After Sunday, let's just get to the (lengthy) mailbag, shall we? I'm sure I'll upset a few of you as you peruse, but as they say in locker rooms across America, it is what it is. 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 Collin M:

"Hi Darren, I'll refrain from adding to the presumed deluge of letters asking you 'what the heck happened' and instead focus on a specific rule I could use clarification on when Rabbit Taylor-Demerson caught-and-then-fumbled the ball, why wasn't it ruled incomplete? It's my understanding a catch must be accompanied by a 'football move' (plus other verbiage accompanied by much speculation and controversy). From a pure rules standpoint, given that Rabbit didn't maintain control as he came to the ground, why wasn't it incomplete? Hang in there everyone."

Unfortunately in this case, Rabbit 1) grabbed the ball 2) put it away in the crook of his arm and 3) took three steps before he fell. So the officials saw it as a pick and run, and therefore the fumble was upheld. It was an incredibly athletic play to make sure he had control of it. It's just that his athleticism ended up costing him possession.

From Andrew Miller:

"Hi Darren, thank you for deepening your opinions and analysis in addition to the always-valuable reportage. Five games on the books and five games in which the Cardinals held a lead late in the game and chose to employ conservative play-calling on both sides of the ball as the game progressed. If we define conservative as tactically decreasing risk taking, do you believe more conservative play calling reduces 'killer instinct' and do you believe opponents view the Cardinals as predictable in these situations?"

From Patrick Regan:

"Does it appear to you like once we gain a lead, we get to conservative in our playcalling? I know errors/penalties kill drives but that seems to be part of why we stall out. Are teams adjusting and we aren't? Any insight would be great. Also, is there anything positive the team can glean from a game like this?"

From Chris Minton:

"What will it take for Gannon to quit coaching conservative? It's been an issue in three games this year (and a fourth could be argued in San Fran), and it directly led to this loss against the Titans. When the Cards score 21 points in the first quarter-and-a-half, only to not score again (or even target MHJ again if memory serves), it comes across as nothing more than shutting everything down in hopes of bleeding out the clock; it's made even more frustrating after said quarter-and-a-half was exciting and successful football."

Not surprisingly, I received a lot of questions similar to these three entries. To begin with, I don't think the mindset has been much different this season than it has in the past two seasons for this staff; I think what has damaged the path is the inconsistency in the run game, which allowed Jonathan Gannon to play offense how he is most comfortable yet still churn out yards and possession. With the run game not quite the same, I think that makes it much harder to stay that course. But they need to get the ball to McBride and Harrison more often.

Gannon did say, with the final third down playcall in particular, that he and Drew Petzing talked afterward about the play and wished they would've done something different and actually had some of that feeling in the moment. Gannon admitted he probably should've called a timeout. "We were expecting one thing, they didn't give it to us," Gannon said. "I could've used a timeout there, that's something I could've done better. I know (Drew) didn't really love the call either. It's something we talked about and we have to put our guys in better spots."

From Dave B:

"With all the talent we have up front, why don't we put more pressure on opposing QBs? Why do they still believe we can be competitive with Kyler? There are at least a dozen starting QBs better than him (and I've been a Kyler supporter.)"

The Cardinals have already have a rate of more pressure and more sacks this year compared to last year; if you are talking about the end of games, some of that is how the coaches have decided to play in those situations (although Gannon acknowledged that, for all the issues the offense has had, the defense has had a chance to finish the game with stops at the end and have not.) As for Kyler, they are competitive. The Cardinals have lost three straight, yes, but by a total of six points and they all came down to the last play. That's the definition of competitive. (I am thinking "competitive" is not the word you really want.) I find it interesting when you talk about the other QBs. Let's say you give me 12 QBs better than Murray. OK. There are 32 teams in the league. I get it. I know there are a lot of feelings all over the place on K1. I don't think Mahomes or Lamar or Josh Allen are going to be available anytime soon.

From Dhruvraj P:

"Hey Darren. That was hard to watch. Looked like we came out firing all cylinders only to lose. Given that NFC West is tight race and assuming we stay the course we are on playoffs look like far fetched dream let alone SB aspirations. My question is from strategic standpoint at what point does GM start reviewing performance and hand out change recommendations to the owner for next year?"

