The Cardinals get their preseason opener out of the way against the Chiefs and now head to Denver this week to practice and then play against the Broncos. Thursday is the lone co-workout, which will be intriguing given how good the Denver defense has become with Vance Joseph leading the way.
I'd like to think the mailbag remains at elite status too. 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 Sebas Quiros:
"Hey Darren. You mentioned the unofficial depth chart that is released is in many cases a matter of 'I'm just here so I won't get fined' kind of thing and coaches would rather not give out that information. What would happen if, say the Cardinals, released a depth chart where Clayton Tune was starting QB and other positions were also altered in that way?"
The depth charts are a league requirement, so I would dare say the powers-that-be wouldn't be thrilled to see such a thing. Besides, as soon as the game starts, everyone can see what's what. There is no real reason to have that level of subterfuge for any team, other than to troll the system.
From Chris Castro:
"There are some, including me, that isn't so certain Kyler can be the guy. How would you make a case either way? Is Jacoby Brissett or Clayton Tune the backup plan if not?"
Let's start with the reality: Kyler Murray remains a QB who at the least is in the top half of starting QBs in the league. I think Brissett is a great signing as a backup but he is not going to be considered by those in the league in the top 15 or 16. I also don't see the point of "making the case." Kyler Murray is the Cardinals QB for 2025. That was always going to be the case. Can that change in 2026? I suppose it could. But an NFL season is -- or should be -- full of details and nuance. This is a big year for K1. But I will say, unless the "some" you reference include Monti Ossenfort and Jonathan Gannon, it doesn't much matter the current thinking, one way or the other.
From Brandon F:
"I'm happy we got Will Hernandez back. I know he needs to get healthy, and that's fine. But isn't he better than our two current starters? Doesn't it make sense that he go back into the lineup when they decide he is ready? I don't see why he wouldn't play if he is OK."
Will himself is clearly hoping to make that case. But what is the upside for J.G. to consider such a thing -- or more importantly, talk about such a thing -- right now? Hernandez isn't even back at practice. When he gets back to practice, then he has a chance to show what he can do, and whether that is what the Cardinals want/need in the lineup now. I'm not betting against mijo things happening on the O-line, but worst case scenario the Cardinals have a massive interior depth upgrade (especially since Evan Brown has extensive center experience in case something happens to Hjalte Froholdt.)
From Paul S:
"Hi Darren. Thanks for all you do and the mailbag. There is one thing I have not heard discussed. Last year I think the defense, from a score standpoint, performed way above their talent level on more than a few occasions. But as a casual observer it seemed that on many possessions the opposing offense went up and down the field consuming a lot of time off the clock. If they can increase their three-and-outs and/or get off the field quicker the offense should automatically improve. It would be interesting to see stats that would compare say the 2025 Super Bowl Eagles number of three-and-outs."
For starters, yes, I would agree with your theory, not only in getting off the field but, in turn, providing shorter fields for the offense since the other team isn't flipping field position. But yes, we have those Cardinals/Eagles numbers.
Last year, the Cardinals forced 29 three-and-outs that resulted in a punt, and also had eight possessions in which they forced a turnover in the first three plays (three fumbles -- one for a safety -- four interceptions and another safety.) The Eagles had 40 three-and-outs resulting in punts, and another 16 turnovers in the first three plays (six fumbles, 10 interceptions.) A significant difference.
From Matthew Stroh:
"Hey Darren, first preseason game is over. I think the game went pretty well. Yes, there's some things that didn't go as planned, but overall I think our defense showed that we're going to have a good defense. I love the offensive live performance. It's nice to have a veteran backup quarterback isn't it? It's always nice to know if a shoe gets lost. Nick Rallis is going to play a really fun game of guess who against the opposing quarterbacks. What position played the best in the first game in your opinion?"
What position? That's a good question. If we are going to say overall position, it felt like the edge rushers had a good day, as did the running backs. It's a broad question, but those are the groups that come to mind. Obviously there were a bunch of individuals that clicked -- I also liked Darren Hall, Isaiah Adams, Emari Demercado, among others.
From Mark:
"Hello Sir. Long-time reader, first-time questioner. I truly do not understand the hatred for Kyler in Arizona, at least on fan message boards. Hateful stuff including juvenile nicknames referring to his height. Questioning his work ethic, spewing the tired old video game rhetoric. Darren, what is wrong with these people? In my opinion,, Kyler is a good QB. Not great. He's never had off-the-field issues. I don't get it. By the way, I've been a Cardinal fan for 58 years. I've seen a lot of poor QBs. Kyler isn't close to one of them. What are your thoughts?"
Last part first: No, Kyler isn't anywhere near the "poor" category of franchise QBs. He's among the best the team has had since moving to Arizona. That cannot be argued. As for opinions, I've long seen that Kyler is polarizing. There are those who are ride-or-die. There are definitely some who don't care what he might do successfully, they will never be won over. I'm not here to impact the thinking from either side (in part because there is no impacting either kind.) Finding quarterbacks is hard in this league. And having an opinion on a QB -- whether it's Kyler or Josh Allen or Mahomes or Lamar or Burrow or Shedeur Sanders or Baker Mayfield -- will always be a thing.
From James M:
"I read your story about Paris Johnson Jr. (that was excellent, in my opinion). But I do wonder if PJJ is going to be that guy, like a Trent Williams or a Walter Jones. I know you have people that believe it, but in your opinion, is he going to get to that level? If he does, what a first draft pick by Monti."
First, James, I appreciate the compliment. One of the things I like most about Paris is that he isn't saying he is at that level. He is saying he wants to be at that level and that he is working to get to that level. My guess, knowing the player and person he is? That particular mindset is probably going to remain a constant mindset, even if more accolades come. Which is why I do think he has a great chance to be great.
