Steve Keim Vindicated

JeffGollin

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
20,472
Reaction score
3,056
Location
Holmdel, NJ
Vindication? (Playoffs)?

Vindication can only be found in winning.

Receiving a contract extension isn't vindication - it's another opportunity to win and earn vindication.

Sidebar Re QB's: Sometimes we forget that the NFL is a competitive business and what looks like an infallable FO strategy can be blown up by another team's even craftier move (As in - Watson and Mahomes).
 
OP
OP
Mitch

Mitch

Crawled Through 5 FB Fields
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Posts
13,405
Reaction score
2,982
Location
Wrentham, MA
Vindication? (Playoffs)?

Vindication can only be found in winning.

Receiving a contract extension isn't vindication - it's another opportunity to win and earn vindication.

Sidebar Re QB's: Sometimes we forget that the NFL is a competitive business and what looks like an infallable FO strategy can be blown up by another team's even craftier move (As in - Watson and Mahomes).

Well said, Jeff. But, without question, a 4 year contract extension (2 years before the first contract runs out) is a clear indication that MB does not blame SK in the least for the woes of the past two years. In his presser today, all MB talked about what how "successful" Keim has been.

While this contract extension is not a vindication for you or me or many of us here---it is for MB---and he's the one calling the shots.
 

DVontel

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Posts
12,505
Reaction score
21,528
Budda > Hooker. Budda isn’t the center fielder Hooker is, but he does just about everything better. Hell, Budda would’ve went top 20 had he been an inch taller.

I get slamming the Reddick pick, but you guys that still wanted Hooker confuses me. We arguably got the best Safety in the class.
 

Cbus cardsfan

Back to Back ASFN FFL Champion
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
21,232
Reaction score
6,825
I call BS. You're telling me we couldn't have drafted someone last year that would have seen the field more than Reddick? Or we couldn't have drafted someone instead of DJ that would have DRESSED at least ONCE that season? Keim deserves all the high-round draft criticism that comes his way. He just has to stop with the projects and stop trying to out-think everyone else in the draft with his small-school specials. These are the kinds of picks you make in the latter rounds, not in rounds 1-3.
Keim has made 15 picks in rounds 1-3 during his tenure. Not sure of the small school prospects you're talking about.
Here's the list of schools he taken players from in rounds 1-3:
2013-North Carolina, LSU, LSU
2014- Washingtin St., Notre Dame, North Carolina, Pittsburgh St.
2015- Florida, Missouri, Northen Iowa
2016- Mississippi, Texas A&M
2017- Temple, Washington, Grambling St.

Ironically, the two guys from the small schools have played the best in David Johnson and John Brown(until his sickness). Still, he's only selected 3 of 15 from small schools and all in the 3rd round.

edit: I forgot about HB in round 3. He's been the best. Funny, he's found his best players in round 3.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
38,426
Reaction score
21,371
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Temple is NOT a big football school. Temple CERTAINLY counts as a small school in this discussion. I guess it's recency bias on my part, because he took a small school prospect in rounds 1 AND 3 this past draft. C'mon now... :)
 

football karma

Happy in the pretense of knowledge
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Posts
14,946
Reaction score
13,354
Not sure of the small school prospects you're talking about.

keims issue isnt small school ..

its about drafting guys who fit into the:

"Given their superior size, speed, athleticism, this drafted player would have been drafted way higher if only they _________" formula.

He fills in the blank with:

"played in a Div 1 or Power 5 Conf school" -- John Brown, David Johnson, Chad Williams

"played more than one season at his current position" ; Brandon Williams, Hassan Reddick, Troy Nicklas

"stayed in school for another year" DJ Humphries, Nicklas as well

"weren't so misunderstood" Badger, Robert Nkemdiche


its not a terrible philosophy -- but i also think it produces volatility in how these guys turn out.

You get some super highs: David J, pre-knee Badger, even the John Brown of 2015.

you also get guys who just arent ready, but likely good: Humphries, Reddick. This burns cheap contract years of draft picks with little contribution.

you get guys who dont make it: Nicklas, B. Williams.
 
