OK, time to dig into a mailbag. Maybe not the best part of my job given the Cardinals' struggles of late, but I understand fans want answers. So we press on. 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 Dale Hatfield:

"Hi Darren. Good job with the mailbag this year. When the big moment comes, you're either ready or you're not. The Cardinals were not ready. The odds are now very long for the Cardinals to make the playoffs. Still, a winning season is possible, so chin up. My question is this, the offense clearly is the most talented unit on the Cardinals, yet the offense is the most underperforming unit on the team. Why?"

I wish I knew Dale. More importantly, I wish the offensive people knew. It isn't that they aren't trying to be more effective. There have been times when it has looked excellent. It also has been weird -- that opening TD bomb Sunday to Michael Wilson was something everyone has been craving. Then that part of the offense seemed to fade away as the game went on. Perspective is part of it too -- the second Kyler interception, the underthrown ball to Zay Jones, can't happen obviously. But the Seahawks said there was a blown coverage on that play, and only a great recovery by safety Coby Bryant saved Seattle. Sometimes the other guys make plays too. But generally, it feels like the passing game has been inconsistent. Not poor. But not everything it could be as often as it needs to be. IMO.

From Tim Tekulve:

"Darren, thanks for this forum, I enjoy your insight and reading the pulse of the fans. I was ready, primed and very excited for the game this week but left the stadium with a typical loss. Watching the game, I started thinking of Kyler Murray and how successful he is when passing inside and outside the pocket. His two interceptions were largely responsible for the loss against Seattle. What is Kyler's quarterback rating inside and outside of the pocket? How does his rating stack up with other mobile quarterbacks? (If you have time to look at that)."

I'm not going to have ratings for other "mobile" quarterbacks in part because I would think mobile is a subjective term. In terms of in and out of the pocket, all I could find was a breakdown of "traditional" versus non-traditional (roll outs, scrambles, etc.) He has 335 throws of traditional, with an 87.2 rating, and 61 passes of not traditional, with a rating of 127.8.

From Darrell from Pinetop:

"I know it's a rebuild year, but it felt like the Cards were ahead of schedule, at least before the bye. Now it's obvious the Cards need some work. With my rant done, what would need to happen at this point for the Cardinals to make a wild card spot?"

Given the great seasons of the Vikings and Packers (assuming the Lions win that division), there will be only one other wild card team. That's Washington, who at 8-5 are like the Seahawks two games ahead of the Cardinals yet are realistically three since the Commanders won head to head. That doesn't include the Rams (ahead of the Cardinals right now) and the Falcons (tied with the Cards.) It starts with the Cardinals needing to probably win all four of their games remaining. And then get some help.

From Mack Marston:

"Hi Darren, in the timeless classic 'Woulda Coulda Shoulda' exercise, do you think not prioritizing the pass rush was the key to this season's failure? And yes, when you're in a position to win a division title and don't, it is a failed season. You play to win the game. We have $35M is cap space. There were guys available in preseason, and then at the trade deadline, and we made no big 'win now' moves, which I feel was a mistake. Could it have been avoided if we just got some more pass rush help and won one or two key games?"

I mean, we're never going to know. You are making the assumption it was the pass rush alone that would've won them one or two more games; maybe it would've, maybe it doesn't get home on the last Minnesota drive anyway. To me, the defense has outperformed expectations most of the season. I would argue I expected more consistency on offense -- which that alone could've won you Seattle Game 1 and the Vikings. So no, I don't believe your premise is sound.

From Benny H:

"Hi Darren, this is not a snarky comment, truly, I am very appreciative of Chad Ryland's contributions this year; he delivered us some big wins and special moments. With that said, there have been questions about Prater. I think for a time there is looked like Chad was the heir apparent long term option. Maybe the Prater convo is back on the table? What is the status of Prater?"

Prater is working his way back; ESPN recently reported he had knee surgery. Not sure what his timeline is in terms of being able to come back this season with four games left but there will be decisions in the offseason. Prater is not under contract next season but Ryland is, so the Cardinals could stand pat and just have Ryland be their guy next year if they choose. I think the next four games will be meaningful for Ryland in that conversation.

From Ted Beck:

"As always, thanks for the mailbag. You always make me feel better after a tough loss. It seems like more and more ball carriers are hurdling over would-be tacklers. I know it looks cool, but I personally think it's an extremely dangerous play and usually doesn't generate a lot of extra yards, not that I've seen anyway. What are your thoughts? Has there ever been any talk about possibly making it illegal?"

I agree the hurdle seems to have become more en vogue, and I would guess that's in part because so many defenders go so low for the tackle these days. (I mean, if I was trying to tackle Trey McBride, I'd go low, and I'm not small at 6-3, 200) It's dangerous for the hurdler, but since he is the one making the decision, I'm going to chalk that up to free will rather than try and outlaw it. I haven't seen any talk about making it illegal, and dare say it would never be considered unless a bunch of guys just suddenly went Billy Sims all the time.

