Coming out of the bye, and because "Monday Night Football" pushes everything back a day -- schedule-wise, Thursday is "Wednesday," Friday is "Thursday," etc. -- we are going to post the mailbag a day early as we wait for Jonathan Gannon's "Monday" press conference on Tuesday. 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 Chris Minton:
"Seeing Trey McBride's tweet about how a bye week on National Tight Ends Day shouldn't be allowed, I wanted to ask a bye-specific question. (Thanks for coming to his TED talk.) I've always thought (and have seen a few articles over the years proposing as much) that it would make the most sense to split the byes over two weeks, around Weeks 9-10 or 10-11. Half the teams could get the first bye week, the other half get the second bye week. This would still leave eight games on those weeks, which is enough to fill all the Thu-Sun-Mon time slots. Is there a logistical reason the NFL doesn't do it this way?"
While there would technically still be enough games to fill the TV slots, the reality is for a couple of weeks you run a strong risk of having poor matchups somewhere. Even if you have good games for the primetimes, don't forget the Sunday networks also pay a tremendous amount of money for their packages too and doesn't want bad product.
From Captain Lou:
"Forget questions like 'who should the starting QB be going forward?' or 'Will Gannon shake up his coaching staff?' or 'any update on Daryl Washington?' I want to pose the hard-hitting stuff that every one of your readers wants to know. What is Darren Urban going to do during the bye week?"
Sorry, Cap, that I missed this before the bye week, but the beauty of bye week is we can still address, no harm done. But nothing exciting. Took a couple of days off, had lunch with Mom, and then watched a lot of football over the weekend. ASU is pretty good, right? I also have learned, in the few times I see NFL on Sundays when I'm not working, that it's tough not to get addicted to Red Zone.
From Andrew Lipson:
"When will Garrett Williams return to the field?"
A good question. He has been eligible to have his practice window opened. I wouldn't be shocked if it was as soon as this week (for practice), but to be honest, I do not know. It does feel like Williams' absence, and it's importance, has been under the radar. The coaching staff prizes his versatility and intelligence, and like having that piece for the defense.
From Bob Randall:
"If they start Kyler again, and this offense regresses, how long do we stick with him? You've been in this industry long enough to know that when you finally bench a QB, there's a finality to it."
Well, to start with, it isn't an "if" Kyler starts again. He is going to start again. It just depends when, and that has to do with health. (Yes, I am guessing that's against the Cowboys, but that's still officially TBD.) I don't know how this all plays out. All the main people -- Kyler, the coaches, the entire offense -- understand what the offense has looked like, what's at stake (the Cardinals need to win, regardless of what the stats look like) and the spotlight. Also, and anyone who has read or heard me over the years knows, I am about nuance. If the offense "regresses," what does that mean and what details went into that.
From Patrick C:
"I was quite feeling down about the Cardinals' lost season and was talking to my best friend in Nebraska about it, and he reminded me about the Chiefs 2015 season: Their good but aging RB (Charles) lost early to an ACL tear, and were also missing key corners (Smith and Gaines). Four of their five losses were one-possession games, and they struggled in the fourth quarters. After their bye, they won won nine of their next 10, finishing 11-5 and won a playoff game. What are the chances anything close to that happens to us?"
Teams can go from 2-5 to the playoffs. It has happened. And the close losses, as frustrating as they can be, can be turned around. So yes, such a streak can happen. If the Cardinals do manage something like that, they will earn it. The first three games out of the break are at Cowboys, at Seahawks and then home against the 49ers.
From Bo H:
"Love the mailbag and the Big Red. Been a fan since the early 80's. I don't want to see a house cleaning at the end of the season. I think Monti, JG, and Rallis have done a great job considering our injuries and a predictable offense. We have to be patient and our time will come. I have rooted for this team for too long to give up. You do a great job with this team and I know it's hard but we have to be positive and stick with our Cardinals, no matter what. Have a great day."
Won't lie, Bo, I kept waiting for the question and it didn't come. Usually those entries don't stick around. But I'm not going to turn down some glass-half-full, especially coming out of the bye.
From Don P:
"Everybody is talking about the offense. But let's talk defense. Last season we did not have high expectations for our defense, but our defense stepped up because they were aggressive and blitzing a lot and put the pressure on the QB. We drafted and brought in defensive players this year and yet we have become complacent on rushing four and dropping seven. What was our blitz rate last year compared to this year?"
According to TruMedia, the Cardinals are blitzing a shade more than 22 percent of the time this season on pass plays. Last season, it was about 25.5 percent of the time on pass plays.
From Mark Bailey:
"Hello from Pinetop. A wise man once told me you can keep people guessing wither your a fool, or email Darren and remove all doubt! Age-old question: how do we keep all these stupid road team fans out of our nest? Padres tried to keep Dodger fans out of the stadium, can't we at least try? Exactly how do we get better enough to win these close games? Last question do you feel like the OL and the WR played better last two weeks I do?"