Last edited:

DVontel

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Posts
12,505
Reaction score
21,528
Temple is NOT a big football school. Temple CERTAINLY counts as a small school in this discussion. I guess it's recency bias on my part, because he took a small school prospect in rounds 1 AND 3 this past draft. C'mon now... :)
What do you acknowledge as a “small school”?

When I think of a small school, I think of FCS, D2, & D3 schools. Pretty much anything below FBS. Like Chad Williams with Grambling. Grambling(FCS) is a small school. I don’t consider Temple that. Temple might be small compared to school in the Power 5 conferences like SEC, Big 12, Big 10, etc, & what not, but it is still considered a big school. They were ranked in the top 25 not too long ago in 2015.

Now, if someone were to call it a blue chipper program, then that’s a different thing.
 

DVontel

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Posts
12,505
Reaction score
21,528
James Madison
Pittsburgh State
Murray State
Northern Iowa
Delaware State
Midwestern State
Harvard
Southeastern Louisana
Grambling

Schools that we have drafted from that aren’t FBS. That’s what I consider small. Schools like Buffalo, Temple, Florida Atlantic, San Jose State, etc, aren’t Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, but they’re still relatively big schools.
 

WisconsinCard

Herfin BIg Time
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Posts
15,494
Reaction score
6,649
Location
In A Cigar Bar Near You
Spot on about Hooker, Mitch. That should have been the pick, IMO.

Come on Stout you have said many time that you don't even watch college football. So are you just taking someone else's opinion? I will go on record to say that I was all about Hooker at 15 when our pick was made, but as it turned out Baker was a good consolation prize. Don't ya think?
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
38,426
Reaction score
21,371
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Come on Stout you have said many time that you don't even watch college football. So are you just taking someone else's opinion? I will go on record to say that I was all about Hooker at 15 when our pick was made, but as it turned out Baker was a good consolation prize. Don't ya think?

I watch college football, just not a lot of it. As a Penn State fan, I watch some Big 10 games. And as a New Castle, PA native, I followed Hooker's story. If you care to delve back in the draft thread, I was all about this pick on draft day. It felt like the stars were aligning for a great pick. If it wasn't Hooker, I at least wanted it to be someone worth the pick. I have been on record as not being a fan of Keim reaching, especially in the first round. Then we get a classic reach. Blech! It was a perfect storm, just the wrong kind for me.

Baker's been pretty good. I'm not knocking him at all. But we could have had Hooker, a different player in the 2nd, AND the draft capital we used to get Baker. Instead we drafted a player I didn't rate at all, who proved to be yet another 1st round, 1st year no show. There are some mitigating factors involved, but some of them involve moving a player to a position they never knew, which falls back onto Keim as far as blame.
 

WisconsinCard

Herfin BIg Time
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Posts
15,494
Reaction score
6,649
Location
In A Cigar Bar Near You
I watch college football, just not a lot of it. As a Penn State fan, I watch some Big 10 games. And as a New Castle, PA native, I followed Hooker's story. If you care to delve back in the draft thread, I was all about this pick on draft day. It felt like the stars were aligning for a great pick. If it wasn't Hooker, I at least wanted it to be someone worth the pick. I have been on record as not being a fan of Keim reaching, especially in the first round. Then we get a classic reach. Blech! It was a perfect storm, just the wrong kind for me.

Baker's been pretty good. I'm not knocking him at all. But we could have had Hooker, a different player in the 2nd, AND the draft capital we used to get Baker. Instead we drafted a player I didn't rate at all, who proved to be yet another 1st round, 1st year no show. There are some mitigating factors involved, but some of them involve moving a player to a position they never knew, which falls back onto Keim as far as blame.

Fair enough, I thought when I was in Pittsburgh, you told me you didn't watch much college football, my bad. Like I said I was all over Hooker when our pick came up, and did not get the HR pick at all. When we got BB in the second round, well then it started making sense. Lets just hope that HR turns the corner this year.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
38,426
Reaction score
21,371
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Fair enough, I thought when I was in Pittsburgh, you told me you didn't watch much college football, my bad. Like I said I was all over Hooker when our pick came up, and did not get the HR pick at all. When we got BB in the second round, well then it started making sense. Lets just hope that HR turns the corner this year.

