On one hand, it is what this league is built upon, in theory -- having games come down to the wire on a weekly basis. The Cardinals have certainly done that for six games. Unfortunately, they have been on the wrong end of the last four. Tough to take. But we try and talk some of these things out in 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 Zed Campbell:
"I know we lost the game, but I feel great right now. I feel a deep sense of vindication. This is a good football team, we just have the wrong QB. Post game JG was asked the question we are all thinking and JG said 'K1 is QB1.' My question is why?"
I'm not sure why he'd say anything else. To begin with, Murray had shown all through offseason and camp why he would be the starter. Otherwise this discussion would have already been happening. Second, Gannon was asked the question right after a game in which, yes, he watched live, but he had not had any chance to digest or see what went right (and wrong) on video. I don't know what Kyler's health will be this week, but sample size also should matter.
From Mike Austin:
"Both a simple and complex question: What's your take on all of this? Should Jacoby start again? Should Kyler go back in immediately? What are the risks in either decision?"
I'm going to start with the most obvious point: We don't know the extent of Kyler's foot injury. To me, if he is not healthy enough to be as mobile as usual, then that takes away one of his greatest strengths, and then to me, it's a moot point until Kyler has returned to that level. I know Jonathan Gannon doesn't like hypotheticals personally, but I can delve. The risk, if you want to term it that, is that Kyler can't find the consistency in his play or the offense isn't as consistent. The risk in Brissett, again, assuming he is starting again but Kyler is healthy enough to play, is that the Colts game was just a good game and he struggles against the Packers. And without Murray, you lose the potential of him breaking loose and scorching a defense with a run (or causing a ruckus in the red zone, maybe like in Indy at the end of game Sunday.) In either case -- assuming again they are both healthy enough to play -- is that there could be a what-if scenario. But that's why the people who make such decisions are so handsomely paid.
From James F:
"Everyone is talking about Jacoby, and rightly so, but we need to address an elephant in the room. Maybe Drew Petzing's offense isn't so bad? Maybe we just had the wrong guy executing it?"
I see it as a bigger picture. I think there has been a whole lot of different things that have gone into the offense being up and down this season. I never thought the offense was "so bad," not after some of the things it accomplished last season. I don't think the Kyler-Jacoby discussion is as black-and-white as most seem to think, regardless of what side of the argument one takes.
The Cardinals need to win some games. How they get there doesn't matter nearly as much as that they get there.
From Matthew C:
"Why does the club still employ an offensive coordinator who refuses to gameplan to Kyler's skillset? Kyler has shown MVP potential with a good situation, and is average when he has poor coaching/line/receivers?"
This would be the other side of all the talk from Sunday, although most I saw on social media, to be honest. So the Cardinals gain 400 yards and your first thought is to blame the playcaller. Odd timing. Look, I don't have the answers. I can't say for sure where/how the breakdowns might happen on offense when it doesn't go right with Kyler. (And unless you're talking to all involved, I'm not sure how you would know either.) Like I said earlier, I think there is a lot involved. I've said this a bunch of times, this offense is better when the run game is humming, and it is not this season, at least thus far.
I'm not saying there aren't things either Kyler or Petzing need to be more consistent with -- both of them have said such -- but mostly it just feels like people are trying to find a specific scapegoat when things don't go right.
From Steve W:
"Hey Darren, Thanks for all you do. You and Cardinals Underground are about the only thing I can stomach during this (so far) gut-punch of a season. Speaking of gut punches, what gives the team a legal right to fine coaches? I know the players have union-negotiated contract that allows for such things, but that doesn't cover coaches, does it?"
No, the players union doesn't cover coaches. And I am fairly certain coaches contracts across the league leaves that option open for such situations.
From Gerry McFadden:
"Correlation or causation? Will Hernandez is the cog that makes this offense click. The offense operated efficiently when he played during the first part of the Titans game -- they score a TD on the first drive, which they hadn't done all season, then go dormant when he comes out because he's on a pitch count. He plays a full game vs. the Colts and they have the most yards on offense all season."
The cog that makes it click? We probably shouldn't overthink this. But I will say, Hernandez was pretty clear when he was first brought back to practice that he believed he was good enough to be in the lineup when he was finally healthy, and he was right, and it does seem to have made a difference in how the offense has operated. (Regardless of who was in at QB.)
From Buddy Meola:
"I'm sorry to send this after the Cards figured a new way to lose a game but I am curious. Your trying to run the clock out while also trying to score a touchdown. We have three tries to make six yards while also forcing Indy to use all their timeouts, This staff though decides to try to score the touchdown ASAP. Have they not seen what leaving time on the clock means the three games before that?"