Not sure there is a guarantee of keeping out opposing fans; I watched 49ers at Texans on Sunday and there were a ton of 49ers fans in the stands. Some fan bases travel heavy. The Cardinals have made efforts to change it, but people who have the tickets still have a right to do with them what they want. As for close games, I wish I had the answer. I'd be paid a lot more money. The easy answer is making a key play at a key time in the fourth quarter. What's amazing is that you'd expect that it would've happened at least once in this five-game stretch. Finally, I think the wide receivers have played better, yes. The offensive line hasn't been much different in my opinion.
From Mackay Breivik:
"Hey Darren, appreciate you answering my last set of questions. I am going to try to turn this into a question although this is more of an observation/statement and hoping for a rebuttal. After the Titans game, there was much talk about how there is not one play that cost you the game, generally speaking I would agree with that, but in this instance, I feel like that is an absolute crazy statement when such an obvious play exists. If it isn't one play that cost them the game then what is it? Two? Three? There is an actual number. I do feel like, unfortunately, the fumble in the Titans game, which is an inexplicable and selfish play, didn't only cost them the game, but cost them the season. I feel bad, but the inability to cut or bench Emari Demercado, following the fumble and then apologizing for being upset about it and handling it the way he did is the play that cost them the season."
Here's my rebuttal. Gotta be honest, Mackay, what is crazy to me is that there are some still obsessing over this. It is crazy to me to say the losses to the Colts and Packers, in your mind, is directly connected to a third-quarter fumble in Week 5, one that happened when the Cardinals were up by multiple scores. If it makes you feel better, Demercado was essentially benched the following game in Indy, playing just three offensive snaps before he got hurt. It wasn't announced, and perhaps you are looking for the additional public humiliation.
We will also have to agree to disagree there is a set number of plays that cost a team a game. If we are talking about one-score games there have to be double figures, right? If we are being serious at least. You would find one on every single scoring drive, because one fewer third-down conversion, for instance, could be a game changer. Those are just facts -- if we are truly talking about a single play changing a game. Many we may not talk about afterward, but it doesn't make them any less impactful.
Finally, A.D. Mitchell was not cut. Jonathan Taylor was not cut last season. Bengals safety Jordan Battle was not cut last season. Desean Jackson was not cut in 2008. Guys don't get cut for such a mistake. I get it. You're mad. But I cannot disagree with your position more.
From Drew Simpson:
"There are reports that the Colts are looking to go all-in for a postseason push and are shopping for defensive help. I love that we brought back Calais Campbell, and he has proven how special he is. With that said, I want good things for the good guys, and that means players like CC and Budda deserve the opportunity to contend for a ring; even if its elsewhere. I know you have no inside info, but what is your feelings on something like trading a vet for that reason?"
This is a interesting subject. After so many years of "why don't you trade Larry Fitzgerald to a contender" it always felt a little forced. Last year, too, Campbell was in Miami and teams wanted to trade for him (including the Cardinals.) Campbell told the Dolphins he didn't want to go anywhere. Calais came back this season for a reason too. I don't think you just ignore that. The Cardinals likely will have some decisions to make as the season goes on. But with 10 games left, they want to try and win with the roster they have.
From Andy Mattson:
"I know it was before your time, but why did the Cardinals trade away Aeneas Williams in 2001? He was still at the top of his game."
Before my time? Before my time? Andy, Andy, Andy. Now I gotta go into the files and bring out the proof. Which is below. As for Aeneas, the reality was that Williams -- in that day and age before social media -- essentially wanted out. If the Cardinals had not traded him, Williams made it clear he would likely retire. So they found a way to deal him to a contender (and one not yet in the Cardinals division; that wouldn't be until 2002.) If that was before my time, could I remember off the top of my head that the Cardinals drafted cornerback Michael Stone and defensive lineman Marcus Bell with the picks they got in the trade? I should say not, sir.
From Zach Kahn:
"Thanks for Jake Curhan! He is 3-0 as a Panther. Bye bye!"
Does Darin G know you are cheating on him with another mailbag? I am happy for Jake he is getting a chance to be on a 53-man roster. And it's 3-1 now. The Bills game didn't go so well.
From Ted Beck:
"Instead of another Kyler vs. Jacoby question, how about this: I've never been to Arizona or the Phoenix area, but my perception is that Phoenix is a destination-type city, the place where people (or players) would want to live and play. It's a large, growing, progressive, culturally diverse place. I know you're probably biased since you're from there, but do you think that is the perception among NFL players, that it's the kind of place where you'd like to live and raise a family? Or is money and the opportunity to win more important? And finally, do a lot ex-Cardinals remain in the area after they retire? As always, thanks for the mailbag. You always make me feel better after a loss."
Appreciate the sentiments, Ted. I'm not sure everyone shares that mindset, but we press on. I do think it's a place NFL players like to live. But understand this: money is the most important factor 98.3 percent of the time, or thereabouts. Opportunity is next, although usually opportunity and the money line up. A lot of players do indeed stick around. Of course, there are places some wanted to return to when their career was over, but it's a good spot to stay.