Couple things here. One, I think the GM, like any boss, is always reviewing performance. I oversee a handful of people and that is a constant process. And MIchael Bidwill is involved as an owner and is in constant contact with both Monti and Gannon. That said, having any "recommendations" for next year is down the road. There is a ton of season left, there are a ton of things that can happen. Those little things matter. Locally, look at the Diamondbacks. With six weeks left in the season, it looked like there would be massive change after the season. The way the season played out, that flipped. I don't see this season getting so sideways something happens in-season. So Monti will get through the season and evaluate then. Like usual.

From Sam S:

"I get that sometimes Marv isn't open, but we always seem to play better when he and Murray are on the same page. For example, the Titans game, we went up 21-3 because of multiple great catches from Marv and runs by Michael Carter, but as soon as we stopped throwing it to Marv, our offense slowed."

You aren't the only one that noticed. Harrison only had five targets and even Gannon noted in reaction, "gotta keep getting the ball to our playmakers." The good thing is that it is the targets and not drops when we are talking MHJ. He's been excellent for five straight quarters and is trending up. McBride needs the ball more. Harrison needs the ball more.

From Mackay B:

"I wish I could say I had no words. Darren, I understand what I'm seeing, but I don't believe it. Sometimes you approach these comments with cynicism, but I would request that you really look at this objectively, and see things for what they are. I understand that you are employed by the Arizona Cardinals, but at some point do you have any objectivity to where you can openly question the things you are being told and hear? At what point do you decide that you should defend the fan base instead of the team? I understand that this question probably won't be answered. I am sure your mailbag is flooded and I do not envy you at all. Thanks for allowing me to vent in my utter disappointment."

Look, I don't blame the fans for being upset. My two (adult) sons are gigantic Cardinals fans. They have not been happy. My wife accompanied one each to the Seahawks game and then the Panthers game. She was excited to have one-on-one time with her kids, and it didn't work out the way she wanted because they were like you, upset with the result. As far as objectivity, I mean, are fans being objective? I'm not saying there aren't points to be made. But I don't know it's objective when I see fans saying people need to be fired "or else," or that I should be fired (yes, I get that more often than I should, and I don't love being collateral damage.)

I'm not an opinion columnist. I'm here to relay the stories around the team, and distribute information. Questions are asked of the people making decisions. I can't make them answer in a way the fans want. I'm not here to defend the fan base either. Not sure what I would defend. If it's that the fans deserve a winner, of course. But from my perspective, the guys trying to do this are trying to win. If it isn't successful, they are wearing it. In the building, and I'm sure when they get home. It feels like fans believe they want to win more than the coach or GM because they aren't making decisions the fans want. I just think that's odd to think. Why wouldn't they be trying their hardest -- in the way they think should be done, because that's how they got to their jobs in the first place -- to win? You lose your job at some point if you don't.

I've been doing this a long time. I don't see this emotionally. I don't see it through the same prism as a fan. I don't think I could do this job if I did. But I am glad you are able to vent here. Again, I do get it. I have been in the Valley since 1976. I know this area has had very few high athletic points. I hope that at some point, the Cardinals can help with that.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

From Mike V:

There is one play, in particular, that I just can't get over. Maybe you can enlighten me and I'll be able to let it go! On the fumble that bounced off Kyler's helmet, why was that not called a false start? If you go back to the replay, the right guard was standing straight up and pointing before the ball was snapped. I don't see anyone else talking about it, so maybe I missed something? I thought it would be blown dead as a false start and we just lose 5 yards, not possession."

I'll be honest. In real time I also thought that would've been a false start. On replay it looks like Gaines stands up before Froholdt snaps it; I suppose in real time if they thought it happened at the same time it wouldn't be a false start. But given that there was no reaction from the Cardinals' sideline about that, I guess no one else thought that? (I went back to the replay and the announcers didn't really say anything about it either. Gaines standing there as the ball was snapped made it wackier than it already was.) UPDATE: I am now being told an OL has to make a forward motion and/or a quick, abrupt move to simulate a snap to get a flase start. Gaines did none of that.

From Tod H:

"How long did Will Johnson play yesterday in the Titans game?"

Johnson played 55 snaps. It was limited by design coming off the groin injury. He'll play more going forward.

