|
|
Post by CardCore on Oct 2, 2024 10:13:41 GMT -7
First things first I suppose, so here are 2 of those....
1. No Trey McBride....
2. No D Rob or BJO....
Now...WITH McBride, the 12 & 13 personnel packages actually work. Just the idea that there is a good possibility of a run play coming is enough to pull the safeties
down to guard against the run which opens up the mid and deeper areas for A deeper threat possibility for a MHJ or McBride to exploit. With McBride out, that's a lot harder to sell.
I will take a guess here and say that there's a strong possibility that Gardeck and Zaven got so totally worn out against the Lions that they were just FLAT in the Commandos game. With basically no pass rush I'm sure KK and JD were mighty jazzed! CHA-CHING!
I have to wonder though, WHY no steps were taken to attempt to remedy these situations well before the game. It kinda gives the feeling that JG/MO are like,"Oh well, we'll just have to lose I guess." Is that the kind of attitude that leads to Drew Petzing calling a pass play on 4th and one, for a potential TD, instead of just letting Conner or K1 RUN? Petzing was doing that bass-ackward play calling the entire game too. Pass in short yardage and run if t's 3rd and 12? What the heck is up w/ that?
A very cogent point was brought up by one of our posters having to do with our team struggling to win period if K1 does not run frequently enough in the game.
If he runs less than 4 times in a game, they lose. If he runs 8 or 10 times? They win. So....was Kyler still worn out from the Lions game? Or was the idea of winning this game mostly unimportant to the brain-trust? Are there stats that say players tend to get hurt more often in a game that follows a very, very physical game?
Sorry for rambling, but I have a ton of questions about that last game.
|
|
|
|
Post by luman on Oct 2, 2024 16:37:16 GMT -7
No imagination on offense. Did anyone watch the Seattle Detroit game. Both teams did trick plays and it helped keep the defense honest. Not sure why they didn’t roll Murray out to allow him to run or throw. However the line was really bad with pass protection. Once again there is one common denominator and it BIDWILL!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Oct 3, 2024 14:21:05 GMT -7
No imagination on offense. Did anyone watch the Seattle Detroit game. Both teams did trick plays and it helped keep the defense honest. Not sure why they didn’t roll Murray out to allow him to run or throw. However the line was really bad with pass protection. Once again there is one common denominator and it BIDWILL!!!!!!! I'm an understanding person. But, directly connecting Bidwill's front office decision-making to Petzing's on-field play-calling befuddles me. There is a lot of airspace between the two men's jobs. I agree that rolling Murray left and right out of the pocket can stress the defense...more D stress, please. EZ |
|
|
|
Post by CardCore on Oct 3, 2024 16:17:07 GMT -7
One more hour til TNF, Go Baker! LOl...
|
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Oct 3, 2024 21:03:57 GMT -7
One more hour til TNF, Go Baker! LOl... Baker showed up at TNF. So did Cousins. Cousins bagged 500+ yards! Ridiculous. That's 2.5 games' worth of production for the Little Dude. If we move on from Murray by March 2025, is there another Baker or Cousins type veteran out there willing to work for Ossenfort and Gannon for $50M all cash guaranteed per annum? The QB must be a certified winner. Envelope, please....(drum roll). |
|
|
|
Post by devongent on Oct 4, 2024 1:32:40 GMT -7
If we move on from Murray by March 2025, is there another Baker or Cousins type veteran out there willing to work for Ossenfort and Gannon for $50M all cash guaranteed per annum? Doesn't sound a Cardinal-like thing to happen. - Correct me if I'm wrong, did Michael Bidwill put on a $10M per annum cost ceiling, regards outside player recruitment? Envelope, please....(drum roll). Those drums could be rumbling for quite some time. Someone on the board mentioned about a player swap (Murray for A N Other underperforming Quarterback). That might be an option to consider come the end of the season. Trevor Lawrence anyone (he certainly hasn't the 'height issues' of Kyler)? www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/why-is-jaguars-qb-trevor-lawrence-regressing-in-year-4/ar-AA1rEDCq?ocid=BingNewsSerpI remember when Lawrence was coming out of college, he was hyped as the talent of all generational talents. As I posted on the other thread, there are NO sure things when drafting a Quarterback. |
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Oct 4, 2024 2:57:51 GMT -7
