The rookies are now part of the team, absorbing into the veteran workouts as the offseason team-building begins in earnest. One more week before OTAs; schedule drops on Thursday. In the meantime, how about we mailbag. Don't forget to send a question for a future mailbag with at least a first name and last initial.
From Jerry Lake:
"What is your take on the opinion we MUST start Beck (at some point) this season in order to see what they have? If Jacoby starts all 17 and goes 10-7, its moot. But let's say we are sitting at 5-5, surprisingly good all things considered, but we all understand Jacoby isn't the long-term QB of this team. Do you put Beck in there knowing the 2027 QB class looks special?"
I have said this a few times. I love how Beck is approaching this and bigger picture, sure you want to see him play. But I am curious -- even if he started all 17 games, what could he show this year, as a rookie, that would make the Cardinals completely dismiss taking a QB if they got a top 5 or top 3 pick? Unless he is C.J. Stroud as a rookie, you're still going to wonder a little. (And frankly, as a third-rounder, only giving a guy one season, or less that one season, to prove himself is a tough ask, isn't it?)
Now, about your scenario, where Brissett has the team around .500 and the offense is clicking. Back in 2004, Kurt Warner had the Giants at 6-4 and with a chance to make the playoffs. But they had drafted Eli Manning (and to be honest, the Giants offense wasn't super sharp), and New York turned to Manning to get him experience the rest of the season. They already knew Manning was their QB of the future of course. The Giants didn't win another game, but they had their guy.
I realize I didn't really address the "must" start thing. I let the season play out to determine that. But if the Cardinals aren't in playoff position come November/December? Yes, I'd want him to get some starts. I just don't know if it would impact my thought process on the draft, per se.
From Dan C:
"Where is all the Rodgers-to-Cardinals rumors coming from? I haven't heard anything from Aaron saying anything so I don't know where all this speculation is coming from. Darren, have you heard anything there with the Cardinals exploring the possibility? Thanks and great job as always."
I talked about this a little last week but I think most of it is just connecting-the-dots because Rodgers hasn't signed and it's an easy talk radio subject/conversation topic. Personally, I believe it was always a moot point and that Rodgers was going back to Pittsburgh. And as I wrote previously, I don't think Rodgers makes sense in Arizona.
From Arthur Estrada:
"Hi Darren. I was very impressed by Carson Beck's intro presser. He seems like a likeable guy and savvy QB. Rooting for him. My question is actually about coach Schaub and whether or not we'll get a chance to hear from him? We know its his first year as a coach, but he had a long successful career, and he was a traditional pocket passer so he undoubtedly has excellent insight to share with his players. Would love to hear his thoughts."
My hope is that I get a chance to talk to Schaub sooner rather than later, and can have a story for you. I know that in the Shanahan/LaFleur circles, Schaub was a guy who has long been thought of as a coaching candidate. The Cardinals benefit from bringing him aboard.
From David McCommack:
"Hi Darren, thanks for the insight. I am a bit confused with all of the feedback on the Beck draft pick in the third round. Before the draft it was widely speculated that the Cards would draft him if they didn't get Simpson. Then after the draft there were some local pundits saying it was a pick of desperation. I'm happy with the pick, although was hoping it would happen a round later, but with Drew Allar going 11 picks later, that could very well have been Beck. I'm glad the Cards picked him where they did. What are your thoughts on the pick and where it happened?"
I tend to agree that I don't think Beck lasts all the way to the fourth round, so if the Cardinals wanted him, that was the spot to take him. Would it have been better if he had been a fourth-round pick? Sure. But that's along the lines of seeing a guy in the first round and you are picking 12th and thinking, "I can pretzel my logic here to see him falling to us" and then him going 5 or 6. As a team, you aren't the only one believing a certain player is worth it.
It will be interesting to see how the Beck scenario plays out. But I'll say this: if he works as a QB, it doesn't matter if you took him in the third or fourth round. While I get it if he doesn't work out that you could've had a "better" third round pick, there are always hindsights like that.