From Dan Bailey:

"Hi Darren. We understand that JG saying 'it starts with me' is coach speak. It's the right thing to say. But JG didn't throw two interceptions. Fact is it is not JG's fault. I'm a big 'Jimmys and Joes' guy. The players play. And our players didn't play well enough in a must-win scenario. I know Kyler isn't going anywhere. But if JG is constantly putting it on the coaches, well then isn't the coaches' seats going to warm up?"

You are right, Gannon has to say that. You are right, the players play and especially on the professional level, they are usually the biggest difference makers with wins and losses (Bill Belichick didn't become suddenly a worse coach, he just lost a great QB.) One more reality: coaches feel the heat from the public when things don't go well. Even if Gannon wasn't saying such things, the fans aren't going to stop complaining.

From Steve K:

"I have some split feelings on a couple of former Cardinals from the 2019 class, namely Byron Murphy and Zach Allen. Both look to be Pro Bowlers that we let walk instead of paying. Seems kinda pointless especially when note how we paid SMB almost the exact same amount. Why didn't we pay them?"

The Cardinals didn't pay them because, whatever they were looking for, Monti Ossenfort deemed it too much for what they could provide. These kinds of decisions are made all the time. What we do not know is how Murphy and Allen might've fit in what Gannon/Rallis wanted to do. I'll say this, I had been hoping Allen would stay. But he also wanted to be able to continue with Vance Joseph, who was headed to Denver. (Murphy will be a free agent after this season, so ... yeah, he's available.)

From Lou Kilmeade:

"I don't understand why McBride isn't our No. 1 option. The guy is borderline-Larry-reliable. On those must-have downs, why are we throwing it to Marvin or Emari? It makes no sense. Just target McBride the way every team targets their No. 1 option in crucial moments. A week ago on a 4th and game, the Vikings went to Justin Jefferson."

And on the fourth down pass when the Cardinals were trying to come back, Kyler threw to McBride. I'm not sure what else you want. It took a little while but McBride was targeted 14 times Sunday. He's been targeted 106 times in 13 games, and has 80 catches. He is the No. 1 option and they throw it to him like he's the No. 1 receiver. This is what it looks like.

From Carl Triola:

"Thanks for doing the mailbag each week. I look forward to it every week. I've seen the Cardinals in SF and Seattle this season and the home crowds can have such a huge impact. I know that Arizona is a destination game for most if not all other fan bases. I'd like to know if the Cardinals' players ever get tired/frustrated having their home stadium feel more like an opposing stadium especially for a crucial game like this past week vs the Seahawks? Is management doing anything to discourage selling to opposing teams?"

For your second question first, the organization can do some of that to a point, but once a person buys their tickets, they are the ones who get to choose to whom they sell. As for the players, do they want all fans of their own team and have it full every game? Of course. But every team and every fan base is a little different. There have been times I have heard frustration, but not often. The players get the dynamics too.

From Dale Tom:

"Thank you for the Cardinals mailbag. It's the only inside information I can ever get. I was wondering about what was said during the broadcast of the game on Sunday . The announcer said the Cardinals are not built for third-and-15-type situations. He said the next step for the GM is to get some speed on offense. Do you think this is true and where would that speed be?"

To be clear, I didn't see the broadcast, at least in its entirety. But if we are talking about speed and third and 15, I assume he means the Cardinals need a deep threat to clear space underneath or even just throw it long. That isn't the game of Marvin Harrison Jr. and Michael Wilson. Could they use a pure speed guy? I suppose. They do have Xavier Weaver, although he has been inactive. What Monti Ossenfort does at wide receiver in the draft/offseason will be something to watch.

From Martin Gutwinski:

Hi Darren! I'm a die-hard Cards fan since 2008 from Dortmund, Germany. My question would be if Jonathan Gannon would now adapt his in-game strategy after falling short to the Vikings? Up by 3, kicking a field goal instead of trying to score a touchdown on fourth-and-goal is not what the analytics say you should do and just from a logical standpoint, you should try to go for the TD. He opponent cannot score 6 (OK, with a missed PAT, but little chance for that) so you are forcing the opponent to play for a TD, take more risks."

Every situation is different for Gannon -- and frankly, I feel the same -- so to me there is no 100 percent-all-the-time choice in any situation. I understand the thought process going for the TD on fourth down in Minnesota, but I also get what Gannon did with the ball four yards from the end zone. The way the Cardinals had been playing, four yards in a do-or-die play into the end zone was no sure thing. But I also don't think Gannon is married to that play call if it were to happen again -- it would depend.

From Michael C:

Hey Darren, I noticed last mailbag claimed the Cards defense has been elite since week 7, and you said didn't know if you would say that. My question is: What more could they possibly do to be elite? Since then, the defense is first in YPG, second in PPG, second in YPP, and first in sacks. (I couldn't find the exact rank for forced fumbles and I wasn't going to count every player in the league individually, but I'm pretty sure we're top two). If that's not elite, nothing is."

For context, this question came in before the Seattle game and after Minnesota. I hesitated for the "elite" tag because the defense did allow 17 points late to the Vikings. The game did not go well defensively against the Seahawks on Sunday, especially against the run. This isn't to say the defense hasn't had a good season. But elite is a high bar.

