Every Rosen has its Dolphin.

Post Reply  
Moderator
Posts: 55700
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 112,597.84
ubertaco wrote:Is it at all reasonable for the Cards to draft Murry and not trade Rosen?

No. Locker rooms accidentally become toxic all the time. Overtly creating one is a death sentence for all involved.
User avatar
Moderator
Posts: 47238
Joined: Sun Aug 2, 2009
Sand$: 41,492.67
That’s a bad plan but doing it with two top 10 picks makes it even worse
_______________________________________

#NewJackCity
”I want players who hate losing more than they love winning”
Megalodon
Posts: 17389
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009
Sand$: 17,504.62
Yeah, this isn't a Jimmy Clausen/Cam Newton situation. That made complete sense because Jimmy wasn't good and was a day 2 pick and Cam was a really good prospect. This is just a cluster if they're actually going to do that.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 12202
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008
Sand$: 36,887.74
Just thinking aloud, but making that Giants pick at 37 made me think about how they can use that to bring in Rosen. They will want to sit tight and do what they can do drive the price down but Cards have at least three teams interested and have set a first round price.

I doubt the Chargers will entertain giving up pick 28. They are a play-off team with hopes and despite Rivers age I think they will want to give it another shot to reach SB rather than think about rebuilding.

Pats on the other hand, have shown that they don't need to use their first rounder to win so might be happy to give up pick 32.

If thats the case, then Giants will have to trade up into the first round to get the pick needed to trade Rosen. I don't think it would take much and it seems like their could be willing trade partners.

Would be a win/win for Giants and Cards. Well, not really true, Cards wasted 1.10 from 2018 but as far as this situation goes, it gives it a resolve that wouldn't be to harsh on either team.
_______________________________________

User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 3908
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009
Sand$: 7,608.44
theoutlawdekepatton wrote:Just thinking aloud, but making that Giants pick at 37 made me think about how they can use that to bring in Rosen. They will want to sit tight and do what they can do drive the price down but Cards have at least three teams interested and have set a first round price.

I doubt the Chargers will entertain giving up pick 28. They are a play-off team with hopes and despite Rivers age I think they will want to give it another shot to reach SB rather than think about rebuilding.

Pats on the other hand, have shown that they don't need to use their first rounder to win so might be happy to give up pick 32.

If thats the case, then Giants will have to trade up into the first round to get the pick needed to trade Rosen. I don't think it would take much and it seems like their could be willing trade partners.

Would be a win/win for Giants and Cards. Well, not really true, Cards wasted 1.10 from 2018 but as far as this situation goes, it gives it a resolve that wouldn't be to harsh on either team.


The bolts wouldn't try to trade for Rosen to start him any time soon. Rivers still has 2-4 years in the tank and Rosen could learn a lot during that time. I mentioned it earlier here that getting him would make sense for a team like the Chargers. Patriots, Bengals, Broncos, Giants, Falcons and Saints would probably make sense as well. Most other teams seem like they have "their" guy and no real pressing age issues at QB..

A first rounder might be reasonable for Rosen but it's probably not something they're willing to sacrifice. Mid-Late 2nd they'd probably deal
_______________________________________

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
William G. McAdoo
Great White Shark
Posts: 2234
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 5,723.64
https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/4/3/ ... ler-murray

I wasn't the only one who had this thought apparently.

Still not convinced it's a good idea, but if they don't trade the #1 pick they are not getting a good return on Rosen either.
Moderator
Posts: 55700
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 112,597.84
ubertaco wrote:https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/4/3/18293446/arizona-cardinals-revolutionize-nfl-draft-josh-rosen-kyler-murray

I wasn't the only one who had this thought apparently.

Still not convinced it's a good idea, but if they don't trade the #1 pick they are not getting a good return on Rosen either.

There were people this time last year suggesting the Browns take a QB at 1 and 4.
There was also people suggesting the Browns take Saquon Barkley then whatever QB falls to 4.

