Bye week. Good time for a break. I certainly could use one. First, the mailbag. Questions have been edited for length and clarity. Don't forget to send a question for a future mailbag with at least a first name and last initial.

From Elliot Beck:

"Darren, what a season this has been. All of the games have essentially come down to the last play or possession. This feels historical. As a fan, I just root for the Cards to be competitive and create a fun game to watch. But I don't know how much more of these types of games I can take! Thank you for the mailbag."

It is bordering on significantly historical, although I am sure the players and coaches wish it was not. It's a great point though – a lot of times, the hope is that the team competes. But results will always be the ultimate determiner of success. Close can be interesting, but without a few wins mixed it, it wears on you, regardless of how you got there.

From Sebas Quiros:

"OK Darren, I have a lot of questions so I'll list them off. *Disclaimer: I'm not rattling these with a tone of anger or to vent off, I'm kind of past that stage of grief at this point. Maybe a little dramatic but you get the idea.*

1. Why is our $70+ million edge rusher dropping into coverage?
2. Do you notice significant changes? JG has been saying all these weeks that something needs to change but I see the same mistakes repeated, like the defense allowing chunk plays on third downs.
3. Why would we not double-team Micah more?
4. How is it that the two best showings of the offense in the season come from our backup QB?

Hope you have time to answer them and include them in the mailbag. Thanks for the space Darren."

Here are some answers.

1. I get the thought in a vacuum, but I don't mind it once in a while to keep offenses thinking – just like it make sense to me to have a DT drop out into a short zone to make a QB think once in a while. I think it's a case-by-case basis (I'm not sure what the situations were whenever Sweat was in coverage) but I'm not against it.
2. JG said there would be tweaks but it likely wouldn't be noticeable to the viewing public. The offense has played better of late. That cannot be denied. I know getting stops later in games has been a point of emphasis, but clearly the coaching staff doesn't see the need for drastic changes. They are the ones assessing the pros and cons of all the different ways to approach it. It's possible they don't like the idea of putting the personnel they have in specific spots that maybe the fans expect.
3. I watched all the Micah snaps. I know he said he had more one-on-one, and he probably did. But he was double teamed or chipped on the majority of his snaps. The last sack he had, if you watch the video, it looks like Jonah Williams was supposed to make sure Parsons went inside so Will Hernandez could provide a double team. Parsons got outside and beat Williams, taking Hernandez out of the equation.
4. Brissett has played well, and that's a big part. But knowing how much the Cardinals struggled most of the Seattle game it's also possible there were tweaks at that point.

From Shane Wafer:

"Under Jacoby, we haven't lost because of the offense (shaky OL protection not withstanding). I don't understand the argument for starting Kyler Murray."

The argument is that a) he earned the starting job originally and b) that's what the coaching staff wants to do. I get the discussion. But I don't get the "we haven't lost because of the offense." I agree they didn't lose because of the offense, but they didn't win either. And while the offense could've done more when Murray was in the lineup, to say they lost the Tennessee or San Francisco or Seattle games because of the offense isn't true either. The defense needed to make a stop there too.

From James B:

"What's your take on Jonah Williams play and do you think the Cards will bring him back next year? Also, is the defensive line in your opinion getting too tired in the 4th quarter even with their rotation?"

It's too early to start talking about who they might bring back next season in my opinion, but as far as Williams' play, I am sure he'd say he could be better. That said, I watched all of his snaps (and all of Parsons' snaps, for that matter) on Monday. Again, I'd guess he's not going to say it was his best game. But the Cardinals didn't leave him one-on-one with Parsons nearly as much as people are saying; the majority of Parsons one-on-ones came earlier against Paris Johnson Jr. (who I thought did a solid job given that Parsons is either 1a or 1b among the best pass rushers in the NFL.)

From Darrell From Pinetop:

"What are the odds at this point of a 2-5 team making the playoffs? What are the odds of a 2-5 team getting the No. 1 draft pick?"

The Cardinals don't have great odds to make the postseason -- strength of schedule is hard, and you can see percentages by this site -- but a 2-5 team has also made the postseason three times since 2018. So it isn't unheard of, and that's what the Cardinals are chasing. They aren't going to get the No. 1 pick. They are nowhere close to being at that level, and I believe that will show over the rest of the season.

From Dale T:

"Will James Conner fully recover by next year and is there a chance he is a salary-cap cut. Also, I saw (former GM) Steve Keim on a talk show and I wondered if he still has a positive relationship with the Cards. And when the Cards or other teams play in other countries and sacrifice a home game, do they get compensation from the league?"

Yes, Conner will fully recover. I guess I'd say never say never about a cut but if he recovers, I think they see the benefit he brings on and off the field (and it's not like he has a giant contract.) I do not believe Keim still has a relationship with the team but I don't know for sure. With international games, the league makes sure the "home" team gets the same ballpark financial compensation if they were home. But again with this, all the owners wanted to do international games so if/when there are financial sacrifices, they understand.

