply the most basic concepts in Journalism 101.
Op-Ed pieces do not shield you from the need to support your claims with strong evidence and facts. It is that fact alone that renders any valid point you have moot, because it is clouded with mistakes and outright disregard for the truth.
YOU: Look at what that did for the Broncos in 1997 (Super Bowl victory in first year with new uniforms), Buccaneers in 1997 (suddenly competitive after years of futility after going from florescent orange to pewter power, and then eventually winning a Super Bowl too), Titans in 1999 (Super Bowl appearance, but bitter last-second loss to Rams) and Giants in 2000 (Super Bowl appearance, but complete throttling at hands of Ravens, another team that features a sleeker, meaner bird as its logo).
Cardinals players haven't been able to deliver a championship.
So in 2005, the Cardinals will put their hopes in a new wardrobe to help erase a half century of misery.
Nobody in the Cardinals organization or their fan base believes that a uniform change is the key to winning games. What the uniform change does do is symbolize the Cardinals desire to tell the fans and the NFL that this is a team that is now committed to change, to not be the same ol' Cardinals, and to show the NFL community, fans, and players that this will be a team that has a new commitment to winning.