From Vince Trosino:

"Kyler is an unbelievable weapon. Height hurts a little on throws but has a nice arm. As close to unsackable as there is in the league, he stresses opponents game planning, an incredible runner in the open field. Also has quite a resume. But am I the only one who feels that he's not a leader? The way he rolls his head back or throws up his arms after an unsuccessful play, or points and puts his hands out in a what-the-heck gesture."

From James Johnson:

"I noticed during the game that Geno Smith always had a headset on, visibly talking to his OC team. Whereas Kyler was always sitting on the bench, generally not talking to anyone. Where's the coaching? Where's the strategizing? Please don't say 'it's happening, you just don't see it.' All I know is EVERY SINGLE TIME the camera is on Kyler, he's staring at the ground, quietly looking at his tablet. He's never in face-to-face conversation with a coach."

I always wonder about questions like this. You can wonder about body language, I suppose, but unless you are around him a lot more -- and I'm not even around him like this -- how can you tell if he is a leader? He shows emotion, yes. But quarterbacks have been known to do that over the years. Given how Gannon runs the show, do you think he's going to let Kyler get outside the lines in how he operates? If the coach doesn't have a problem, not sure why anyone else would.

Also, every time the camera is on Kyler? Methinks that's hyperbole. It's definitely not the whole truth. Maybe you should check out the Cardinals' YouTube channel more often, and get a more wide-reaching picture.

From SW:

"Hey Darren, I really like Kyler Murray. He is either the second- or third-best QB the Cardinals have had in 30 years (IMO, Kurt Warner is one, while Carson Palmer and Kyler can vie for the No. 2 spot). Not sure if it is true, but it seems like Kyler gets more intentional grounding penalties than most QBs. Does he? Or has recency bias and my focus on the Cardinals blurred my perception? Also, what order do you rank Kurt, Carson and Kyler. Thanks for your time."

Kyler has been flagged once for intentional grounding this season, in Minnesota. That's it. (Geno Smith leads the league with three IG penalties.) As for rankings, Warner and Palmer are going to be 1-2 for me because they are both in the Ring of Honor. We will see how Kyler's career turns out. But I would have him ahead of Jake Plummer.

From Bruce Chamberlain:

"Hi Darren. Hey, thanks for airing my question last week but you didn't see the shenanigans after Kyler to MH pass in Minnesota. You have to wait till after the break when they came back at the 2:10.33 mark and the director of the game intentionally shows those two interact. MH never locks eyes with Kyler and Kyler walks past to talk to McBride. Then they show a Viking then show Kyler on the bench looking ahead and then show MH staring straight ahead. I'm not making this up and it bothers me that the NFL is intentionally showing what appears to be a riff. Do you think the NFL writes the scripts or do the players have a say on how they appear? On a side note was Marvin wearing the same exact shoes and shoe color of Seattle's DK Metcalf? Seems teams should be loyal to their colors."

Wait wait wait wait. I went back and look at the clip. So MHJ watching a replay of himself on the big screen at the other end while they pass each other -- and give a brief hug -- is concerning to you? And MHJ staring ahead -- I'm not sure what you are looking for? It's still the third quarter of a game. They aren't going to be over-excited over one TD. I truly don't understand what we are talking about here.

As for the shoe color, which I know is a popular topic for you, you'll need to talk to The Jed Foundation, a non-profit that protects emotional health and helps prevents teen suicide. They are the ones who have green as their color, and that was the cause MHJ was repping in the game.

From Brandon Quark:

"Hi Darren. I have a conspiracy theory that you should investigate. Put that Walter Matthau investigative journalism degree to good use. I believe Kyler has, or has had, a shoulder injury that we don't know about. Evidence: Over the last 2-3 years the fans have been perplexed by the lack of deep shots. Kyler was once one of the most deadly deep ball QBs in the NFL. Not only has the shot attempts themselves completely evaporated, but when he occasionally does uncork one it often comes up short. Until the truth is found, this theory checks enough boxes to stand for truth; until proven otherwise."

Uh, no. No he's not hurt, and definitely no on conspiracy theories. I've had enough of that garbage to last a lifetime. We can talk about why the deep game has lessened -- essentially, since Christian Kirk left, and we can chat about personnel -- but injury is not why.

From Garth Short:

"Darren, a non-football question and it concerns your wardrobe. Living in the Phoenix area, for most of the year you have to deal with very high temperatures. So, I would think you'd have to have a lot of Bermuda shorts and Polo/golf shirts. But every now and then the team has games in Green Bay, Minnesota, Buffalo, etc., cold weather places which requires warm clothing. So, do you buy as few pieces of warm clothes as possible, knowing you won't get much use out of them? Just curious."

I wouldn't say few. And it depends on what you term as "warm." I mean, I am wearing dress slacks of some sort every day to work. If you are talking about sweaters and/or coats, I did pick up a heavy coat last year that I really like. I took it to Minnesota and it looks like I might take it to Carolina, but yeah, that's probably the only times I'll use it for the year. I actually enjoy cooler/cold weather (minus snow; don't need that) but you are right, it's unnecessary. But have have a few beanies and a pair of gloves and a scarf. Just in case.