No, you're right, I don't watch much. Many of those happen to be OSU games, is all, because of Penn State and the Big 10 :)
 

Harry

ASFN Consultant and Senior Writer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Posts
10,853
Reaction score
23,182
Location
Orlando, FL
Not sure how we are disagreeing, az jam, except that how do you explain Keim's so-called "aggressive" approach to free agency last year? I pretty much agree with most of what you are saying---and think that Keim should have put his foot down on Amos Jones and should have taken a far more aggressive approach to acquiring a QB---he should have done it three years ago instead of re-signing Drew Stanton to another 3 year deal at $4M a year. By now the new QB from 3 years ago would be well experienced and poised to excel.

I wonder if much of the Jones problem doesn’t fall on MB. His “stay in your lane philosophy” many have prohibited SK from insisting on Jones removal. It’s also possible that BA was guaranteed coach selection authority when he was signed. I’m going to be curious how things will work with the new regime.
 

az jam

ASFN Icon
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Posts
12,960
Reaction score
5,142
Location
Scottsdale, AZ
I wonder if much of the Jones problem doesn’t fall on MB. His “stay in your lane philosophy” many have prohibited SK from insisting on Jones removal. It’s also possible that BA was guaranteed coach selection authority when he was signed. I’m going to be curious how things will work with the new regime.

BA had control over his coaching staff. He was too stubborn to make any changes.
 

football karma

Happy in the pretense of knowledge
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Posts
14,946
Reaction score
13,354
I wonder if much of the Jones problem doesn’t fall on MB. His “stay in your lane philosophy” many have prohibited SK from insisting on Jones removal. It’s also possible that BA was guaranteed coach selection authority when he was signed. I’m going to be curious how things will work with the new regime.

likely both....

but put yourself in Keim's shoes:

You have a HC coming off of a NFC Champ game apprearance and the best 3 year record in recent (and not-so-recent) Cardinal history.

He has a 7-9-1 season where, notwithstanding other ST issues --- most of the ST pain could be traced to personnel -- a kicker who went from .903 make % in 2015 to .750 in 2016, the long snapper and the punter.

From a management perspective: that is not an environment where it would be easy or straightforward to demand a staff change by your HC-- either by SK or MB.

or maybe put yourself in BAs shoes: I just delivered the best three year record this owner has ever experienced, and after one so-so year, they are going to tell me how to run my org?
 

Ouchie-Z-Clown

I'm better than Mulli!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
61,004
Reaction score
53,245
Location
SoCal
isnt this pretty obvious?

And it is a rational strategy: aging QB, aging star WR ( who, oh-by-the-way, is the face of the Arizona tenure of the Cardinals, and arguably the most popular pro athlete in Arizona and only needs a SB Ring to cap off an all time great career ) and a HC who is good, but clearly near the end of his run. You want to leverage that to get a ring -- not invest in a guy who **might** be a QBOF.


I have no issue with the strategy. We can talk execution (i.e. Reddick over a variety of choices, paying Gresham/Badger instead of Campell or Jefferson ) all day though ---

but if the Cards had pulled off a "Saints 2017" -- another team with an aging QB in the last year of his contract, and who havent addressed the QB position in a while -- and had one of the great all time drafts that put them into real QB contention -- nobody (almost) would be complaining today about "no QB on the roster"

it was the FO equivalent to "no risk it, no biscuit" The strategy failed.



.
So . . . you’re saying if their strategy worked no one would be criticizing them?

But it didn’t work. In fact it failed miserably. They did NOT make the playoffs. In fact they looked awful almost all season; and

They squeeked out enough slim victories against some terrible teams to put them in a precarious position for drafting a new QBOF.

So just so I’m straight, because the strategy worked for another team (who had different personnel and different people making the personnel and coaching calls) we shouldn’t hold Keim/Arians accountable for their failures. Oooookay.
 

Gandhi

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Posts
1,893
Reaction score
2,525
Location
Denmark
I believe that Haasan Reddick was the top remaining player on their board, so they went with BPA. They had 10 minutes to recover from learning that their top choice QB Deshaun Watson had just been snagged by the Texans---so they reverted back to their board. I imagine too that they were hoping to field calls to trade down, but no one called. Keim always says they need to trust in their board and with a mere 10 minutes to make a decision, that's what they did.