From Chris Masters:

"Hi Darren. I have been reading your works for many a years. One of your go-to defenses of Kyler in the face of 'QB change calls has been 'I have seen what its like to not have a QB, and while Kyler may not be a top 5 QB in this league, this is much preferrable over not having a QB.' I don't disagree. But suddenly we DO have another viable QB option. Jacoby deserves to be a our starting QB until he fails. I cannot imagine a single argument why Kyler deserves to be starter again, without referencing his bank account."

Look, I understand those who would like to see Brissett stay. But to say there isn't a single argument I believe is disingenuous. Murray still brings an element to the position Brissett cannot because of his legs and mobility. I'm not saying that should be the determining factor, but it should be a factor. It's moot to me, though. The person making the decision has made a decision. I assume Kyler will be out there against the Cowboys in a place he has had a ton of success in his life, and it will make for an interesting Monday night.

From Clayton Hall:

"There was a report that said more than two dozen teams had scouts at the Indiana game this past week. Indiana has lots of good players, but the star is QB Fernando Mendoza. Not among the reported teams in attendance was Arizona. My question is why?"

Oh, Clayton, you leave so many questions. So the report literally had the specific listing of "more than two dozen" teams? So, what, 25 or 26 team names, so you know every single team that wasn't there (and the Cardinals were not listed?) Seems odd that they would say "more than two dozen" and then list every one when you could say, to be exact, "Twenty-seven teams had scouts on hand, and those teams were: etc., etc., etc."

But let's say, for the sake of argument, they did tell you all 28 teams that had scouts there. Is the implication that was the only game a Cardinals scout could attend to get a good look at the Hoosiers QB and whomever else they might want to see? They can't attend any other game? Are you implying such a game can't be seen later on video with the same scouting results? How do you know a scout didn't attend a Wednesday practice, so he could get a chance to have time for a one-on-one conversation with a coach or a staffer about a kid, when you wouldn't be able to do that on a game day?

So many questions.

From Jayson W:

"I'm writing before Green Bay game so possibly my question maybe a moot point. Most people are complaining about the offense, which overall hasn't been good enough. I have as bigger concern about the defense, which the Cards spent more money on during the offseason. I was hoping the defense would be the strength of the team, but It has given up too much in the fourth quarter."

When there are close losses, there are things you are going to see everywhere during a game that is going to make you facepalm, knowing that one thing could've changed stuff. Calais Campbell noted the defense's role after the Packers game. "I put a lot of pressure on our defense, because we had the lead in the fourth quarter multiple times and we didn't get off the field," he said. "To be as good as I think we can be, that's not OK. That's unacceptable."

They made those plays the first two weeks. The Budda-Thompson PBU in the end zone. The Campbell sack. Those were wins. Even Sunday, yes, the offense put the Cardinals in a tough place with the failed sneak, but the defense could've stuffed the Packers and forced a game-tying field goal instead of a touchdown, or better yet come up with a stop on the fourth-and-2. Those didn't happen. That unit, to Campbell's point, knows it. All it does to me is reiterate that when it's close and there is a losing streak, the blame -- if you want to call it that -- is everywhere. Again, to me, it's more of having one more big play at the right moment.

From Jay Schubert:

"Darren, I realize there is no crystal ball in drafting, but it is hard not to think what if. Back to Cam Skattebo and his running style so much like James Conner, I wonder if the Cardinals regret not giving Cam a stronger look and taking him at No. 78 rather than Jordan Burch. It seems like Cam has had a far more productive season on a worse team than Jordan has had. Plus, you would have benefited drafting a fan favorite. Hindsight is always 20/20. In your many years covering the Cardinals, what is your hindsight 20/20 player that you feel the Cardinals would love to have an opportunity to reconsider and draft if they could go back in time?

Lamar Jackson, 2018.

(And I'm not going to relitigate the 78th pick. That pick wasn't just about taking Jordan Burch instead of Cam Skattebo. There were a lot of things that went into that decision, and to reiterate, I had and have no problem with the process, even if as a Sun Devil I'd love to have Skattebo in this locker room.)

From Scott Madsen:

"Hi Darren. In response to the Walter Nolen questions. This is important. You say the team didn't understate the injury severity, the fans disagree. Here's some direct quotes from JG:

"He's going to miss some time." (2-3, maybe 4 weeks is "some time", not half the season). "(Walter) "hasn't had any setbacks" - That further confuses the fans. At this point it would be preferable if he had a setback, because at least that would explain the amount of time missed. "He's doing well," Gannon said in mid-August. "He's progressing right where he should be."

Here's why it matters, and feel free to roll your eyes. We wait all year for the draft. We attend the Cardinals draft party on the Great Lawn. The majority of that excitement and expense is on the first-round pick. Why do you think our focus on Walter would dissipate once the draft was over? We are every bit as invested in Walter today as we were the day he crossed that stage. We spend a lot of money on this team. Some folks even purchased a Nolen jersey ($130). You can disagree, but we absolutely feel entitled to accurate communication from the team.