www.spotrac.com/nfl/player/_/id/29036/kyler-murraywww.spotrac.com/nfl/player/_/id/72380/trevor-lawrencePlayer swaps between teams are rare in the NFL these days. I'm checking on this option...557am, Oct 4, 2024. 602am...the correct language is "trade player rights," not swap players or own players. Kyler Murray signed a 5 year, $230,500,000 contract with the Arizona Cardinals, including $29,035,000 signing bonus, $159,797,000 guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $46,100,000. In 2024, Murray will earn a base salary of $37,000,000 and a workout bonus of $1,000,000, while carrying a cap hit of $49,118,177 and a dead cap value of $112,421,000. Trevor Lawrence signed a 5 year, $275,000,000 contract with the Jacksonville Jaguars, including $37,500,000 signing bonus, $200,000,000 guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $55,000,000. In 2024, Lawrence will earn a base salary of $1,500,000 and a signing bonus of $37,500,000, while carrying a cap hit of $15,029,725 and a dead cap value of $148,029,725. The above contract data is cut from Spotrac.com. From a purely financial viewpoint, the two contracts are similarly structured and designed to be nasty burdens. If Khan offloaded Lawrence to the Cardinals, Khan would still be burdened by Lawrence's contract dead cap value. Lawrence has proven no more adept at winning than Murray. A change of scenery could help both men's careers. However, I doubt JAX and ARZ owners would do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by devongent on Oct 4, 2024 4:08:02 GMT -7
From a purely financial viewpoint, the two contracts are similarly structured and designed to be nasty burdens. If Khan offloaded Lawrence to the Cardinals, Khan would still be burdened by Lawrence's contract dead cap value. EZ; I'm still not understanding the full financial implications here. If this two-way trade took place simultaneously, then would the dead cap for each team ($112,421,000 on the Cardinals for Murray) and ($148,029,725 on the Jaguars for Lawrence) still apply?, or would the potential liability be transferred for each man? - In this example, Trevor Lawrence would then be our starting Quarterback for the 2025 season, but should we then decide to cut him (very doubtful) we would be on the hook for the larger sum ($148,029,725) and, of course as well, his higher salary. If the transaction going ahead resulted in each team having to shoulder the Dead Cap amount anyway, then the scheme is a complete non-starter. The Cardinals (and the Jaguars for that matter) will not be taking its chances on a new highly-priced Quarterback and disadvantaging themselves for years to come with that of level of cost liability against the Cap. |
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Oct 4, 2024 6:43:09 GMT -7
From a purely financial viewpoint, the two contracts are similarly structured and designed to be nasty burdens. If Khan offloaded Lawrence to the Cardinals, Khan would still be burdened by Lawrence's contract dead cap value. EZ; I'm still not understanding the full financial implications here. If this two-way trade took place simultaneously, then would the dead cap for each team ($112,421,000 on the Cardinals for Murray) and ($148,029,725 on the Jaguars for Lawrence) still apply?, or would the potential liability be transferred for each man? - In this example, Trevor Lawrence would then be our starting Quarterback for the 2025 season, but should we then decide to cut him (very doubtful) we would be on the hook for the larger sum ($148,029,725) and, of course as well, his higher salary. If the transaction going ahead resulted in each team having to shoulder the Dead Cap amount anyway, then the scheme is a complete non-starter. The Cardinals (and the Jaguars for that matter) will not be taking its chances on a new highly-priced Quarterback and disadvantaging themselves for years to come with that of level of cost liability against the Cap. Devongent, I also am not an NFL contract guru and I fail to appreciate the maximum penalties of these two contracts imposed on the two teams. Costs can be traded, but teams are still burdened by the CAP. The CAP rule prevents rich owners from buying their way out of a bad player contract like owners did decades ago. I assume Khan and Bidwill could do something about their prized QBs but the cost risks are unavoidable in the future. 😌 |
|
|
|
Post by respecttheprocess on Oct 4, 2024 7:43:21 GMT -7