I think I might be able to back up your argument, Mitch. I have last year’s draft on video, and so I checked. The networks have a graphic showing some facts and rankings, and this graphic is on all the time, during the broadcast, during commercials, during various features. On it is a box with a clock counting down and eventually the message “the pick is in” when whatever team is on the clock has made their pick. The teams send in their picks to the NFL office for registration, and immediately after that the next team is on the clock. The selection process doesn’t follow the network coverage but the graphic changes no matter what happens in the coverage. Because of this I tend to believe the timespan shown on the network’s graphic is the actual timespan between the picks.

Following this measurement system, from the Texans had picked Deshaun Watson it took nearly 7.45 minutes before the Cardinals selected Haason Reddick. I also have the draft coverage from the previous years on video, and for comparison with the time between the two picks I can tell that in 2016 it took only 4.30 minutes from the Niners had picked offensive guard Joshua Garnett until the Cardinals picked Robert Nkemdiche. The year before that it took only 3.10 minutes from the Denver Broncos had selected edge rusher Shane Ray before the Cardinals selected D. J. Humphries. When they selected Deone Buccanon in 2014 it took 7 minutes after the Eagles picked linebacker Marcus Smith.

Both in 2015 and 2016 a team traded right in front of the Cardinals, yet it seems that they weren’t affected by it since they quickly selected another player. It could be that they simply moved on to the next player on the board, but it could also mean that they were completely set on their guy, and thus didn’t need to spend much time making the selection. It also indicates that this was not the case with the Bucannon- and Reddick-pick where they used significantly more time, maybe because they had to figure out what to do after a trade down in 2014 and the Texans trading in front of them in 2017.

Now, this obviously comes with some caveats. First of all, I don’t know if the networks are showing the real time from pick to pick. Second, I don’t know if the Cardinals made the pick and called the player before they called the NFL office. Third, the Cardinals might have learned from those previous draft processes and thus taking their time in 2017 to select the right player. I do think it is interesting, though, if they did use nearly double the time on selecting Bucannon and Reddick.

By the way, I thought of looking up the time it took to select Markus Golden since we know they were disappointed that the Detroit Lions selected runningback Ameer Abdullah in front of them. I didn’t do that both because it was in the second round where there is less time to make the pick which would obviously change the process, and also because the Lions did not select Abdullah with the pick right in front of the Cardinals.
 
Last edited:

WisconsinCard

Herfin BIg Time
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Posts
15,494
Reaction score
6,649
Location
In A Cigar Bar Near You
Now, this obviously comes with some caveats. First of all, I don’t know if the networks are showing the real time from pick to pick. Second, I don’t know if the Cardinals made the pick and called the player before they called the NFL office. Third, the Cardinals might have learned from those previous draft processes and thus taking their time in 2017 to select the right player. I do think it is interesting, though, if they did use nearly double the time on selecting Bucannon and Reddick.

Another caveat to consider on the "longer" picks, is were they in trade talks with another team about that pick? I mean if a team could be on the phone tell the Cards they would be interested in trading up to their pick if so and so is still on the board. So if that happens the Cards may take more time making a pick because they are considering other options.

All of those things combined are why the draft days are my second, third, and fourth favorite days of the year. Nothing can beat opening day.
 

Gandhi

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Posts
1,893
Reaction score
2,525
Location
Denmark
Another caveat to consider on the "longer" picks, is were they in trade talks with another team about that pick? I mean if a team could be on the phone tell the Cards they would be interested in trading up to their pick if so and so is still on the board. So if that happens the Cards may take more time making a pick because they are considering other options.

That’s a great point, Wisconsin. Actually, whether it is correct or not, it is not a rather accurate or precise analysis I made. It basically won’t ever be more than pure speculation, however you put it.

All of those things combined are why the draft days are my second, third, and fourth favorite days of the year. Nothing can beat opening day.

Me to! It’s like Christmas when I was a little boy.
 
Top