"Walter badly hurt his calf, he will be out half the season." What's so hard about that? Instead, fans are waiting week-to-week. Yes, every Tuesday we open up our Cardinals twitter hoping to see 'Walter activated' news, and are repeatedly disappointed. Thank you."

It's funny (OK, maybe Joe Pesci "funny") that you bring this up the same week Nolen's practice window was opened. Trust me, I understand where fans are coming from, I do. I wish it were different too. But a couple of things here. This summer Jonathan Gannon explained why he talks about injuries the way he does. He makes valid points. So that is part of the equation.

The other part? There are football teams, and with the JG/Monti duo, the Cardinals are one of them right now, that hate making public any injury information. That's always been the case, and it will continue to be the case. Part of it is competition, not letting the opponent (or any future opponents) know what is going on. Part of it is just keeping all information in-house, and injuries are just in that bucket.

That is the current regime's belief system. In Nolen's case, maybe they didn't think he'd be out half the season. Maybe they weren't sure. I do not know. I think in their eyes, part of it is that the player is going to have a practice window open at some point and that is indeed public and then the fans will then know a return is close. Until then, the guy is hurt.

From Matthew Stroh:

"Hey Darren, hope you have been doing well. I took a few weeks off of the Cardinals. Life was getting stressful and the stress the Cardinals were putting me through, I decided to help my stress where I could. Darren, you've covered the NFL for a long time. What NFL team, this season has surprised you the most and why?"

I'd say the Colts, right? Daniel Jones is this year's Sam Darnold, and a team everyone was leery about is an offensive machine and will have a chance to make noise in the postseason. I still think, the way things are going, the Chiefs are going to be the toughest out in the AFC, but the Colts have been impressive.

From Elliot H:

"A psychological, intangible question for you, Darren -- your favorite kind. Since JG took over, the team has often been the underdog and, win or lose, has earned plaudits for its performances. I've wondered whether the team struggles more when it carries the favorite tag or faces the pressure of playoff expectations. JG often talks about key winning statistics, such as the importance of the turnover battle. I don't doubt the validity of that, but I do wonder whether this focus sometimes contributes to a more cautious mindset when trying to take the next step. Also, do you think the team's mentality can sometimes feel stuck on not losing rather than on winning?"

Going deep here Elliot (from I assume across the pond? Sorry I had to correct your "favourite.") Pressure increases with expectations. This is true. Whether that is what is impacting the Cardinals the most, I couldn't say. There is absolutely a difference between trying to win and trying not to lose, and we've seen that in all sports over time. But to be honest, I don't know if that applies here; the Cardinals don't really -- in my eyes -- play much different in the first quarter as they do the fourth. Maybe some of the later plays become magnified because of the time, but otherwise, I don't see a huge difference as the game goes on.

From Paul G:

**Darren, respectfully, yet unapologetically, I disagree with your response last week to Buddy Meola regarding the importance of clock management while trying to score on the final drive at Indy. Three chances to get six yards is highly achievable with two runs and a pass play. I agree with JG that the coaches are there to solve problems, and there were two problems to solve: 1) scoring a touchdown and 2) managing the clock. Worst case scenario: we fail on fourth and 1 on the 2, but Indy is pinned against their goal line and we have three timeouts and a second chance with time left, a short field, or a blocked punt. Isn't that a better option than what we did get by passing three times?"

I mean, seriously? Hindsight, of course it's better because they didn't score. But ahead of time? (To clarify, I am answering this so long after the Colts game I had to go back and watch the sequence.) No.

Let's get back to the sequence: Second and 7 at the 9. Incompletion. Third-and-7 at the 9, no one open, sack at LOS. Fourth-and-7, incomplete in EZ to McBride. So with 1:10 left, the way I am seeing your situation is run twice and throw on fourth down. Maybe that's successful (the Cardinals did not run well against the Colts all game, had less than 100 yards rushing), maybe not. But in your scenario, you are saving all your timeouts for defense. If you fail to score, after two runs and the clock not stopping after either, how much time is actually left on the clock on a "short field?" Maybe 30 seconds? Less?

That also doesn't take into account the Colts still had the ball at their own 9 -- just seven yards more -- and the Cardinals had all three timeouts, so a similar situation to your suggestion, and they didn't get the ball back.

So I'll be honest. I will respectfully yet unapologetically say we have to agree to disagree.

From Andre Calihoo:

"What is happening with BJ Oljuari? I see he's on PUP but little info when he might return?"

I wish I could tell you. I know Scott feels strongly on this subject. Gannon said Monday he is getting better. I know, that doesn't tell you much. But until his practice window opens, I feel positive that's all we are going to hear. I thought he'd be back by now. I was wrong.

From Sammy Quinto:

"We saw Anquan Boldin sitting with Michael Bidwill at one of the preseason games, which was great to see. Really applaud this teams efforts with our alumni. Just want to ask if there's any efforts to get Boldin in the ROH anytime soon?"

Those decisions are pretty behind the scenes until it's time to announce. I will say this: I do not believe anyone is going in the ROH until Fitz, and at this point, I don't expect Fitz to go in until he's in the Hall of Fame.