Rapoport: Cardinals trading out of #3 very very likely

RON_IN_OC

https://www.ronevansrealty.com
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Posts
25,982
Reaction score
33,025
Location
BirdGangThing
Would this be a worst case scenario? QB's go one-two and the Cardinals want Anderson. They tell the Colts (who want a QB) that the Raiders have approached them and want to move up to #3. So the Colts agree to flip the 3-4 with Arizona and will send Arizona a pick. So the Cardinals make that trade, with the intention of letting the Colts draft a QB since they want Anderson, anyway. But then Seattle sitting at #5, who also want Anderson, makes a trade with the Colts and picks Anderson at #3. Could this happen, and the Colts end up at #5 and select their QB since Arizona and Seattle go Defense.
No, because the Raiders at 7, regardless of Jimmy G (really only a 1 year contract) also want a QB for real and they can trade with Cards at 4 to get in front of Colts. End of day, Cards trade down twice and still are in the top 7.
 

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
37,433
Reaction score
27,650
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Would this be a worst case scenario? QB's go one-two and the Cardinals want Anderson. They tell the Colts (who want a QB) that the Raiders have approached them and want to move up to #3. So the Colts agree to flip the 3-4 with Arizona and will send Arizona a pick. So the Cardinals make that trade, with the intention of letting the Colts draft a QB since they want Anderson, anyway. But then Seattle sitting at #5, who also want Anderson, makes a trade with the Colts and picks Anderson at #3. Could this happen, and the Colts end up at #5 and select their QB since Arizona and Seattle go Defense.
Theoretically it could, but there’s only so much time on the clock for this to happen
 

MadCardDisease

Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
20,063
Reaction score
12,571
Location
Chandler, Az
Burn Baby Burn!!!!

Monti is essentially Razing Keims Castle of Ineptitude from the last couple of seasons. He is burning it all to the ground. This team will be rebuilt initially through the draft. That means they will need a lot of draft capital. So I could see them moving out of the #3 spot if the offer blows their socks off. However passing on Anderson would be very difficult so it would have to be a King's Ransom to get the Cards to move.
 

bankybruce

All In!
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2003
Posts
27,091
Reaction score
19,398
Location
Nowhere
QB premium is an automatic additional 1st round pick...add that in, and
Not the 3rd QB taken.

We moved up 5 spots into the top 10 and didn't have to give up that much.


"The Cards traded up to the No. 10 overall pick to snag UCLA quarterback Josh Rosen.

Arizona sent the No. 15 pick, a 3rd-round pick (No. 79) and a fifth-round selection (No. 152) to the Oakland Raiders for the right to take the signal-caller."
 

Garthshort

ASFN Addict
Joined
Aug 11, 2002
Posts
9,204
Reaction score
5,234
Location
Scarsdale, NY
Theoretically it could, but there’s only so much time on the clock for this to happen
Keep in mind that the initial trade with the Colts, swapping the 3-4 picks could be made before the Draft even starts. Just as the trade between Chicago and Carolina was made about a week ago.
 

SECTION 11

vibraslap
Joined
Oct 11, 2002
Posts
16,096
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Between the Pipes
Not the 3rd QB taken.

We moved up 5 spots into the top 10 and didn't have to give up that much.


"The Cards traded up to the No. 10 overall pick to snag UCLA quarterback Josh Rosen.

Arizona sent the No. 15 pick, a 3rd-round pick (No. 79) and a fifth-round selection (No. 152) to the Oakland Raiders for the right to take the signal-caller."
They knew. The Rosen factor.
 

Phrazbit

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Posts
19,883
Reaction score
10,764
If only Rondale was healthy more often and he had a chance to bring it on a consistent basis. Just filling up box scores... 3 catches 11 yards here, 5 catches for 32 there, maybe a huge week where we really look to incorporate him and he racks up 8 catches for 52 yards.

It would be sick.
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,332
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
What is the approach for a 100 years of losing franchise?

Tired old nonsense from bitter whinge more fans looking for an excuse to be miserable.

Quantify "100 years of losing"? I assume you mean we never won a superbowl?

31 teams every year don't win a superbowl. Are they are all losers? Eagles are losers? Bills are losers? Bengals are losers?

The superbowl has only been around since 1967 so at best you could say "56 years of losing".

The Bills have never won a superbowl or championship. So they are more losers than us right as we won one in 1947? Bills fans must be miserable. Bengals have never won a superbowl. I guess they must be miserable too? Vikings never won a superbowl. Must suck to be them.

Obviously how long you have gone since last winning a championship or what you did 97 years ago or even 20 years ago has no bearing on anything. So why keep bringing it up?

"100 years of losing" is a huge strawman used my people that really mean "I'm angry our roster isn't full of all pro's 2 days into FA" to justify their moaning when people call out their over the top negativity. As you just did with @Card'em.
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,332
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
How people on this message board feel about Ossenfort and Gannon has zero impact on how well they will do their jobs.

It's possible that Michael Bidwill has suddenly become a genius at finding and hiring talented people. After three decades at being a mediocrity at basically everything. It's possible!

But, it's still unlikely. There's no rulebook on hiring GMs because it's such a rare event. Maybe one job comes open every couple years. McKinsey or someone did a study on how to hire the best head coach or general manager to see if there are efficiencies to be found.

They discovered that teams basically just hire the second guy on a team that won the most games over the past three seasons. No recommendations on a better way.

This was a very long winded way to agree with what @Card'em said
 

Phrazbit

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Posts
19,883
Reaction score
10,764
Tired old nonsense from bitter whinge more fans looking for an excuse to be miserable.

Quantify "100 years of losing"? I assume you mean we never won a superbowl?

31 teams every year don't win a superbowl. Are they are all losers? Eagles are losers? Bills are losers? Bengals are losers?

