Best Cardinals Of My Fandom Team - Part 3

So, time for the defense. As usual, some of the choices were easy, and some were hard. The way I understand it, your responsibilities as a defensive player change depending on which side of the field you're on, whether you're weak side or strong side, or whether you're on the QB's blind side. So I tried to pick players representing both sides, based on the starting line-ups Pro-Football Reference provided.

Defensive Ends: Simeon Rice, 1996-2000; 73 starts, 51.5 sacks, 9 forced fumbles, 7 fumbles recovered, 1 INT. Michael Bankston, 1993-1997; 76 starts, 14.5 sacks, 5 forced fumbles, 7 fumbles recovered, 1 INT

The only other player I considered was Bertrand Berry. He and Rice both have 1 Pro Bowl appearance as a Cardinal, and Bankston has none, but Rice and Berry are also similar players. They're both lightweight speed rushers that are weak against the rush (though with Rice that may have been at least partially due to indifference), so I figured I'd only select one. Berry has the advantage of being a better teammate, but he's also been injured frequently (2008 was only his 2nd year in 5 in Arizona where he played in 12 games or more), and he's spent a lot of time playing a sort of hybrid DE-LB position the last couple seasons, so that detracts from the perfomance. Bankston doesn't have their sack totals (though he did have 7 in '94), but he has a bit more size, so he should balance them out in the run game, since he was actual a nose tackle for Arizona his rookie year (1992).

Defensive Tackle: Eric Swann, 1993-1999; 83 games, 70 starts, 39.5 sacks, 6 forced fumbles, 8 fumbles recovered, 2 safeties, 1 INT (TD). Darnell Dockett, 2004-2008; 69 starts, 19 sacks, 6 forced fumbles, 8 fumbles recovered (1 TD), 3 INTs.

There weren't really any other close competitors in my estimation. Swann is one of those frustrating players every franchise has, where you see how good he could be if only he could stay healthy. he was actually on the time from 1991-1999, and started just 84 games (9.3) per season. He did have a stretch from 94-97 where he played in 58 of 64 games, and started 56 of those, and that was when he made two Pro Bowls ('95, '96), but the rest of the time he was a too infrequent presence on the field. Still, when he was there, he commanded double teams inside. Dockett hasn't had the injury problems Swann did, but his numbers aren't quite as impressive either. Still, he demonstrated in the Super Bowl that he can be a disruptive force up the middle, and paired with Swann, they could overwhelm more than few offensive lines.

Outside Linebacker: Seth Joyner, 1994-1996; 48 starts, 12 sacks, 5 forced fumbles, 4 fumbles recovered, 7 INTs. Karlos Dansby, 2004-2008; 66 starts, 24.5 sacks, 10 forced fumbles, 9 fumbles recovered, 9 INTs (2 TDs).

I probably cheated a little here. Joyner was listed on the Football Reference page as LLB all three years in the desert, and so was Dansby from 04-06. Then in '07 Dansby is listed a RLB, and the '08 starting lineups haven't been posted. Still, there wasn't anyone lsited predominantly as RLB that jumped out at me. Maybe Rob Frederickson, but his 53 starts, 8 sacks, 4 forced fumbles, 1 fumble recovered, and 3 INTs (1 TD), looked kind of paltry compared to the other 2.

Middle Linebacker: Ronald McKinnon, 1996-2004, 141 games, 119 starts, 12 sacks, 12 forced fumbles, 7 fumbles recovered (1 TD), 10 INTs (1 TD).

This was incredibly easy. McKinnon was the starting MLB for seven of his seasons in Arizona, plus a year as starting RLB. There's really no one else that was close. He's one of those sort of classic middle linebacker success stories, like Sam Mills or London Fletcher, the undersized guy (6 foot, 246) from a small college (North Alabama) that goes undrafted but shows everyone they underestimated him. Granted, McKinnon's size meant he was in deep trouble if any O-linemen made it out to block him, but with the DTs I've got in front of him (assuming Swann could stay on the field) it shouldn't be a problem.

