Well, the NFC West got a jolt this week with the trade of Myles Garrett to the Rams. And also it's a reminder, there is never a dead time in the NFL, or a time when the league can't grab the top sports headline at a moment's notice. Here's a mailbag. Don't forget to send a question for a future mailbag with at least a first name and last initial.
From Gary W:
"Darren. Now we hear Myles Garrett is a Ram, and that's ... not good. It is frustrating to hear this, and frustrating to know how good the rest of the division is. I would've loved to see Myles in Cardinal red. Can you make me see hope through this?"
The Rams were going to be really good with or without Garrett. He is excellent. Jared Verse wasn't bad himself. Big picture, the Cardinals trying to get a guy like Garrett makes no sense; giving up next year's first-round pick would be foolish and remains so until you have your long-term QB. As for hope, you always need to be careful of riding the ups and downs of an offseason. No training camps have happened. No games have happened. The Cardinals have a new coach with an offensive mind, and Jeremiyah Love in the backfield, among other weapons. I want to see this team with pads on.
From Richard Wakefield:
"I keep seeing that we should have drafted a defensive player instead of taking Love but the addition of Love running the ball should let us keep it a lot longer. The defense rests. And what's with the Cardinals being seen as the worst club in the NFL? Really? Anyway, I see us winning at least half our games to shut everybody up. There may not be a question in there but you could comment."
I suppose I can comment. I'm not one to make specific predictions, because mostly I'm wrong. Taking Love with the first pick and using him to play a little ball control is an excellent idea to keep the defense off the field. Saying it and doing it are two different things, however. There is a lot that goes into an offense being successful (and again, it's not just about keep away but also keep scoring points.) We'll see how many wins that can generate over a season. But there is a lot that can happen. Kevin Kolb was the 2011 QB, but he got hurt and that wasn't a great situation in the first place -- but that team rallied from a rough start to finish .500. Is that going to happen this year? No idea. But to rule it out is foolish.
From Elliot H:
"Hi Darren, loving the different perspectives around our QB room at the moment. What's not been discussed as much is the opportunity the extra preseason game has for someone like Carson Beck to make a statement early. If we assume he's QB3 at the moment, do you think we might see him play the majority of the snaps? That'd be exciting for the fan base although it could lead to delirium if he plays particularly well."
Elliot, I think the fan base would love delirium at this particular moment.
Right now, I would not expect him to play the majority of the snaps, but I'll be honest, that is strictly how I *think* LaFleur and the coaches would approach it. Of course, he isn't giving any hints (assuming in this first week of June there is a hint to give.) As we stand now, with the mandatory minicamp next week, I'm still going to believe it will be Jacoby Brissett in camp and behind center when the season begins. I am not wed to that; as circumstances unfold, maybe my thought changes. But if Brissett is playing, and there is is offensive production, I don't know how quickly I put Beck in. I know people want to see him. If coaches don't see him in that role based on how practice is going, however, I'm not putting him in just to put him in.
From David C:
"Do you think Carson Beck has a potential of being the starting QB for the Cardinals or is he going to be sitting on the bench?"
I am taking this question to mean the starter beginning Week 1. And as I mentioned above, I am not ruling anything out, but at this point I would be stunned if he was the starter against the Chargers.
From Brent Snyder:
"Hey Darren. Lots of talk this offseason, especially with Jacoby Brissett and the contract and about who should start this season. I agree with you that Beck would have to do A LOT to justify not picking one of the QBs in 2027, but given the win expectation of Jacoby, what are your thoughts on this scenario: Start Beck all season, let him gain knowledge and experience at the NFL level, and set him up as a backup QB to the future starter we draft in 2027? Then the Cards have a backup QB, with experience in the system all ready to go for the foreseeable future. Thanks Darren!"
One of the things that seems to happen in the conversation about quarterbacks and who should play is that forgotten are the rest of the offense and/or team. This is not Madden, where you could make personnel decisions and plans regardless of the feelings of your pixelated players. Perhaps Beck has a great camp a la Russell Wilson and earns the starting job. But if Brissett (or Minshew) is playing better than Beck, what are you telling Trey McBride when the season starts if you go with Beck? Or Michael Wilson? Or even Budda Baker and Mack Wilson Sr.?
Again, I don't know what Mike LaFleur will eventually do, and there are justifications for every course of action. But there are a lot of moving parts here.
From Robert Malicki:
"Hi, Darren. if LaFleur's rookie season sees the team record hover around .500 how does the front office pivot away from the QB-of-the-future scenario? I expect Jacoby to be the starter."