From Raine V:

"I'm curious your thoughts on this idea. When Kliff was coach he put every important third down and fourth down in Kyler's hand and said we will live with the outcome. And now it's the total opposite. Why?"

Different coach. Simple as that. But it's funny -- one of the big criticisms of Kliff was that he put too much on Kyler's shoulders. Now the criticism is that Gannon doesn't put enough on his shoulders. I agree with Gannon's notion that on the final third down Sunday the Cardinals need to put in in Kyler's hands. He gives you multiple options. (Although I am not sure how much the foot injury impacted what kind of plays that could be called, and Gannon acknowledged there were plays that were off the table because of it.)

From Jayson W:

"I really enjoyed the Rivalry Uniforms and the graphics of the end zones at State Farm Stadium. I remembered back in 1988 when Cardinals moved to Phoenix, many asked if the mascot or team colors were changing to reflect Arizona. The new Rivalry uniforms look great and reflect Arizona. Is there any possibility of Cardinals wearing them more often than once a year?"

Right now, no. They were created through Nike and for one game a year. I suppose that could change -- everything is flexible -- but right now, the plan is once a year for three years, and then they are done. (But I agree. I loved the field and I loved the uniforms.)

From Carl T:

"So five games in and the Cardinals are 13 points away from 0-5 and 6 points away from 5-0. Listening to the postgame comments from players they seem borderline depressed. Their comments seem in the same tenor as Gannon. Is there no sense of emergency? What player or players are trying to rally the team? Thanks for the mailbag. It is always a good read."

Again, and I mentioned this above, they want to win. They are upset. They absolutely have a sense it has to be fixed. When guys are talking after a loss, yes, they are going to sound down. Wouldn't you? But they will move on to the next game by Tuesday. They have good leaders that care. That isn't necessarily going to ensure them running for 150 yards every game or force three turnovers. They still have to execute crisply.

From Carey Clarke Jr.:

"You've attended every Cardinals game since you started covering the team eons ago, so you're an authority on this question. Where does the Titans loss rank in all-time for the Cardinals? This is not an emotional or angry question, sincerely. I'm not mad about the 58-0 Seattle loss anymore."

I mean, eons? I'm not that old. Sure half the roster wasn't born yet when I started covering the team, but still. Obviously that was a rough one. Not sure anything overall is going to top the 58-0 loss. As far as gut punches? The Monday Night Meltdown was harsh, and so was Sunday. Being around both, and including all the details (and understanding there can be recency bias), it's tough to see past the Titans result. But here is the thing, and I understand why this is nails on a chalkboard right now: This team is a few points from winning all these games. That team in 2012 by the time they got to Seattle were done-done. This team is not that.

From Richard K:

"I'll let everyone else go into full blown meltdown mode, but my question is why do you think so many guys feel comfortable with just letting go of the ball before they're clearly in the end zone? I've watched football for over 30 years and it never happened, but now it's multiple times a year."

From Jon B:

"The Demarcado fumble I believe is on him, but also on the coach. Any coach worth his salt has seen this happen many times and would understand that many kids make bonehead mistakes. This is a very costly mistake that I have seen several times now. Why not practice carrying the ball through the end zone and out of the back before dropping the ball? I know it sounds silly, but if you did that you would have won today."

Richard, to say it "never happened" is just not true. It's been happening for years and years. DeSean Jackson did it in high school and the pros. Kliff Kingsbury had one of his players do it when he coached at Texas Tech in 2013. I've never understood it, but history says it's gonna happen again and again.

As for practice, I don't think it impacts that play. Then you would have to believe that dropping the ball is what they have already been practicing. I don't think this is a muscle memory thing. I think it's a decision. I've seen enough practice for that part of the game -- they work on high and tight, they work on getting stripped from behind.

From James B:

"I'm a diehard fan and always will be. There are too many questions and even more different answers. So where do we go from here? And please don't say our next game."

I'm not sure what you are looking for here. Saying "next game" can be both snarky and true. I'll say the same thing as always. Fans are going to wallow in what has happened. Coaches and players always work toward "next game." Each week is its own. Of course they are going to tweak stuff and adapt and create new game plans. Let's take the "next game" concept. If the Cardinals go to Indy and lose, then it's one narrative. But if they go and win, everything changes. So yes, when you say "where do we go from here?" It hinges on one game. And then the next chapter comes.

