Discussion in 'Arizona Cardinals' started by Jetstream Green, Sep 9, 2018.
I'm hoping that you're hoping that you're wrong.. if not, sucks for you. Lol.
Not this Murray supporter. The Chiefs moved on from Alex Smith to a virtual rookie. Why? The Chiefs believed Mahomes was better. That’s simply what the Cards did.
I think he'll outperform Wilks.
Eh I think Rosen can be a Star with the right system and good talent around him.
Totally. It would be like skipping over an injury prone guy getting injured while running around in shorts.
The indicators were there. McCoy has had SOME success before, but hes generally been terrible.
Rosen WAS part of the problem. There were tons of plays every game that you expect an average NFL QB to make. 4-5 QBs were pressured more than Rosen last year. His QB Rating with a clean pocket was below average.
To paint this picture that Rosen wasnt one of the problems is revisionist history.
One thing to point out is that Bradford's performance can also be an indicator of just how bad the coaching last year. Bradford is a better QB than Gabbert and Stanton.
Please support with some of your many advanced stats.
Are you just trying to start inane arguments? Not only is Krang's claim backed up by every meaningful stat on all three QBs... it's just plain obvious to any reasonable person.
Bradford's career passer rating over 83 starts is 84.5; in two years with Minnesota prior to coming to Arizona, it was 101.1; and with the Cardinals under Wilks, it dropped to 62.5. His career completion percentage is 62.5, yards per attempt 6.6 (5.0 with the Cards!), TD-Int 103-61.
Gabbert's career passer rating over 56 games / 48 starts is 71.7. His career completion percentage is a horrendous 56.2, yards per attempt 6.1, TD-Int 48-47.
Stanton's career passer rating over 38 games / 17 starts is 66.3. His career completion percentage is an abyssimal 52.4, yards per attempt 6.2, TD-Int 20-24.
Every one of Gabbert and Stanton's stats (except Stanton's inexplicable 11-6 record) is significantly worse than Bradford's. Under Wilks, Bradford's numbers dropped to Stanton/Gabbert-like levels, but that exactly makes Krang's point. Bradford has been significantly better over his career, but sucked under Wilks.
Hes just being a douche to be a douche.
Any fan with one ounce of knowledge knows Bradford is better than Stanton and Gabbert.
I think Arians if he had Bradford his last year would have posted a winning record.
The path to the Cardinals shocking the NFL this year is that they were much better than their record and results from last year indicates because Wilks and staff were that bad.
It's an argument that if you really follow the Cardinals, you know it COULD happen. It's highly unlikely, but there is enough talent on this football team.
If Arians had had Bradford his last year, Drew Stanton and Blaine Gabbert would have been starting even more games than they did with Palmer. Because Sam Bradford played 1 game in 2017.
Everyone knows Bradford is extremely injury prone... but he played 4 in 2018, and wasn't benched for health reasons.
I'm saying this based on the assumption that you have a healthy Bradford. It's a huge assumption but Bradford is a better QB than either Gabbert or Stanton.
So, how many games into the season need be played before our new quarterback can be judged?
Separate names with a comma.