I mean, you don't pivot away from the QB-of-the-future scenario until you know you have the QB of the future. You mention you expect Brissett behind center. Even if he has some success like you mention, you still are looking for the QB of the future. It's not easy. This team had Kurt Warner retire, and were looking for QBF for 2010 (it wasn't Leinart or Max Hall) and 2011/12 (maybe Kolb but not, or John Skelton) until they landed Carson Palmer in trade. And that was a future that lasted three-plus seasons before Palmer's broken arm shortened his final year. The point is that they were looking even as their win total didn't necessarily give them a top-3 pick.
From Dwayne B:
"Hey Darren, with regard to the Josh Sweat rumors, I have a question about sports in general. When a player is unhappy and wants to leave, why does the team trade them? Please make sense of why teams so often relent and trade or, worse, cut a disgruntled player. If he's important, just keep him."
Every situation is different. For anyone who took a business or econ class at some point along the way, there is the idea of sunk cost (which can happen with a player who isn't performing to standards) and/or the law of diminishing returns. You might have a good player; is his disgruntledness going to hurt so much in the locker room/within team culture it doesn't offset good play? These are the things teams must consider. I mean, at one point both Patrick Peterson and Budda Baker briefly wanted to be traded, but those were worked out without them going anywhere. If you talk about the Suns and Durant, for another example, it was time to move on for both sides.
(And as an aside when it comes to Sweat, I can't speak specifically for the current situation but he's never been a voluntary OTA guy. Not in Philadelphia, and not last offseason either.)
From Cody Lew:
"Just to verify, because I don't know, do we have a new cornerbacks coach? What is the plan to develop Max Melton? By no fault of his own, that infamous 2024 trade-back is looking bad. All 3 CBs taken before him (Cooper DeJean, Kool-Aid McKinstry and Kamari Lassiter) look terrific. I should point out that third-round CB Elijah Jones also hasn't developed."
Yes, the new cornerbacks coach is Zac Etheridge. What the "plan" will be for Max Melton I do not know. But with a new head coach, it's a good time to hit the reset button. The Cardinals knowthey have Will Johnson as one cornerback. Can Melton challenge Denzel Burke? Where does Sean Murphy-Bunting fit in? Or Starling Thomas once he's healthy? (I haven't mentioned Jones either, but there is another guy who has a reset chance.)
From David McCommack:
"Darren, I agree with you and many others that Brissett was not the reason the Cards only won one game with him starting. But, with the signing of Minshew, were the Cards anticipating the Brissett contract issue? You only need one of Brissett or Minshew. Of course you want a fourth QB at this time (for camps), but not another pricey one. Beck can learn from one or the other and the hope is that he will eventually play most of the season anyway."
David, I'm going to start with the idea the Cardinals have *any* pricey quarterbacks. (Yes, I am aware Brissett is looking for a pay bump, but I'm dealing with the current situation.) Brissett, if he were to collect his salary and per-game bonuses, he'd get about $5.4 million. Minshew will get about $5.1M. Carson Beck, once he signs, will get about $2.4M this year (including signing bonus). That's a drop in the bucket compared to most QB rooms. In that regard, having all three -- even if Brissett at some point gets a bump -- doesn't hurt.
As for why they signed Minshew, I see it as simple. When you signed Minshew, you needed a second QB, and more importantly, you didn't know if or who you would draft. Ty Simpson went early. Say they decided they liked Beck but someone grabbed him at the end of the second round? Or the Cardinals ultimately decided another player was worth their third-round pick and tried to wait for Beck in the fourth and someone grabbed Beck mid-third? In terms of money outlay, their current situation isn't a problem in any way. How they handle it from here will be a major storyline, but I don't see it as out of whack as some seem to see it.
From Robert Rhodes:
"If Brissett gets cut or traded what about picking up Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby in the supplemental draft?"
I can't speak for the Cardinals. But there is no way, especially as some of the gambling details come out, that I am taking the risk to bring Sorsby to my NFL team.
From Jim Long:
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this preseason schedule of opponents odd to you? I can't remember the last time we didn't play some combination of Denver or KC in the preseason. What happened?"
Well, part of not playing the Chiefs or Broncos in the preseason is because the Cardinals play the AFC West during the regular season. *Usually* you try and avoid repeat games in the preseason. That said, the Cardinals -- for the first time since I have been covering them -- will actually have two preseason games against regular-season opponents: the Raiders and Cowboys. That was the odd part to me. Once upon a time, though, starters would play much more in the preseason so doubling up with a regular season meeting could be an issue. Now, the regulars play so little that the difference between a preseason and regular-season matchup is vast.
From Ray Martin:
"For throwback uniforms games do the Cardinals only use uniforms since they moved to Arizona or do, they also use uniforms when in St. Louis? The Ottis Anderson video you put in the mailbag a few weeks ago showed the old white uniforms with multiple red stripes on the legs and sleeves. That would be a good throwback uniform."
The Cardinals do not have a "throwback" uniform. They have the red, the white, the alternate black, and the Rivalry sand and red. They never have moved to a throwback, although there are fans who have hoped for one.
