You've Got Mail: The Week To Finalize The Roster (2024)

From Gene Bickley:

"Do the injuries to Darius Robinson and BJ Ojulari make the team reevaluate how they practice? Both guys are DL, where naturally they have to lean into 300-pound OL with speed on a daily basis. It is no surprise they tend to be exposed to leg injuries. Hjalte Froholdt also had a scare a few weeks ago. Again, a trench guy. I just feel like every other position group is protected, and OL/DL are the ones who are the most physical and thus injury exposed on the regular. Maybe changes need to be made? Guys need to be prepared and practiced of course, but availability and health is always No. 1"

I'm not sure how you prepare for football without playing football. Injuries stink, but it's easy to say "protect them" but there is no real way to make it safer beyond what they do. At some point, you have to hit one another. I don't know any specifics about the Robinson injury but Ojulari just was coming around the corner and it gave.

From Kasten Z:

"Hi Darren. I was just wondering with the suspension of Zay Jones, do you see the Cardinals picking up a wide receiver and if so who? Also, who do you see picking up Michael Thomas? Thanks Darren."

I think the Cardinals have enough in the wideout room right now that they won't see the need to make a move. Jones was WR4 at best and the team still has Trey McBride and Elijah Higgins as pass catchers. As for Thomas, I have no idea. It won't be the Cardinals, however.

From Cort Brown:

"Hi David, in response to your comment last week about no star pass rushers available in FA, I agree. But there are some good veteran pass rushers available. Yannick Ngakoue is the common 'big name' still out there. He's not a star at this point but that's also why you can get him on a one-year deal. Where is the harm in spending some of our leftover budget on a one-year veteran pass rusher? I just think about what happens if Zaven or Gardeck get hurt?"

I understand what you are saying, Curt, but there are all kinds of reasons why they may not want someone. Just because you have money to spend doesn't mean you should overspend on someone who may or may not help. You don't know what some of these guys are asking for, you don't know what kind of behind-the-scenes intel the Cardinals may have on a guy, and if you feel there isn't a huge upgrade over what you already have, then it doesn't make sense. If another injury were to happen, I have no doubt they would bring someone in just for numbers. But as it is, cuts are coming. (Plus, you may just wait until after Week 1 to sign a vet at this point.)

From Richard Wakefield:

"I was going to give you my two cents on not playing our starters in the preseason games but I see that many fans have beat me to it. I'd like to see the starters play but I understand that how JG is doing it is the only way he can get the best 53 players on the opening roster. That and not getting anybody hurt."

From Stephen Hoffman:

"Why is the coaching staff not playing the first team in at least first quarter of maybe two exhibition games to develop cohesive confidence and take some hits before season begins? Last season's exhibition was the same. Good teams aren't afraid to play their starters in preseason."

Gannon and his staff are going to set up the preseason the way they think is best. I'm not a fan of saying "good teams aren't afraid" because that has really nothing to do with anything; I've watched plenty of bad teams in my career play their starters and not have it turn into wins in the regular season. To think there is only one way to reach success, I believe, is mistaken.

From Jesse Arrieta:

"Hello Darren. When we sign players in the offseason, for example undrafted players, we give them a contract, correct? Can you explain to me what happens if they get cut and don't make the 53-man roster? Do they still get paid the rest of their contract?"

All players sign a contract. There are varying levels of guaranteed money for every player -- that of course is paid out if they are cut. (Usually it's upfront money anyway, so they've already received.) But let's take an undrafted rookie who is released at the end of the preseason. He probably got a small signing bonus, but the salaries for his contract are not guaranteed. All players get a small weekly stipend during training camp, but not much (about $3,000 for vets, little less that $2,000 for rookies). If the player is released, he is owed no more money -- so in the end, your offseason work doesn't get you much cash if you don't make the roster (or brought back to the practice squad.)

From Michael C:

"Hasson Reddick said on Twitter he's not playing without a new contract. I understand the hesitancy to give a huge, lengthy contract to a guy who is 30. But how about we meet him halfway? A big-money average for two years? We can afford it! Reddick isn't dumb, he sees the situation. He knows hes not getting that four- or five-year deal but nor does he want a one-year deal. The X factor here is JG. The Eagles defense where Reddick thrived. Familiarity by all parties. It's a perfect marriage Darren. I know we fans are impatient and ornery, but I feel justified on this one."

I'll just say I feel like, while you make some realistic assumptions, they are assumptions nonetheless. You don't know what Reddick is looking for -- because I feel like if it was that easy (and short), either Philly or the Jets would have already done it. And while JG knows Reddick, this is a different situation than Philly as well. You have not addressed what the Jets want either -- and that's assuming they want something and aren't stedfast against a trade, which is what they have said. I've said this before: I'll never say never, but since this hasn't even had a hint of possibly happening, I feel this is a never.