The superbowl has only been around since 1967 so at best you could say "56 years of losing".

The Bills have never won a superbowl or championship. So they are more losers than us right as we won one in 1947? Bills fans must be miserable. Bengals have never won a superbowl. I guess they must be miserable too? Vikings never won a superbowl. Must suck to be them.

Obviously how long you have gone since last winning a championship or what you did 97 years ago or even 20 years ago has no bearing on anything. So why keep bringing it up?

"100 years of losing" is a huge strawman used my people that really mean "I'm angry our roster isn't full of all pro's 2 days into FA" to justify their moaning when people call out their over the top negativity. As you just did with @Card'em.

Quantitatively, no one has lost as much as we have.

We have had a record above .500 25 times in the last 100 years.

Despite being the oldest franchise in the league we've played in the 4th fewest playoff games. The only teams with less playoff appearances are 75 years younger than the Cards.

We could go undefeated for about 8 years straight and we'd still have the most losses in NFL history.
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,332
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
Quantitatively, no one has lost as much as we have.

We have had a record above .500 25 times in the last 100 years.

Despite being the oldest franchise in the league we've played in the 4th fewest playoff games. The only teams with less playoff appearances are 75 years younger than the Cards.

We could go undefeated for about 8 years straight and we'd still have the most losses in NFL history.

We are the oldest franchise in the league. Quantitatively, no matter how good we were or were not we would also likely have lost more than anyone by just being around longer.

Were you around for even half of that? What do losses you never experienced matter?

In the 16 seasons since 2007 the Cards have been .500 or better 10 times and been to the playoffs 5 times. Absolutely the best period of Cardinals football in it's history. But let's dwell on previous 86 seasons. 50+ of which even the oldest fans here weren't around for.

The Jag's have picked top 10 in the draft 14 of the past 15 seasons. 8 times they picked in the top 5. Since their inception in 27 years ago they have only picked outside the top 10 8 times.

Do you think their fans are moaning about their history right now? Of course they aren't. Because it's something bitter fans only bring up when they are unhappy about the current situation.

It's a McGuffin to dismiss completely legitimate criticism of massively over the top pessimism.
 

slanidrac16

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Posts
15,081
Reaction score
14,607
Location
Plainfield, Il.
Defending the history of this organization is like saying General Custard thought the Indians were friendly.
I really don’t care what happened the previous 100 years. However, this club has a reputation of getting a seat in the back of the NFL bus, like it or not.
 

Mainstreet

Cruisin' Mainstreet
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Posts
113,456
Reaction score
53,140
Would this be a worst case scenario? QB's go one-two and the Cardinals want Anderson. They tell the Colts (who want a QB) that the Raiders have approached them and want to move up to #3. So the Colts agree to flip the 3-4 with Arizona and will send Arizona a pick. So the Cardinals make that trade, with the intention of letting the Colts draft a QB since they want Anderson, anyway. But then Seattle sitting at #5, who also want Anderson, makes a trade with the Colts and picks Anderson at #3. Could this happen, and the Colts end up at #5 and select their QB since Arizona and Seattle go Defense.

This is why the Cardinals cannot be locked onto Anderson if they trade down.
 

PJ1

ASFN Icon
Joined
Sep 21, 2002
Posts
11,970
Reaction score
4,862
Location
Nashville TN.
Tired old nonsense from bitter whinge more fans looking for an excuse to be miserable.

Quantify "100 years of losing"? I assume you mean we never won a superbowl?

31 teams every year don't win a superbowl. Are they are all losers? Eagles are losers? Bills are losers? Bengals are losers?

The superbowl has only been around since 1967 so at best you could say "56 years of losing".

The Bills have never won a superbowl or championship. So they are more losers than us right as we won one in 1947? Bills fans must be miserable. Bengals have never won a superbowl. I guess they must be miserable too? Vikings never won a superbowl. Must suck to be them.

Obviously how long you have gone since last winning a championship or what you did 97 years ago or even 20 years ago has no bearing on anything. So why keep bringing it up?

"100 years of losing" is a huge strawman used my people that really mean "I'm angry our roster isn't full of all pro's 2 days into FA" to justify their moaning when people call out their over the top negativity. As you just did with @Card'em.
Are you for real? Quantify 100 years of losing? Looking for an excuse to be miserable? One of the worse sports franchises in history and you are accusing people of being negative? You just argue with people for the sake of argument. The worst type of trolling in my opinion.
 

ASUCHRIS

ONE HEART BEAT!!!
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Posts
15,537
Reaction score
12,417
Absolutely the best period of Cardinals football in it's history.
Not the flex you think it is! We're on 8 years and counting since a playoff win, they're handing you turd sandwiches and you're gobbling them down and asking for seconds.

Excuse the rest of us if we're a little reticent to choke down the same crap.
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,332
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
Are you for real? Quantify 100 years of losing? Looking for an excuse to be miserable? One of the worse sports franchises in history and you are accusing people of being negative? You just argue with people for the sake of argument. The worst type of trolling in my opinion.

Yeah I'm for real. Only the truly hardened whingers use "100 years of losing" nonsense. It's a phrase without meaning (or accuracy) used to justify their overly negative BS.

"I can't help being a fountain of misery. It's the 100 years of losings fault. I wasn't alive for over 60% of it and don't remember another 15% but it happened and I have absorbed it and made it a key tenet of my personality and now you all must suffer it as I dismiss every more and crap on everyone in the org and if you're not with me you're just a homer who doesn't understand".

Jog on man. You can tell who they are made for by the people liking these types of comments.

That doesn't mean nobody can disagree with anything but people who pull out "It's the 100 years fault, man" when someone says anything to counter the narrative are the worst.
 
Top