As the Chiefs and Eagles get ready to play the final football game of the season, the Cardinals continue to work on their morphing coaching staff and we continue to put out mailbags. 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 Jonathan M:
"Is there any chance we take a wide receiver at 16? Or trade up/down within Round 1 for one? Especially if we spend some money in free agency, the need for a speedy WR exists, and there should be good defensive linemen in the middle of the second. It's a deep class for the line. If Tetairoa McMillan falls a bit, he may be worth moving up for, and I could see Luther Burden III sliding to 16, or we could trade down."
Any chance? There's always a chance. As you note, free agency comes first, so that could shift draft thinking. But it's going to take a lot for me to think they are not taking a lineman (offense or defense) or an edge rusher with that first pick. (I would be surprised if they trade up, but trading down would be an option.) Yes, defensive line is expected to be deeper than some other positions. But you just spent a first-rounder on a receiver. I don't see it happening again, especially with a front office that prizes line play.
From Gary Muller:
"Hi Darren. Between seasons, do and should if they don't, teams go back, play by play, looking at this past season's games to see what went right or wrong? I'm a Big Red fan since birth (1960), and I've seen games in St. Louis and six in Arizona, though we live in Chicago. I rarely, if ever, see KC, Buffalo, LA Rams, SF, Seattle, etc. have 'wasted' plays. We seem to have three-to-five per game. Thanks for all you and your team do!"
Of course they do that. There is some of that in-season too -- especially at the bye -- but the whole first couple of months of the offseason is dedicated to review and correction. As for "wasted" plays, I can't pretend to watch the game through the same prism as you, but I think it's a pretty broad brush to say the Cardinals have a bunch of lost plays and those other teams do not. I suppose I'd need a definition, but I've seen most of those teams have some clunker play calls/blown opportunities in games. That's the sport.
From Ben J:
"I've got a hypothetical best-case scenario for you, Darren. And it's not even absurdly outrageous! Let's say that Justin Jones and Bilal Nichols return next year and play exactly as Monti had hoped, with no injuries. We keep Lopez, Collier, and Stills for depth, and D-Rob has an excellent sophomore year. Then let's say Ojulari, Browning, and Zaven all make a noticeable improvement from last year and we also retain Kyzir, Mack, and Barnes just to top it off. Isn't that a good front seven? We could certainly use a star, and yes players will inevitably get hurt, or not play well, but are we really as far from a good defense as people seem to think?"
Well as long as it is just mildly outrageous we're all good? I'll say this: I think they want to get better on defense. Some of that is health. But some of that is upgrading talent. What's the saying? Standing still means you're getting worse because you have to move forward to get better? (Something like that.) You cannot count on health, to begin with, and again, you want to try to find more playmakers. I think the job Nick Rallis has done is excellent, and I do think the bones of a good defense is there. But upgrades are needed and I'm sure are coming.
From Ted Beck:
"If I remember correctly, after the Cardinals fired Ken Whisenhunt following the 2012 season, there was some chatter about Andy Reid becoming the next head coach for Arizona. Obviously that didn't happen, and although Bruce Arians turned out to be a good hire, you can't help but think 'what if' the Cardinals had been able to hire Reid. Was Andy Reid a serious candidate for the Cardinals' job? Thank you."
There wasn't just chatter. There was reporting that it was close. He was definitely a serious candidate and I'm sure the Cardinals would've loved to land him. It did not work out. He chose elsewhere. But Bruce Arians turned out to be a fantastic hire.
From Mark Georgetti:
"Hey, Darren. I think Monti and Gannon are doing a really good job in getting the team back to being competitive. I have wondered what may have happened if the organization kept Steve Wilks and just hired Kliff Kingsbury as the OC. Just curious about your opinion on that. Thank you."
Hey, it's HYPOTHETICAL TUESDAY. Although I suppose that's what happens this time of year. Some backstory. Wilks wasn't let go just because the offense struggled, and at the time the Cardinals hired Kliff a few weeks later, he was also a hot prospect for the Jets to be their head coach, so Kliff -- who was already USC's OC -- had options to be another head coach or at least just be an OC at USC. I'm not sure that would've been a move he would've been interested in (not to mention Wilks likely would've had his own wish list to be his new OC had he stayed.)
From Brian Short:
"Hi Darren. I know the mailbag is not for responses, but I do want to add onto the Kyler Murray discussion because you've made this point multiple times that Kyler isn't perfect, but he's better than not having a QB. I respectfully disagree. I think there's a fair argument that going 8-9 is worse, long-term, than going 2-15. Because at 8-9 it's often difficult to build a team with blue-chip talent when you're drafting mid-rounds. We aren't getting worse but we're not getting better and the goal is a championship. Thanks."
Here's the key, Brian. You say the Cardinals are not getting better. The men in charge of making those decisions here -- Jonathan Gannon and Monti Ossenfort -- disagree. (I can't say they respectfully disagree because I haven't asked them specifically, but let's pretend they do.) You are talking about tanking, and the Cardinals already had two straight seasons of such play record-wise in 2022 and 2023. If they were to go 8-9 in 2025, your argument would be stronger. There is hope. I know there are many who refuse to say that because they don't like the QB, but that's being disingenuous if they are honest. Hope exists. Again, I have covered QB situations where no hope existed. It stinks.
From Bob Kitsos:
"Hi Darren. Thanks for your work on the mailbag. It's a fun read. For next season, Matt Prater or Chad Ryland?"
We will see. Right now, Ryland is the only one under contract for next year. Feels like it'll be Ryland -- younger, had a very good year -- but I'm a never say never guy. Will be a storyline to watch.
From Ken D:
"OK I know this is a way out question, but how secure are the headsets used by coaches (wireless on the sideline and up in the booth) calling offensive and defensive plays? I'm sure visiting teams bring their headsets and all with them, but somewhere somehow we are transmitting information over the air. I know a little out there, but it's the offseason, and one has to think of everything. LOL."
They are quite secure. As headset communication evolved over the years, the NFL made that a priority because yes, you don't want anyone cheating. The amount of prep every game to ensure privacy, security and even straight-up that they work correctly is always impressive to me.
From Rob Ert:
"Darren, what you're saying can make some sense about fan comfort. But, I've sat through 30 years of games, including at Sun Devil Stadium and if the team wins the heat doesn't matter. Just like the cold. Don't you think two or three more wins and we're in the playoffs is as good as having to suffer the heat just like suffering the cold? I really don't remember the heat living here my entire life. When the Cardinals have a decent team those early wins mean a lot. I know nothing will change, but like I mentioned it's our only home-field advantage."
It doesn't have to be the only home-field advantage. Filling the seats with Cardinals-only fans actually would help more, in my opinion. Would some fans care about the heat if there were enough wins? Maybe not. But some will, and with good reason -- sitting in the heat, to me, actually can be worse than sitting in the cold. And while I realize many years for the Cardinals they did not have good teams at Sun Devil Stadium, the heat absolutely gave more fans pause to attend early-season games. I think the pros of the current situation outweigh the cons.