From Rob Lewis:

"Hey Darren. In reading some of your question responses, I guess I'm a little upset the team isn't 'going for it.' They aren't trading for Reddick. Premier talent, that yes will require picks and dollars, but you win with players, not unused budget. My question Darren is, why arent we going for it? Kyler is here. Our WR room is stacked, as is our TE and RB rooms. OL is healthy. DL is not healthy but is deep. LBs are healthy. Safety position is deep. CBs are admittedly young and unproven, but they are all healthy at least. My point being, we have all our horses and ready to compete. So why aren't we making all-in moves? CB Patrick Surtain was rumored to be available pre-draft. Denver hasn't paid him. He's a young, elite CB. Offer them whatever it takes. Another young, elite CB is K.C.'s Trent Mcduffie. KC has arguably the most stacked roster in the NFL, a lot of money to spread around. Make an offer!"

Can't lie, this feels like someone talking to themselves about Madden. I think the easiest answer to your question is that Monti Ossenfort has a plan and "going for it" at this point is not part of that plan. People want consistency over time, but then yes, they get impatient. I would guess both those guys not only would cost a big contract but a lot in draft capital, and it's funny, everyone was happy Ossenfort wanted to lean into the draft but now want him to shortcut after two drafts. Max Melton in theory is supposed to be that young, elite CB. They are gonna give him a chance to be that.

From Lib Rainey:

"Hi Darren. I was reading your article about Darius Robinson's injury, and we've learned he avoided major injury and should be OK thank goodness. But JG's response was interesting. He was mad at the reporters who reported on the injury during the closed part of practice. I can understand not reporting on playcalls or formations, but a guy going down is big news and is going to get out anyway. What did JG expect? Nobody says a word and all the fans are scratching their heads three weeks into the season?"

I think he was most upset at the rule being broken about it being reported more than the report itself. Obviously, the news is going to get out. I mean, the very next day, after Robinson is absent during the open part of practice, the subject is going to come up. It would never sit unknown three weeks into the season; once the regular season starts there is an injury report that comes out three times a week. Again, most coaches are very protective of any information about their teams -- playcalls, formations, and yes, injuries.

From Daniel Axt:

"Hey there, I asked this before and you answered it before but it is too long ago. So here I go again. Where do I find this Gannon TV show? I'm located in Germany. Is that maybe a problem? Thanks."

Hey Daniel. Currently, there is discussion whether or not the show can/should be posted online. There are meetings going on. If it does get posted, it will be on azcardinals.com during the regular season.

From Cap Strickland:

"Hey Darren. I want to talk gambling in sports, specifically team sports, because the paranoia over 'throwing games' has never made sense to me. First, winning is job security which is priority No. 1 for players, coaches, and GMs in any league. Second, there's no way you can get away with it without teammates noticing. Somebody starts making odd decisions (or off-script decisions) or starts flubbing routine plays, and folks will notice. I understand in principle why gambling is bad for players/coaches, but Pete Rose was betting they would WIN games. What's wrong with that? Where's the controversy?"

This could be a dissertation about all this and why I would disagree with you on a number of points. Let's take the Rose example and someone betting on his team to win. Let's say that's OK (it is not.) And let's say your team doesn't win many of those games, and that player goes deep into debt. Then what? If you are in debt to the wrong people, they may then want you to do some things for them that includes throwing game or shaving points/runs. My alma mater, ASU, had a basketball player, Hedake Smith, who absolutely was not playing to his potential and it went unnoticed. It's all a slippery slope, in my -- and these leagues' -- opinion.

In the end, I'll argue the other way: What's the upside of allowing such things? Then anything bad happening is impossible.

From Rob Ert:

"I like the new web page, but would like to ask about photos. Don't ya think they look kinda like trophy mounts? Just wondering, some look a little strange. Outside of that, I like it. Thanks."

I believe you are talking about the facelift not for azcardinals.com but for our app, and I agree, it looks great. I'm going to disagree about the player images; our illustrator Chad Burns does a great job on those and they look cooler than the regular photo head shots you would use instead.

From Mackay Breivik:

"Darren, a longtime Cards fan here, seldom contributor to the excellence known as the mailbag. I was listening to the Cardinals Underground podcast from Aug. 20 and started to get defensive on behalf of Dani and her mascot experience, but as the podcast continued, I quickly became scared for her. We love her, so please don't let her go anywhere. Now, for my question. What will define a successful season for the Cardinals this season? Don't say the obvious, wins, because that isn't always the story. We had the same number of wins in the 2022 and 2023 seasons, but I felt 2023 was more of a success. I appreciate your work and am looking forward to a great season."

I'm not sure why you were scared for Dani (or maybe you should have been), but rest assured she is fine and I am guessing not going anywhere. At least as far as I know. What will define a successful season? I know you said wins is the obvious, but it is at least part of it. If this team doesn't reach, let's say, eight or nine wins, I think there will be disappointment. Away from the wins? I think we need to see an offense that can score points. We need to see Kyler at his best, clicking with the pass catchers while the run game still is as effective as it was late last season. I think the defense needs to show improvement, show it can be much more stout against the run than it was last season, and develop a handful of the young players from the last two drafts into key cogs going forward. That's what I would call a success.