Well, the huge difference to me is that, unlike those other situations, they had to have a TD or they would lose. I cannot disagree with you more; the job was to score the TD on any down in which you could. Get the lead and then figure it out. If you mess around trying to drain the clock and it costs you a legit chance at scoring, it doesn't matter anyway.
From Charlie Marsden:
"What is your take on the Walter Nolen situation? By no fault of his own, he gets hurt. It happens. But the frustration stems from the team claiming he's not as hurt as he is. Clearly he jacked up his calf, badly. And its reminiscent of the Darious Robinson injury last year; whose severity was also understated. The question is what is there to gain by constantly understating injuries? It's not like we gain any sort of competitive advantage. The ONLY thing accomplished is the fans are pissed off. Just come out and say 'he'll miss half the season.' At least we aren't expecting him back every week only to be repeatedly disappointed."
Wait, wait, wait. At what point did the team "claim he's not as hurt as he is?" At no point was there a timeline, certainly not from the team. There was certainly nothing specific other than he hurt his calf. So I am not sure where you are getting that. The only "understated" part of Nolen's injury, or Robinson's, for that matter, is that the Cardinals aren't specific so the general public decides no news must mean back anytime now, I guess?
As for the injuries, again, I don't think anything is understated by the team. I think they aren't stated at all. That's what gets fans irritated. I understand that, but the team a) does think it can be a competitive disadvantage and b) never set any timeline for fans to expect a player back "every week" so I don't know how they can be to blame if fans are disappointed.
As for Nolen specifically, my take is that he hurt his calf. And after watching Robinson need a ton of time to recover and knowing the number of athletes -- NBA players mostly, off the top of my head -- that were coming back from a calf problem only to blow out an Achilles, I always expected them to handle Nolen carefully. Besides, he hasn't practiced in pads since he was in college. Ramp up time is going to be needed even when he returns to practice.
From Keith E:
"Why is this franchise so deceptive with injuries? Do the fans who spend their time and money not deserve truthful updates regarding players they are vested in? Nobody has any idea how long/serious of an injury Kyler has. Is Walter Nolen still alive? It's cruel to the fans"
Again, I answered most of this from the question above. But the Cardinals are going to do what they think is the right thing for them, regardless of what the fans think (or me, I suppose. I'd love more clarity myself but I understand why it isn't there.) As for Kyler specifically, when you have a guy at the most important position and he is week-to-week (which I assume he will be since they didn't put him on IR), they are going to play it close to the vest. Or is it chest? Both work.
From Jerry Shore:
"There is a point in which missing time with injury becomes part of a player's profile, every bit the same as those other bad habits. As they say, the best ability is availability. Where is Kyler on that spectrum?"
I guess it depends on how you assess such things. When a guy tears ligaments in his knee, that to me isn't about being injury-prone. So for me, the games he missed with the ACL tear wouldn't figure into my analysis. So I remove the 13 games there at the end of 2022 and the beginning of 2023. That means out of 93 other games he could've played since he came into the league, he has played 87. He didn't miss a game until his third season. That doesn't feel injury-prone to me.
From Joy B:
"Brissett played a really good game against the Colts but I couldn't help but think that if he could scramble like Kyler, we might have scored on the last drive and won the game. I'd also like to know why Petzing can't call the game like that when Kyler's playing. But what happened to the defense? With exceptions for a couple of drives, the defense was not good, especially in the fourth quarter."
Jonathan Gannon acknowledged that the defense needs to be better. He said he believes the four-man pass rush was good on Sunday, not as much enthused about the back end on pass plays or the run defense. I think the injuries up front have been a problem, and the pass rush has been hit and miss. (The Colts have the best offense the Cardinals have seen too; I think that was part of the equation for Sunday's game.) But for all the talk about the offense this season, I agree there are moments that a defensive play or two would've changed the course of the season too.
From Artie Bratton:
"Hey Darren, thanks for mailbag. What do you think was the biggest difference from the offense this week? Do you think Drew Petzing made some changes to the playcalling because of who he had in there or did he make changes because the playcalling from the previous weeks haven't worked, or was it the same playcalling and for whatever reason Kyler has been unsuccessful running those same plays?"
