PFT on Kliff

[AZCardsWin]

Well, he absolutely should be on the hot seat. It's been six years since he's had a winning season at any level of football and total he only has two, in 9 years of coaching. Any thought he's suddenly going to become a consistent winner is just optimism on overdrive.

Running the QB option (with a hurt KM) vs Rams on a 3rd and 18 and then punting the season away on 4th down will do that. KK has a A LOT to prove in 2021.

 

[football karma]

Not only is Kliff bad, the staff he assembled is bad. The Cards have one of the worst coaching staffs in the league.
People are all over Vance Joseph but he’s probably the best, most accomplished coach on the staff.

no to pick on you Cbus-- and i get the pov here

but:

if the Cardinal coaching staff is really bottom 5 in the NFL,

doesn't that imply that the roster last year, even post CJ going down, was a 10 win minimum roster

 

[dreamcastrocks]

You are WAY too easy to please. The NFL isn't an "incremental progress" league. Teams routinely turn it around in one season; you're happy that we had a 2-game improvement over the "worst team in Cardinal history." That would have been better if last season would have seen much progress, but we really didn't. Same glaring mistakes, same bone-headed decisions, and, after two seasons, adding the #1 QB and arguably the best WR out there, we made it to .500. Whoopdy doo. Barely squeaking into the playoffs would be more incremental progress, and guess what? That puts us behind the 8-ball with KM's contract, and we'll have spent his first three years making incremental progress. NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Can we progress more than incrementally this season? It's possible. KK doesn't inspire confidence in me that he can manage that.

Completely disagree. Young teams that have no real history of winning need incremental progress. Perennial winners can go from worst to first in the league, sure. Most teams need to learn how to win; it just doesn't come to them overnight. This can be said about most sports as well, not just the NFL.

 

[QuebecCard]

"A lot of people are great at that, managing games, and that’s not my strong suit"

The full quote:
Kingsbury was asked what it would take for him ever to give up playcalling duties.

"I would retire," Kingsbury said. "It's part of the game, I couldn't just sit there and watch it. A lot of people are great at that, managing games, and that's not my strong suit. My strong suit is calling it and interacting with the quarterback. I've got to play to my strengths."

Before Bruce Arians turned over playcalling duties to Byron Leftwich he probably would have said the very same thing.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

The full quote:
Kingsbury was asked what it would take for him ever to give up playcalling duties.

"I would retire," Kingsbury said. "It's part of the game, I couldn't just sit there and watch it. A lot of people are great at that, managing games, and that's not my strong suit. My strong suit is calling it and interacting with the quarterback. I've got to play to my strengths."

Before Bruce Arians turned over playcalling duties to Byron Leftwich he probably would have said the very same thing.

Are you seriously thinking the rest of the quote makes it better?

If your strong suit is calling plays and working with a QB, maybe that should be your responsibility! But managing games is a vital part of being a head coach, and he's done a really poor job of that so far.

 

[Cheesebeef]

The full quote:
Kingsbury was asked what it would take for him ever to give up playcalling duties.

"I would retire," Kingsbury said. "It's part of the game, I couldn't just sit there and watch it. A lot of people are great at that, managing games, and that's not my strong suit. My strong suit is calling it and interacting with the quarterback. I've got to play to my strengths."

Before Bruce Arians turned over playcalling duties to Byron Leftwich he probably would have said the very same thing.

is this last statement actually based on anything, or are we supposed to believe it simply because you underlined it?

Regardless, Arians showed that he could both manage games AND coach the offense to pretty great heights, as he led the team to a 10-6, 11-5, 13-3 record while handling double-duty through 2015. I mean, Leftwich was never even the OC during Arians' time in Arizona. So, I have no clue what bringing Arians into a conversation about Kliff has to do with anything.

 

[QuebecCard]

Are you seriously thinking the rest of the quote makes it better?