Eventually, yes, the big picture converges with the narrative. But not after five games, with where the Cardinals are.

From Dave Y:

"For the SNF game in Dallas, the Packers were favored by 6.5. One reason I watched was the Cards will play both teams later in the season. I have to say the Cowboys looked a LOT better than I and apparently even the oddsmakers thought they would, with their new OC Klayton Adams. Why didn't the Cardinals try to keep Adams?"

Having gotten to work with Adams a little the last two years, I'm happy he's having some success, although let's remember he's not calling plays in Dallas -- the head coach is doing that job. The Cardinals were trending up in offseason. Adams had a chance to get promoted. I don't recall any outcry from the fanbase of Adams leaving at the time, not to that level. Hindsight is a beautiful thing. There are a lot of things I understand the fans have been talking about for a while now, and offensively too. But this (and I'm not singling you out, Dave) is revisionist history.

From Dee Hanson:

"Before they shut down the old HQ, can they do fan tours through the building? I know its old hat to you, but to the fans the HQ is as mythical as Narnia. Just curious, are you going to be sad to see it go? Been there a long time. I got sad when I sold my first car, moved out of my first apartment, but I'm sentimental. Thanks!"

I have spent a lot of time at 8701 S. Hardy, that is for sure. The first time I was there was when I was an ASU student and I went to the press conference after the Cardinals spent a late-round pick on ASU defensive back Nathan LaDuke. But once my official desk was moved down the street a couple years ago, that was when that sentimentalism hit. If anything, the move -- and again, that's not until 2028 -- hits me a) how many years have passed and man time flies faster and faster as you get older and b) how much further my commute will be.

From Artie Bratton:

"Hey Darren, I got a question about the new team facility. Forgive me for not going back and researching but I feel like there was a "big plans are in the works to renovate and update the current team facility" statement put out by the team. I was under the impression that the spent a lot of money to upgrade the current one. Does this mean that those plans have been scrapped?"

The Cardinals did put out a statement talking about renovating (further) their current facility. But in the end, for what the Cardinals wanted to do for the football team and all the room they needed to do it in, it wasn't feasible on the current plot of land. You couldn't have a giant field house and multiple outdoor fields and the buildings needed to house the ever-expanding business side. Had they stayed, the business building and the football side would have had to remain separate, and Michael Bidwill wants them on one campus. That doesn't even take into account how a football team was going to practice and operate around major renovations.

From Al Stewart:

"Hi Darren! As STOKED as I am about the Cardinals new practice facility, I'm also a pragmatist. My first thought when I heard the news was 'Wow that's great! Man, the Loop 101 traffic is going to be a nightmare.' Brother, I live in North Phoenix and I'm telling you Tempe dwellers that the 101 is no fun, no sir. This is not a football question, moreso real estate speculation, but do you think the new HQ is going to prompt more players/staff to move to North Phoenix/North Scottsdale/Cave Creek? Nobody wants to commute across town from Ahwatukee."

I can't speak for others but I know the subject of moving came up between my wife and I. I don't know if others might consider; there are already plenty of staff and players who have a longer drive to work anyway; for some, this actually will be closer for them I'd guess. But it's like anything else. The job takes you where it takes you, and each person makes a decision from there. Better the 101 and Scottsdale road than when I first started covering the team and I was wondering if I'd have to move to Los Angeles. To get a new and awesome new facility there is a longer commute? As Fitz used to say, those are champagne problems.

From Kevin Tobey:

"Was reading about the new facility in Phoenix 2028. Will we be changing our name back to the Phoenix Cardinals?"

Uh, no.

From Rob Snow:

"When the new super facility opens up is that going to be the new destination for training camp and open practices? I like going to the stadium."

We are *way* too early on that. I'm not going to rule it out; the Cardinals went they had the joint practices in Tennessee, Minnesota and Denver, all were at their giant team facilities but they had fans watching. It's the trend in the NFL. That said, those places are 110 degrees outside during training camp. We'll see how it plays out. Long time before any decisions have to be made about anything like that.

From Christopher Joy:

"Dear Cardinals I hope you win any games coming soon and you are a great team you're really good your biggest fan third-grader Christopher Joy."

Christopher, after the last few days, I am thrilled to hear from you. I hope too. I definitely hope too.