Like this Rosen/Murray idea, those ideas were mind numbingly stupid then, now, and at all times in between. Whether those people legitimately thought that was a good idea or was just whoring for clicks are fair questions. It's an either or though. And I'll toss this ringer guy into that same bucket.
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 28173
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008
Sand$: 75,843.38
ubertaco wrote:https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/4/3/18293446/arizona-cardinals-revolutionize-nfl-draft-josh-rosen-kyler-murray

I wasn't the only one who had this thought apparently.

Still not convinced it's a good idea, but if they don't trade the #1 pick they are not getting a good return on Rosen either.


If the Gm is getting fired then this might happen, but it still sounds like Kiem is still in charge.
User avatar
Moderator
Posts: 47238
Joined: Sun Aug 2, 2009
Sand$: 41,492.67
_______________________________________

#NewJackCity
”I want players who hate losing more than they love winning”
Great White Shark
Posts: 2234
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 5,723.64
OarChambo wrote:
ubertaco wrote:https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/4/3/18293446/arizona-cardinals-revolutionize-nfl-draft-josh-rosen-kyler-murray

I wasn't the only one who had this thought apparently.

Still not convinced it's a good idea, but if they don't trade the #1 pick they are not getting a good return on Rosen either.

There were people this time last year suggesting the Browns take a QB at 1 and 4.
There was also people suggesting the Browns take Saquon Barkley then whatever QB falls to 4.

Like this Rosen/Murray idea, those ideas were mind numbingly stupid then, now, and at all times in between. Whether those people legitimately thought that was a good idea or was just whoring for clicks are fair questions. It's an either or though. And I'll toss this ringer guy into that same bucket.


Why are they stupid? The league constantly evolves, and part of that evolution is also roster management. If one of the best ways to run a team is to have QBs on rookie contracts then there is potential value in having 2 of them. Of course, the point isn't that they keep both of them forever, it's that they leverage the value into better trades.

Because right now the market for Rosen appears to be pretty meh.

I don't think it's as easy as just saying it's dumb to consider it. It could be dumb if they don't actually manage the situation correctly. I think it's dumb if they just dump Rosen to whatever the best bid happens to be right now. I also think it's dumb if they can't get good value on the #1 pick and they trade it anyway.

There is room to consider having two top 10 QBs on your roster when you're paying both peanuts compared to what veteran QBs are getting paid.

I kind of agree that it's unlikely to work unless you can get both guys on board with it, which seems unlikely, but on the other hand, if they just dump Rosen and take Murry they basically threw away the Rosen pick without giving him a decent shot at showing what he could be capable of.
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 28173
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008
Sand$: 75,843.38
The problem comes in with the guy who made the pick.
Moderator
Posts: 55700
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 112,597.84
ubertaco wrote:
OarChambo wrote:
ubertaco wrote:https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/4/3/18293446/arizona-cardinals-revolutionize-nfl-draft-josh-rosen-kyler-murray

I wasn't the only one who had this thought apparently.

Still not convinced it's a good idea, but if they don't trade the #1 pick they are not getting a good return on Rosen either.

There were people this time last year suggesting the Browns take a QB at 1 and 4.
There was also people suggesting the Browns take Saquon Barkley then whatever QB falls to 4.

Like this Rosen/Murray idea, those ideas were mind numbingly stupid then, now, and at all times in between. Whether those people legitimately thought that was a good idea or was just whoring for clicks are fair questions. It's an either or though. And I'll toss this ringer guy into that same bucket.


Why are they stupid? The league constantly evolves, and part of that evolution is also roster management. If one of the best ways to run a team is to have QBs on rookie contracts then there is potential value in having 2 of them. Of course, the point isn't that they keep both of them forever, it's that they leverage the value into better trades.

Because right now the market for Rosen appears to be pretty meh.

I don't think it's as easy as just saying it's dumb to consider it. It could be dumb if they don't actually manage the situation correctly. I think it's dumb if they just dump Rosen to whatever the best bid happens to be right now. I also think it's dumb if they can't get good value on the #1 pick and they trade it anyway.

