Are the Cardinals Now Relevant?

[deanpet21]

I'd put Arizona, GB, Carolina, and Seattle at the top tier in the NFC. Given that Seattle was 1-4 against those other 3 last year I get why some would put them at a lower level though.

Lynch is a huge loss plus there defense is not as strong as years past. They will get four easy wins against LA and SF. So they will be in contention.

 

[deanpet21]

Giants will be in the mix, unless they blow another 6 games they lead at the 2 minute warning

Besides OBJ there is no other offense weapons. Just like Dallas there top Wr's must have HUGE years for there teams to be successful. Although, the Giants should be able to win low scoring close games unlike Dallas b/c of there defense.

 

[jarntt]

No Cowboys could be in it.

 

[SonnyCID]

Lynch is a huge loss plus there defense is not as strong as years past. They will get four easy wins against LA and SF. So they will be in contention.

Lynch barely played last year and when he did he was a shell of his former self and really held the play calling back when in the field. The Hawks finished 4th in scoring offense, moving up from 10th in 2014.

The defense fell from #1 in scoring to #1 in scoring.

Big steps back,huh?

The Hawks dropped a few close games against other contenders. But theyre still in the top class of NFC teams.

And LA is not a gimme.

 

[JMR]

Lynch is a huge loss plus there defense is not as strong as years past. They will get four easy wins against LA and SF. So they will be in contention.

I can understand why someone would pick Arizona over Seattle, but the Lynch comment is a bit puzzling. He was more or less lost last year as well, and the O was actually better without him. He was totally ineffective when he played last season outside of the SF game. As far as the D goes, it probably will not be as good as '13 but it still has the most important players that have kept it as the #1 scoring D in 4 straight seasons. The roster right now on that side of the ball looks every bit as good as it did in '12, '14, or '15.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Lynch is not a superman. The RB is not, and never has been in the modern era, a live or die by position. If it is- you're doing it wrong. Not even a Rushophile team in Seattle died on Lynch's hill. Rawls lining up and replaced him just fine by my count.

Heck, my team rolled out household names like Charcandrick West and Spencer Ware (coincidently another Seattle castoff) and did just fine running the ball. Not quite as dynamic as Jamaal of course, but plenty competent and effective.

 

[JMR]

Rawls lining up and replaced him just fine by my count.

I would agree with your count. 4 100 yard games in 6 starts, best ypc in the league by over half a hard among qualifying RBs. He was producing as well as Lynch ever has until the injury.

 

[The Derski]

Weird thread

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

Lynch is a huge loss plus there defense is not as strong as years past. They will get four easy wins against LA and SF. So they will be in contention.

I'll take Seattle's not so strong D which has been tops in the league the last 4 yrs over the Skins anyday.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Weird thread

Troll thread from @Southieinnc

Amazing, isn't it? A five page thread about the Cardinals created by a NE fan.
They have arrived!

 

[chf]

Troll thread from @Southieinnc

Amazing, isn't it? A five page thread about the Cardinals created by a NE fan.
They have arrived!

Wait till the Cards win a Lombardi, then you REALLY start to get under people's skin, usually in the 'hey come back when you have 3 or 4 more!' way from Pitt/SF/Cowboy fans.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Wait till the Cards win a Lombardi, then you REALLY start to get under people's skin, usually in the 'hey come back when you have 3 or 4 more!' way from Pitt/SF/Cowboy fans.

I pray I get to experience that. I would gladly embrace it.

 

[CCF151]

Arizona and Cinci are kinda in the same category as KC where they are solid teams but at the end of the year something always goes wrong and the QB spot or defense isn't quite where it needs to be to get to a Super Bowl.

Then again I had Houston and Denver in the same category entering the playoffs last year as top defenses with not enough QB play to win. I'm of the opinion that if you make the playoffs and you have a good head coach and a healthy roster then anything can happen.

I hear you there. If they don't lose Palmer two years ago or the honey badger last year who knows how the games against Carolina end up.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

I think we could at least use a team who's won a SB within the past two decades for starters.40% of the teams make the playoffs. Almost 1/2. Sorry I don't think just making the p/o's constitutes relevancy. There has to be some recent consistency in my opinion to be considered relevant.
I'd include GB, Pit, Balt to your list at a minimum.

I guess it all depends on how you define relevant. What's relevant to me may not be the same for another. It's subjective based on who, what where, when, etc. I would think most GB fans think the Cardinals are relevant considering they beat them twice last year including a playoff game. What about in 2010 when the Jet's bounced NE? Were the Jets relevant that year to NE fans?

Hell, considering a NE fan created this thread, the Cards are definitely relevant in his head.[/QUOTE]
I agree it's certainly subjective. I hope I had made that clear? This was the criteria I used WRT relevancy. Doesn't make it right or wrong. I mentioned numerous times I think/hope AZ wins the NFCW. The biggest take away I'd like people to see as it pertains to my idea of relevancy is a team needs to have a recent history of making the playoffs. Not just a tear or two of being one and done.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

I think we could at least use a team who's won a SB within the past two decades for starters.40% of the teams make the playoffs. Almost 1/2. Sorry I don't think just making the p/o's constitutes relevancy. There has to be some recent consistency in my opinion to be considered relevant.
I'd include GB, Pit, Balt to your list at a minimum.

Your consistency is what makes you...special...[/QUOTE]
Actually all those posts were consistent (-) where I added in your lifetime. Don't fret if we've learned anything as a country. It's history repeats itself. So chances are you may get to see the Boyz be relevant again.

 

[Shaggy]

I pray I get to experience that. I would gladly embrace it.

So would I, so would I!!

 

[night]

The Cardinals are a tough team under Arians, sure they melted down in Carolina but they have that experience under their belts now. I don't see them doing that again.

Even with Brady I think the Cardinals would win the game

Cards = division winners - 13 and 3, possible home field advantage through out the playoffs

New England won't be able to pressure the quarterback like Carolina did. Carolina either hurried or hit Palmer on like 90% of his snaps which was pretty impressive.

 

[redseat]

Even with Brady, winning this game would have been a tall task for the Patriots. Without him? Save your money because they have no chance.

Oh there is always a chance of them winning this game without Brady. Yes the Chances are now slimmer but there is still a chance.

As far as the OPs question - Yes I think the Cardinals are for real/relevant

 

[jarntt]

Your consistency is what makes you...special...

Actually all those posts were consistent (-) where I added in your lifetime. Don't fret if we've learned anything as a country. It's history repeats itself. So chances are you may get to see the Boyz be relevant again.[/QUOTE]
Really? What happened to "win the ultimate prize" occasionally and then AZ and Cincy being relevant? You make up your opinions based on the argument at hand.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Lynch is a huge loss plus there defense is not as strong as years past. They will get four easy wins against LA and SF. So they will be in contention.

They've never had easy wins over the Rams lately.