Cornerback: Aeneas Williams, 1993-2000; 128 starts, 2 sacks, 4 forced fumbles, 11 fumble recoveries (2 TDs), 37 INTs (6 TDs). Renaldo Hill, 2001-2004; 32 starts, 4.5 sacks, 2 forced fumbles, 2 fumbles recovered, 8 INTs (1 TD), 30 passes defended.

Aeneas Williams was a no-brainer, OK? 6-time Pro Bowler, 2 time 1st Team All-Pro. Good teammate, class act, family man, strong in the community, stayed in Arizona for a decade trying to help the team turn it around, everything you could want. All I wanted to mention (besides all that) was in the 2 years he was on the team prior to my becoming a fan, he started 31 games, recovered 3 more fumbles, and intercepted an additional 9 passes. So you can add those on to his totals above, if you want. I would have included his passes defended, but they didn't have it listed. The trick was who to start across from him, and it was difficult, primarily owing to the lack of any standout candidates.

Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie has 4 INTs this year, and became the #1 corner in his rookie season, but he also didn't become the starter until about the halfway point of the season, so it's a bit early yet for him. I considered Antrell Rolle, who's in his 4th year with the team, and has 8 picks. But, he only played 5 games his rookie year, and they converted him to free safety this year, so I'd say no. There was Tom Knight, who started 53 games in 5 seasons, was a starter for 3 seasons, but intercepted only 3 passes. And keep in mind that he was playing with Aeneas all 3 of those seasons, so they had to be throwing the ball his way a bit, yet in two of his seasons, he started a total of 29 games, and intercepted 0 passes. Yes, zero.

Eventually, I narrowed it to David Barrett, Renaldo Hill, and David Macklin. David Barrett was a starter for 3 years of the 4 he was there, started 39 games, and had 6 picks. Renaldo Hill was on the team 4 years, a starter for 2, with 32 starts total and 8 INTs. David Macklin was a Cardinal for 3 years, starter for 2, with 38 starts, and 7 INTs. In the years they were starters Barrett averaged 13 starts, Hill 12.5, and Macklin 15.5. Hill has the most sacks (4.5), Barrett the most forced fumbles (5), Macklin the msot passes defended (38), and Barrett and Hill are tied with 2 fumbles recovered apiece. All of them had 1 TD. I think I chose Hill because a) I remember thinking he did a good job as a starter, and because he seemed able to rack up similar statistics to the others, but in less time.

Strong Safety: Adrian Wilson, 2001-2008; 101 starts, 18.5 sacks, 13 forced fumbles, 6 fumbles recovered (2 TDs), 18 INTs (2 TDs), 59 passes defended.

If you were a 49ers fan in the 90s, you might remember Tim McDonald. Turns out he was a Pro Bowler for Arizona, it just so happens he went to San Francisco right before I became a fan. Would have amde things more interesting. As it is, Wilson is the only Pro Bowler, and for his weaknesses as a pass defender, his skill at pass rushing, run support, and generally putting the fear of pain into opposing offensive players helped tap him for this spot.

Free Safety: Kwamie Lassiter, 1995-2002; 71 starts, 4 sacks, 4 forced fumbles, 5 fumbles recovered, 24 INTs (1 TD).

This came down to Kwamie Lassiter or Brent Alexander. I chose Lassiter partially because of seniority (5 years as starter to 3), but primarily because of style. Alexander's stats were unimpressive. 50 starts over 4 seasons, but only a half a sack, 4 INTs, 5 forced fumbles, and a single fumble recovered. Those numbers look fairly paltry compared to Lassiter's. it gives me the impression that Alexander was a "safe" free safety. He wouldn't get burned for big plays, but he wasn't going to make many big plays either. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, if your team is good enough everywhere else, it's probably for the best, but I'd rather have a chance taker, who might kill you, but might also kill the other team. Plus, Lassiter picked off a bunch of passes in '98 to help the Cardinals make the playoffs, and that doesn't hurt my opinion of him any.

In case you're wondering about special teams, and I doubt you were, I'm taking Scott Player as my punter, on the basis of his many years of service, and Rackers as my kicker, for his Pro Bowl, and general usefulness this season. And with that, this exercise no one's been reading draws to a close. Thanks if you have been reading. Hopefully you were a little entertained.