EZ; I'm still not understanding the full financial implications here. If this two-way trade took place simultaneously, then would the dead cap for each team ($112,421,000 on the Cardinals for Murray) and ($148,029,725 on the Jaguars for Lawrence) still apply?, or would the potential liability be transferred for each man? - In this example, Trevor Lawrence would then be our starting Quarterback for the 2025 season, but should we then decide to cut him (very doubtful) we would be on the hook for the larger sum ($148,029,725) and, of course as well, his higher salary. If the transaction going ahead resulted in each team having to shoulder the Dead Cap amount anyway, then the scheme is a complete non-starter. The Cardinals (and the Jaguars for that matter) will not be taking its chances on a new highly-priced Quarterback and disadvantaging themselves for years to come with that of level of cost liability against the Cap. Devongent, I also am not an NFL contract guru and I fail to appreciate the maximum penalties of these two contracts imposed on the two teams. Costs can be traded, but teams are still burdened by the CAP. The CAP rule prevents rich owners from buying their way out of a bad player contract like owners did decades ago. I assume Khan and Bidwill could do something about their prized QBs but the cost risks are unavoidable in the future. 😌 One thing that is very clear to me…when you begin to reach this level of conversation regarding your “franchise” QB…you really don’t have a “franchise” QB…do you? 😳 |
|
|
|
Post by CardCore on Oct 4, 2024 7:57:36 GMT -7
Devongent, I also am not an NFL contract guru and I fail to appreciate the maximum penalties of these two contracts imposed on the two teams. Costs can be traded, but teams are still burdened by the CAP. The CAP rule prevents rich owners from buying their way out of a bad player contract like owners did decades ago. I assume Khan and Bidwill could do something about their prized QBs but the cost risks are unavoidable in the future. 😌 One thing that is very clear to me…when you begin to reach this level of conversation regarding your “franchise” QB…you really don’t have a “franchise” QB…do you? 😳 Keep in mind, they're discussing hypotheticals. (No, I'm not crowning K1, but neither am I seeing the brain trust throwing up their hands and giving up). |
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Oct 5, 2024 2:07:35 GMT -7
Devongent, I also am not an NFL contract guru and I fail to appreciate the maximum penalties of these two contracts imposed on the two teams. Costs can be traded, but teams are still burdened by the CAP. The CAP rule prevents rich owners from buying their way out of a bad player contract like owners did decades ago. I assume Khan and Bidwill could do something about their prized QBs but the cost risks are unavoidable in the future. 😌 One thing that is very clear to me…when you begin to reach this level of conversation regarding your “franchise” QB…you really don’t have a “franchise” QB…do you? 😳 RTP, my answer is 'no.' Murray's market value also does not equate or exceed the value of the Cardinals franchise. Moreover, I think the label "franchise QB" should only apply to a winning QB. The label is misused when applied to a sub-.500 W/L QB across his career. One tiny positive about the 17 games schedule is that there is a clear distinction between winning and losing teams at the end of the season. There are no more .500 season records. No more fence-sitters. No 'Pass' grading. Etc. |
|
|
|
Post by respecttheprocess on Oct 5, 2024 5:41:20 GMT -7
One thing that is very clear to me…when you begin to reach this level of conversation regarding your “franchise” QB…you really don’t have a “franchise” QB…do you? 😳 RTP, my answer is 'no.' Murray's market value also does not equate or exceed the value of the Cardinals franchise. Moreover, I think the label "franchise QB" should only apply to a winning QB. The label is misused when applied to a sub-.500 W/L QB across his career. One tiny positive about the 17 games schedule is that there is a clear distinction between winning and losing teams at the end of the season. There are no more .500 season records. No more fence-sitters. No 'Pass' grading. Etc. So…you’re saying that 29-39-1 as a starter just isn’t cutting it, right? 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Oct 5, 2024 7:05:01 GMT -7
RTP, my answer is 'no.' Murray's market value also does not equate or exceed the value of the Cardinals franchise. Moreover, I think the label "franchise QB" should only apply to a winning QB. The label is misused when applied to a sub-.500 W/L QB across his career. One tiny positive about the 17 games schedule is that there is a clear distinction between winning and losing teams at the end of the season. There are no more .500 season records. No more fence-sitters. No 'Pass' grading. Etc. So…you’re saying that 29-39-1 as a starter just isn’t cutting it, right? 😉 In summation, if the QB ain't winning, the QB ain't cutting it for me. Murray has a tiny window of opportunity to turn things around in 2024. He needs to win 11 games in a row. That will get him to 40-39-1 and above .500. If he splits the last two in Dec and Jan, that is great. He's still finishes the season above .500. The team has a "franchise QB" if he wins .500-plus games. Otherwise, move on. |
|