From J Shugars:
"Maybe it's time for the NFL to look at how the athletes have changed the kicking portion of the game. How many games last year were determined by the coaches' strategy for the use of the field goal,? The rules have changed for the running game (tackling, flying wedge), and the passing game (interference, clothesline). How about the kicking game? How about a horizontal bar across the top, make it a target, or change the points allowed based on placement of the ball? Today the 15-yard PAT is one point but a field goal from the same place or less is 3 points. Change the points of the field goal determined from where it is kicked. Like 1 point from the goal line to the 40 yard line, 2 points to 50-yard line. 3 points beyond the 50."
Well to start with the PAT is 33 yards, not the 18 it used to be (and it was never 15 yards.) Personally, I don't have an issue with the kicking game as it stands now; I get that guys have huge legs now and many can drill 60-yarders with ease, but like the 3-pointer in basketball, people like seeing that. To make it fewer points inside the 50 just seems odd to me, especially when weather can still play a factor. I don't see the reason to change it, personally.
From Collin M:
"Hey Darren. Four of the last five coaches we've had have emphasized 'we're going to be run-first.' Having seen how three of them have played out, my somewhat-knowledgeable brain can tell they have attempted to achieve it in different ways: Arians with heavy play-action and deep balls, Wilks/McCoy with tragic run-up-the-middle, Gannon/Petzing with another version, and now LaFleur with a presumably West Coast-influenced approach. Even Kliff would talk about being run-first from time to time. Unfortunately, I have no idea what all that really means. I would love it if you, or the team, could do a tactical breakdown into the different ways you can be "run-first" but approach it differently based on the school you come from."
Here's the thing, in my opinion. No team is "run first" anymore. You have to be able to run, sure. And if you draft a guy like Jeremiyah Love, you are going to want to use him often. Run-first is outdated in the NFL, however, because it takes away the nuance of running an offense, the same as if you insisted on passing all the time. Defenses would adjust.
To your question, again, I don't think it's about "run first" as much as how you run, which you broke down a little yourself. Mike LaFleur has made it clear he likes the multi-tight end approach -- he has mentioned Tip Reiman by name a couple of times, so hints there -- and he has Love, and Allgeier, and Conner. I think any coach who might float "run-first" is either looking to play-action a lot or, when Kyler was here, bootleg off the PA. Running the ball has fewer ways to fail. That's why coaches like it so. To me, though, run-first is a fallacy.
The Cardinals actually ran the least last season, 36 percent of the snaps. But there were only five teams that ran it more than 50 percent of the time: Baltimore, Buffalo, Seattle, Washington and Green Bay. The Commanders had Kliff as OC and injuries at QB. The other teams won enough (or Lamar Jackson) that they had the lead often.
From Jonny Counts:
"Darren, I'm worried that the Cardinals won't have enough good running backs to make it through a 17-game season. Please tell me that I'm paranoid. Thanks!"
Feels pretty paranoid, Jonny, considering all of the other questions I get are whether the Cardinals are going to trade away a running back. But if my top four guys are Love, Conner, Allgeier, Benson and Bam Knight, that's a pretty deep room. In my opinion. Do injuries happen? We just saw it. Although, jeez, this concern in mid-May is a choice.
From Steve 88:
"Hey Darren. FWIW and IMHO, you are now one of the GOAT's as it relates to Valley of the Sun journalistic excellence. Steve Schoenfeld, Lloyd Herberg, Mr. Kent Somers, Paola Boivin, Jeff Metcalfe and Bob McManaman. Was there someone that mentored you or perhaps influenced you more than anyone else when you were up and coming waaaaay back in the day?"
That is very kind to say. My biggest mentor was a gentleman named Tom Blodgett, who was an editor at the now-defunct Phoenix Gazette, and I learned a lot from a peer of mine who has become one of my closest friends, Paul Coro. But it's funny you brought up Schoeny; he was incredibly nice to me when I first got on the Cardinals beat, unfortunately just a short time before he was killed in a hit-and-run. Kent, who has also become a close friend, was nicer than he needed to be to a college student also covering ASU basketball at the same time, and that also resonated with me. To think I've covered this team now going into a 27th season wouldn't have seemed real to me had you told me back in 1992.