If your strong suit is calling plays and working with a QB, maybe that should be your responsibility! But managing games is a vital part of being a head coach, and he's done a really poor job of that so far.

"Not my strong suit" does not mean I can't do it, but simply that there is something I do better.

I prefer this recognition of limitation with the proviso that one works on improvement: YOU?

 

[ASUCHRIS]

"Not my strong suite" does not mean I can't do it, but simply that there is something I do better.

Exactly, and he should do what he's better at! Why are we trying to make him something he's not? He's had 2 years to show it on the professional level, and game management/team management have been inarguably poor. The penalties and complete lack of discipline have been egregious. On top of that, it's the basic game management/coaching errors. Here's a good breakdown that doesn't even include the Rams debacle:https://thedraftnetwork.com/articles/kliff-kingsbury-arizona-cardinals-play-calls-decisions

I prefer this recognition of limitation with the proviso that one works on improvement. YOU?

Recognition of limitations is an admirable quality and a step in the right direction, but without improvement, it's just noise.

 

[QuebecCard]

Exactly, and he should do what he's better at! Why are we trying to make him something he's not? He's had 2 years to show it on the professional level, and game management/team management have been inarguably poor. The penalties and complete lack of discipline have been egregious. On top of that, it's the basic game management/coaching errors. Here's a good breakdown that doesn't even include the Rams debacle:https://thedraftnetwork.com/articles/kliff-kingsbury-arizona-cardinals-play-calls-decisions

Recognition of limitations is an admirable quality and a step in the right direction, but without improvement, it's just noise.

And precluding improvement is just talk.

I'll give you a name of a Head Coach who once had a reputation as a poor game/team manager.

Andy Reid.

 

[QuebecCard]

is this last statement actually based on anything, or are we supposed to believe it simply because you underlined it?

Regardless, Arians showed that he could both manage games AND coach the offense to pretty great heights, as he led the team to a 10-6, 11-5, 13-3 record while handling double-duty through 2015. I mean, Leftwich was never even the OC during Arians' time in Arizona. So, I have no clue what bringing Arians into a conversation about Kliff has to do with anything.

When he first came to AZ, Arians made it clear that game calling was his thing and it kept him interested in the game. There are plenty of articles, clips in support. He gained trust in Leftwich in AZ and then turned the playcalling reins over to him in Tampa.

I'm a fan of Arian's, but let's not compare the quality of the roster he inherited with what KK has had to manage in his first two seasons.

This is definitely the season that KK has to show real growth.

 

[Stout]

Completely disagree. Young teams that have no real history of winning need incremental progress. Perennial winners can go from worst to first in the league, sure. Most teams need to learn how to win; it just doesn't come to them overnight. This can be said about most sports as well, not just the NFL.

Completely disagree back

Were this 20 years ago, I'd completely agree. The modern era NFL very much does NOT favor slow builds. Free agency, escalating cap hits from stars coming off rookie deals (cough cough KM cough cough) mean that, unless you have one of the best GMs out there (we don't), you're going to leak your top talent and will never get over the hump if you go for a slow build. It just isn't feasible. When you get talents like KM and Nuke, you get better fast. If you try a slow build, you're running in quicksand.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Completely disagree back

Were this 20 years ago, I'd completely agree. The modern era NFL very much does NOT favor slow builds. Free agency, escalating cap hits from stars coming off rookie deals (cough cough KM cough cough) mean that, unless you have one of the best GMs out there (we don't), you're going to leak your top talent and will never get over the hump if you go for a slow build. It just isn't feasible. When you get talents like KM and Nuke, you get better fast. If you try a slow build, you're running in quicksand.

I'm not talking about being able to add talent to turn your franchise around. I'm talking about getting a team that rarely ever wins and making them a contender, consistently.

Can you turn a 7-9 team to a 13-3 team, sure.... with a good coaching hire and a stockpile of talent with via FA or the draft. Can you do it consistently with a team like the Browns, Lions, Jags, Cards etc that don't know how to win when the pressure is on. I don't think so.

