Cardinals Chat: Saints Preview, Warner, Dansby, Adams, Boldin and Doucet
Chris: Scott, people have weighed in on our 5'8" CB Michael Adams across fan forums in particular, and from what I have read the consensus seems to be that he is appreciated for his heart, but ridiculed for getting beat repeatedly in pass coverage in particular.
Scott: I like him in every way but one. First, he's still a pup, and has a lot to learn. He plays with smarts in general, and he has the tenacity to play in the NFL, too. It seems he can play the position skills-wise, but the main question is in regards to his height.
He's a terrific prospect, especially in nickle and dime (where he's been getting on the field), because he's one of those ball-hawkish kind of guys. Always around the ball, and/or in the right place at the right time. He also seems to be a very hard worker.
But does he have the size to be a starting, every down CB in the NFL/NFC/West? I'm not sure. He's never going to be able to do anything about his height. And I just don't know if he has the height to play against today's receivers.
Chris: Even though this theory has been repeatedly proven to be false, we still have to hear all the time from "experts" telling us why players can't do certain things because of their physical limitations. It is an absolute misnomer.
Some of the best running backs to ever play the game are "too small to be an every down back." How many times have we heard that phrase? Yet, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, and Barry Sanders to name a few are all shorter than the preferred size.
Without getting too carried away, let me just point out that Michael Adams is 5'8"/181, while one of the best defensive backs in NFL history Darrell Green is 5'9"/184.
Green more than made up for being a shorter player by being just as you said, a ball hawk. Adams is extremely athletic, and I think as he improves people will slowly back off the "too short" angle.
Also, is it just me or have we been seeing a lot more of Adams in the last few games? And if you agree, why do you think we have seen so much more of him lately? They are starting to use him in more ways too, as evidenced by how many times they sent him on blitzes against the Packers.
Scott: Yes, which is why I said the coaching staff likes what they see in him. With Matt Ware out with injuries, the Cards needed another CB out there. He has made more plays than rookie Greg Toler, so this will be 'his time to shine' if he has what it takes.
Scott: No, I don't. Warner, once again, didn't start this conversation. It was started in the media. He gets asked about retirement because the season is winding down. But then its "reported" that "Warner says no decision on retirement" as thought Just brought it up! It's ridiculous!
If there's ANYONE in the media that thinks that Kurt Warner's answer to his retirement plans will change from his standard "I wont make a decision until I take some time off, talk with (wife) Brenda, etc...", they just haven't been paying attention these past couple of years. It's a non-story.
Scott: The Cards are going to have their work cut out for them in the offseason. Like all successful teams, they have quite a few high quality players they need to try and keep happy. That's not easy under the cap (even if 2010 is an uncapped years, 2011 won't be).
I'm sure they'd like to sign Dansby long term. But there are reason's they've had to tag him two straight seasons. Besides Karlos, they'll have an upset Boldin, and an upset Dockett standing at the front of the line, waiting to 'cash in'. There are plenty more, too.
Example: How long will Tim Hightower want to start and/or play an integral role, and get paid from the 5th round deal he signed two plus years back? The cards will certainly have more financial questions to answer the deeper they go into the playoffs, too.
Scott: Terrified? I don't think so. For one thing, Green Bay, with Rodgers and company, pose just as much (or more) of an offensive threat as New Orleans and Brees. Especially late in the season.
For another thing, the Saints offense was the recipient of some incredible defensive play/scoring off turnovers in the first half that, as injuries started piling up, started to come back to earth toward the regular seasons end.
And finally, the Cardinals offense can put up as many points as anyone in the NFL, as the 51 they just stuck on the leagues #2 rated defense showed. I'm not afraid of anyone in this league. The Cards will show again the doubters are wrong.
Chris: When the Saints are rolling they are one of the best offenses in the past decade. With Drew Brees slinging, Sean Payton calling the plays, and all that speed going out on routes they are just as if not more dangerous than the Packers.
Our secondary is vulnerable, but I wonder how much of it is play calling? We had a 31-10 lead, and then we rushed three for the rest of the game.
I have said it before and I will say it again, it may look nice on paper to have more DBs and play prevent with a big lead, but the result for the Cardinals is never good. We are at our best when we are applying pressure at the line of scrimmage and when we get away from that the great QBs in the league can pick us apart.
I prefer man to man coverage because when we go to zone it seems like the receivers all have 15 yards of cushion in every direction.
Still, we have the talent to play with anyone on the league. We will see come game time how much the rest helped the Saints, and how much having a short week coming off an emotional and physically draining game will hurt the Cardinals.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?