Gannon acknowledged the playsheet was tailored for Brissett, just like it is tailored for Kyler when he's playing. But the playbook is the same, and the QBs have a say in the plays the Cardinals have up each week -- so the player is good with what is coming. All that said, there are multiple factors, including how the Colts defense played it. I'm not saying anything secret when I note that Brissett is more comfortable standing in the pocket and Kyler brings a running element that isn't there with Brissett. So the game is going to play out differently because of that too.
From Garth Short:
"I've been a fan since 1947 as a 10-year-old, but it was probably the late 1950s since I was able to follow the team. I've experienced many losses, and they were ALL bad losses, IMO. Not just the Titans. However, I want to add a tie to my bad-loss memories, and I need help with the details due to my faulty memory. It was on TV, against either the Giants or the Cowboys. We missed many chip-shot field goals. I believe Neil O'Donoghue was our kicker and the game ended 23-23, I believe. Painful."
It was 1983 and it was a 20-20 tie against the Giants. And three missed field goals in OT alone! -- yeah, that'd be rough. (And O'Donoghue not only didn't get cut after that game, he remained the Cardinals kicker through 1985. In today's NFL I'm not sure he wouldn't be cut after the second miss.)
From Mark from Pinetop:
"Well Darren I'm getting too old for this. What happened to the JG-coached team we've been watching for the last two years. The smart team, well coaches, not many penalties never beating themselves, ran the football very well, made us proud even when we lost! Also, why in Year 7 doesn't Murray have the option to read the defense and change the play?"
From Kenneth Schroeder:
"Good evening from Nebraska. I read the article where it was revealed that Murray doesn't have the ability to change out of the play, but then says the whole building trusts him. He didn't have permission to change that one play or in general? I would hope QB1 has permission to call an audible."
These are a couple of leftovers from after the Titans game (obviously). I think there are plenty of plays in which Murray has the option to change out of the play. But I'd guess the Cardinals wanted to make sure they ran clock in that situation. One thing, now that we are far away from that moment, you wonder how much the foot injury, which was already an issue, played into that call and what the Cardinals wanted to do. If they knew Murray would have trouble moving in the pocket, that could play a factor.
From John Turbo:
"Darren, I know you got beat up this past week and we all know why. So for a more formal statement. There are many upset fans after the start to this season. What can Gannon do to turn this team to a winning franchise? Please no opinion here. Just your many years following and reporting on the Cardinals? With last week's mailbag you stated your answers cannot and will not be that of a fan. You have to report the facts. I understand and respect that and please with as many coaches and systems we have had I think it is time to ask the tough reporter questions like 60 Minutes or Barbara Walters used to do."
Well, John, if Barbara or any of the 60 Minutes crew would, in their respective heydays, been trying to get to the bottom of Darius Robinson's pass rush and not, oh I don't know, interview Fidel Castro about why he liked communism or revisiting the Emmett Till murder, I guess that could've been interesting. This isn't the same game, though. "Tough questions" I've heard about a lot of times. I'm always curious to know what the fan base expects. For a coach to crack in front of the cameras? To start breaking down mistakes and calling out players or assistant coaches? That the coach knows the secret to win and is just choosing not to win? What exactly are we saying?
Gannon is doing what he thinks it takes to be a winning franchise. So is Monti Ossenfort. I'm not saying that it will work. But no opinion -- every football person that comes through every NFL building is trying to win. They lose their job otherwise. (I don't have the answers either. Otherwise I'd get paid a lot more money.)
From Sebas Quiros:
"Hey Darren. Why does the NFL have such a limitation on uniforms? For example, why are Rivalry unis only for three years? Why did they remove the color rush uniforms? I feel like it gives the games a subtle yet nice dynamism. Sure it won't really affect how players play (although look good, feel good, play good does exist) but I don't think any fan would be opposed to having more uniforms and helmets."
Ultimately, the NFL likes that each team has a very specific brand and wants to lean into that (which is why, for instance, you'll never see any alternate helmets or uniforms in a Super Bowl.) The league has relaxed things to allow up to four jersey types per team and up to three helmets. Not sure where the Rivalry look factors in there -- it may be an extra -- and you can wear a non-primary (for the Cardinals the red or white jerseys) up to four times a year. Again, it's to make sure teams don't get sideways. The NFL has no desire to be like other leagues where teams sometimes where uniforms that don't seem to have any of the team's regular colors at all (although the Cardinals went big with the sandblasted Rivalry look).
As for the Rivalry jerseys, they want to make it special, which is why there is a limited shelf life. Maybe it changes by the time the three years are up. (Plus, if there is only three years, there is a chance to sell create a whole different new jersey in the near future.)