 

[TK421]

Initially I had high hopes for KK but I think I was just caught up with the hype. I think he's terrible. And for those saying he led us from a 3-13 to 8-8 record, with the talent we had on our roster last year we might have ended up with a 11-5 record with a legit nfl coach.

And we still have so many on this board either whining about our HC, but even more wanting our GM’s scalp.

Well technically our GM does have alot of scalp to spare.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Initially I had high hopes for KK but I think I was just caught up with the hype. I think he's terrible. And for those saying he led us from a 3-13 to 8-8 record, with the talent we had on our roster last year we might have ended up with a 11-5 record with a legit nfl coach.






Well technically our GM does have alot of scalp to spare.

So on this board I constantly hear Keim sucks and Kliff sucks.

It's hard for both to be definitively true. I lean more towards both being mediocre, with Kliff getting much more benefit of the doubt considering how much better the offense is. Hell, the defense was even vastly improved last year too.

 

[Solar7]

So on this board I constantly hear Keim sucks and Kliff sucks.

It's hard for both to be definitively true. I lean more towards both being mediocre, with Kliff getting much more benefit of the doubt considering how much better the offense is. Hell, the defense was even vastly improved last year too.

1. Aye Caramba, the board system changed shockingly.

2. I firmly believe the difference is Kyler. I think he's naturally talented enough to overcome bad coaching and questionable roster construction, especially in his healthy stretch last year.

3. Keim's draft metrics have him at the bottom, there's no questioning that. Kliff also hasn't won anything to suggest he's a winning coach.

Are you convinced we're on the path to building a championship roster?

 

[BritCard]

You are WAY too easy to please. The NFL isn't an "incremental progress" league. Teams routinely turn it around in one season; you're happy that we had a 2-game improvement over the "worst team in Cardinal history." That would have been better if last season would have seen much progress, but we really didn't. Same glaring mistakes, same bone-headed decisions, and, after two seasons, adding the #1 QB and arguably the best WR out there, we made it to .500. Whoopdy doo. Barely squeaking into the playoffs would be more incremental progress, and guess what? That puts us behind the 8-ball with KM's contract, and we'll have spent his first three years making incremental progress. NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Can we progress more than incrementally this season? It's possible. KK doesn't inspire confidence in me that he can manage that.

Exactly this. This is not an incremental league. Incremental improvement in results does not mean you are incrementally improving as a team (or as a HC).

You can improve results simply by having a more favorable schedule. Heck, you could technically get worse and still improve your record based on your SOS alone.

 

[BritCard]

I'm not talking about being able to add talent to turn your franchise around. I'm talking about getting a team that rarely ever wins and making them a contender, consistently.

Can you turn a 7-9 team to a 13-3 team, sure.... with a good coaching hire and a stockpile of talent with via FA or the draft. Can you do it consistently with a team like the Browns, Lions, Jags, Cards etc that don't know how to win when the pressure is on. I don't think so.

The Bucs just went from 2-14, 6-10, 9-7, 5-11, 5-11, 7-9 to 11-5 and the Superbowl and have built a roster to win consistently for the next 2 years.

The Chiefs switch was just a quick.

How do you teach a team to have a winning mentality when half our roster changes from year to year?

 

[BullheadCardFan]

1. Aye Caramba, the board system changed shockingly.

Opened this site up this morning and wow it was different

Took me a minute to get used to it

 

[Stout]

I'm not talking about being able to add talent to turn your franchise around. I'm talking about getting a team that rarely ever wins and making them a contender, consistently.

Can you turn a 7-9 team to a 13-3 team, sure.... with a good coaching hire and a stockpile of talent with via FA or the draft. Can you do it consistently with a team like the Browns, Lions, Jags, Cards etc that don't know how to win when the pressure is on. I don't think so.