There is room to consider having two top 10 QBs on your roster when you're paying both peanuts compared to what veteran QBs are getting paid.

I kind of agree that it's unlikely to work unless you can get both guys on board with it, which seems unlikely, but on the other hand, if they just dump Rosen and take Murry they basically threw away the Rosen pick without giving him a decent shot at showing what he could be capable of.

There's a very thin line between good and bad teams in the NFL. The great and terrible are in their own little worlds, but there's only a handful'ish of those. 20some teams fall into this bubble in between. It doesn't take much to sink to the bottom and fall out. Nor does it take much to rise above and break through the top.

Intentionally creating a rift at arguably the most important position in all of sports is recipe to fall out the rump end. Sure, it may seem like an interesting idea when you have absolutely no hand in what's going on with the team and are completely removed from the situation. On the ground? It's a war zone with no margin for error. In the situation you diagrammed anything short of Kyler Murray stepping onto the field week 1, ripping it up, then continuing to build will lead to problems that cannot be repaired. You cannot win in this leeg without structure. Without a plan. Without leadership. You can sporadically sprinkle in W's here and there until the ship sinks, but everyone needs to be going in the same direction. That is impossible if it is not clear who the team's QB is and if that QB struggles there is a possibility a segment of the locker room believes the other guy would be optimal. Structure is gone. The plan has been trashed. And no one knows who to follow. So you go into self preservation mode and just worry about ensuring you have a job (somewhere) next season.

Should that happen? should players be the ones creating rifts between each other, the coaching staff, and the front office? It doesn't matter. It's what will happen. These dudes aren't robots. If you put them in a position to divide the locker room then whether they should or not - they will. It's on management to minimize the likelihood of this happening and set a vision for the team, which is why they need to pick one now.
Great White Shark
Posts: 2234
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 5,723.64
Maybe that is correct. I'm not sure it couldn't be managed though. I'm not sure the Cardinals have the structure in place to manage it.

Imagine it were the Patriots doing this, do you think they have the structure to pull it off?

And no, Jimmy G and Brady is not remotely the same situation.

I'm all for 'they are not robots' until they start worrying only about the money, because, that is ultimately what drives this.

Teams also worry about the money, and yes NFL is a business first and football second. That fact though, means it's worth considering your assets without putting too much emotion into it.

Again, see the Patriots and their infinite championships.
Moderator
Posts: 55700
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 112,597.84
The Patriots are a popular subject whenever someone wanders down the what-if rabbit hole. They aren't the norm though. So it makes them a horrible comp. If they're doing something unusual I think it's worthwhile to examine the why. But if you're suggesting something outside the box anywhere else than I think you need to comp it to something that's not the Patriots.
Great White Shark
Posts: 2234
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 5,723.64
Well it was the Eagles president(?) who brought up the idea actually.

But just saying the Patriots can't be used in a hypothetical is strange to me.

They are not the norm, but they are wildly successful, and at least some of that success was due to doing their business differently from how many other organizations were doing their business.

I'm not trying to say that having both Rosen and Murray would lead to wild success for the Cardinals, but I don't think it's fair to just throw out that idea as trash either. The important factors for having a successful franchise appear to be having a great QB and having financial flexibility to manage your roster while your QB (and other young stars) are on controlled salaries.

I completely understand why Rosen and Murray might not like the situation, but I can understand why it's an interesting concept for an NFL team to attempt.

The Patriots (again) have had good success drafting QBs in the middle rounds and then flipping them after a couple of seasons for higher draft picks. While still having those guys bring value as the back up, a position every team needs filled.

Now, the cost of Cassel or Garopolo or even what's his face from Arkansas, was not as high as a top 10 and a number 1. But the potential return when you decide which guy you want to move is likely much greater as well.

The entire issue (if we assume the Cardinals are actually planning on taking Murray) is that right now Rosens trade value is pretty bad. Would it be better with Murray on the roster? That depends on a few things, but it's not clear it would be worse if Rosen actually plays well as the starter.

Of course it would be beyond idiotic for them to do that and then leave Rosen as the backup.