Discussion about this post

User's avatar
George McKelvey's avatar

I was a Kyler Murray skeptic before the Cardinals drafted him. Considering that the Cardinals are the Franklin Pierce of the NFL--drunk and largely forgotten--they're better off without him.

And it seems to me the way to develop a quarterback is protect him, give him a running game and a competent receiver room, and keep him away from cuckoo-nanners coaches.

Ken Raining's avatar

I'll push back a bit on the Kyler/O'Connell section. I don't think the argument is (or should be, at least) that O'Connell is that when he has at least a league average quarterback his teams are contenders. And Murray is at least a league average quarterback. There's no more developing him, not at his age, so I don't think O'Connell is going to unlock an MVP season from Murray, but he'll be better than JJ McCarthy. And that alone makes it a good move.

Also, dismissing the Vikings' coach and especially wide receivers as being just like what Murray had in Arizona? C'mon! Jordan Addison is at least as good as any receiver Murray played with in Arizona, much less Jordan freaking Jefferson. That's a few steps beyond healthy skepticism.

Lastly, a question for everyone: without looking it up, can you name the head coach of the Arizona Cardinals? I was sitting there reading that section thinking "they did hire someone, right?" Truly the NFL's most invisible franchise.

22 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?