Gotcha. Yeah, it's hard to be a consistent contender, I'll grant you that. Turning it around, though, getting to the playoffs or having a deep run? That's not something you can inch toward in the NFL. Even with the becoming a consistent contender, you MUST, MUST, MUST have the coach and GM to do it. I don't see either on this team.

 

[Zeno]

Arians wasn’t fired. He supposedly retired. When ownership continuously makes poor choices on who they hire, then the problem is still with ownership.

I didn't say Arians was fired.

 

[QuebecCard]

Gotcha. Yeah, it's hard to be a consistent contender, I'll grant you that. Turning it around, though, getting to the playoffs or having a deep run? That's not something you can inch toward in the NFL. Even with the becoming a consistent contender, you MUST, MUST, MUST have the coach and GM to do it. I don't see either on this team.

FYI:

The number of players still with us from the 3-13 team: 10
The number of players still with us from the 5-10-1 team: 27
The number of players still with us from the 8-8 team: 40

 

[Stout]

FYI:

The number of players still with us from the 3-13 team: 10
The number of players still with us from the 5-10-1 team: 27
The number of players still with us from the 8-8 team: 40

And? Retaining large numbers of players doesn't equate to retaining the RIGHT players. If you have a garbage defense, for instance, and return all the starters except your lone pro bowler, have you done a good job with your own free agents?

 

[QuebecCard]

And? Retaining large numbers of players doesn't equate to retaining the RIGHT players. If you have a garbage defense, for instance, and return all the starters except your lone pro bowler, have you done a good job with your own free agents?

And... If you want to make that case in detail, I look forward to reading it.

I merely point out the significant changes in player personnel since KK arrived and that we likely have a more cohesive unit going into this season.

 

[BritCard]

FYI:

The number of players still with us from the 3-13 team: 10
The number of players still with us from the 5-10-1 team: 27
The number of players still with us from the 8-8 team: 40

How many are starters and not specialists/depth guys?

The only starters from 2018 I can think of are Hump, Kirk, CJ, Golden (after leaving), and Budda.

From 2019 you can add Maxx Williams, Pugh, Murphy and Jalen. If you want to be generous add Zach Allen although he's not a starter.

That's a lot of turnover. Especially on defense.

 

[Krangodnzr]

1. Aye Caramba, the board system changed shockingly.

2. I firmly believe the difference is Kyler. I think he's naturally talented enough to overcome bad coaching and questionable roster construction, especially in his healthy stretch last year.

3. Keim's draft metrics have him at the bottom, there's no questioning that. Kliff also hasn't won anything to suggest he's a winning coach.

Are you convinced we're on the path to building a championship roster?

1. I like the change. Looks cleaner.

2. Hilarious take from someone who was so opposed with taking Murray and still tends to act like you don't think he is that good quite often. I think you are taking this position just so you can also take a swipe at Kliff, because you tend to talk down Murray in a vacuum. Even more hilarious is that I think that Kliff has to scheme around how BAD Murray is at completing intermediate range passes. Murray is a bottom five QB at throwing to this level; it is a huge liability for the offense, but I do think it's fixable long term.

3. Keim is flawed, but I would argue he's probably closer to league average when you look at free agency and trades as well. What you can expect from a league average GM is around 8-8 record, which Keim's overall record is a smidge better than that. A league average GM won't build sustained winners, so I'd be inclined to move on, but the reality is that I think the team just hires Wilson or Harris and those two are just an extension of the Keim era.

I don't know if the Cardinals are on the path to building a championship roster. There IS a path to this team being really good and getting hot at the right time, but that path is built on a lot of "ifs". Watt will have to work out, the CB situation will have to work, another WR with have to step up, the running game will need to improve a little, and the OL will have to solidify. Like I said....a lot of ifs, but it's certainly NOT out of the realm of possibilities. During Keim's first three seasons as GM, the ifs panned out more often than not.