Best Cardinals Of My Fandom Team - Part 2

It's part 2, which is going to go much more quickly because we're talking offensive line this time, and truth be told, I don't know how to properly rate offensive linemen, and I don't see the answer crashing down from heaven anytime soon, so best to just get on with it.

Left Tackle - Lomas Brown 1996-1998.

L.J. Shelton actually has more years as the starter, but Brown has a Pro Bowl, and I recall Shelton being kind of a bust, especially for being a 1st round pick (21st overall). Leonard Davis had 3 years here as well (2004-2006), but again, he suffers from never living up to the hype placed on him being drafted 2nd overall. Luis Sharpe probably merited consideration, since he was a 3-time Pro Bowler, but all of those were in the late '80s, outside the purview of this exercise.

Left Guard - Pete Kendall 2001-2002.

Funny thing, no Arizona Cardinal has been the starting left guard more than 2 consecutive seasons. Whether that means they can't find anyone good, or they don't consider it a position worth finding a long-term answer for, I don't know. Given their track record for the majority of the period in question, I'd bet on the former. As for why Kendall, I just remember him getting generally good grades in the reports after games.

Center - Ed Cunningham 1993-1995.

Only person with 3 years as starting center. Yeah, it's that basic.

Right Guard - Anthony Redmon 1995-1997.

Redmon started 41 games those 3 years, Lester Holmes 45 from 98-00, and Deuce Lutui has 40 starts the last 3 years. I know Lutui has a penchant for penalties, and there was considerable talk this year about him getting benched at times. Holmes never played in the NFl again after leaving Arizona, despite being just 31, while Redmon logged 2 years with the Carolina, and 1 with Atlanta, including one year as starting right guard. Holmes was a 1st round choice for Philly, Lutui a 2nd for Arizona, Redmon a 5th round choice. So I guess I'm choosing the underdog.

Right Tackle - Anthony Clement 1999-2001, 2003

I don't think Clement was ever anything to write home about, to be honest. he was a massive guy, and he and Shelton were supposed to be these massive bookend tackles that would protect Plummer and open lanes for the running game, but it never really came to fruition. Clement seemed to be hurt frequently, and his size left him vulnerable to speed rushers. Still, he logged more time there than anyone else, so I guess he'll do.

Well, that was entirely unsatisfying, but I never was that well-versed on what makes linemen good or bad. Next time, I'll focus on the defensive side, so hopefully that will be a little more interesting.

My Dad And His Rooting Interest

While chatting on the phone with my dad earlier this week, the conversation eventually came around to Arizona being in the Super Bowl. My dad mentioned that two of his students are from Pittsburgh originally, and are big Steelers' fans. My dad said he told them he had to root for Arizona for two reasons:

Reason 1: Because back when the Cardinals were still in St. Louis, Terry Bradshaw and the Steelers used to regularly humiliate the Cardinals. One game in particular that stuck in his craw was a game where he remembers the Cardinals apparently knocking Bradshaw out of the game early, then jumping out to a 3+ touchdown lead. Except Terry returned in the second half, showing no ill effects of whatever laid him low, and lead a Pittsburgh comeback. I get the impression my father doesn't believe Bradshaw was actually injured, and so he's still holding a grudge.

Reason 2: As he put it himself, 'I unfortunately passed the Cardinals' fandom on to my son, then abandoned him'.

I found that second reason pretty amusing. I have a hard time gauging how my dad feels about me having taken up the Arizona Cardinals' fan banner. Most of the time I think he feels bad for me that they've been so lousy. At the same time, he holds (or did hold) considerable ill will towards the Bidwells for moving the team, so I think part of him enjoys the fact they continued to stink, that they deserved it*. In the past when he's asked me how the Arizona Caards have been doing, I had the sense he was fighting himself. He didn't want to know, but he kind of did. or maybe he already knew the answer and just didn't want to have to commiserate with me about it. Or listen to me scream bloody murder about the performance of Jake Plummer**.

* He views the current state of the Kansas City Royals the same way, that their ineptitude is payback for benefitting from the Denkinger call in '85. I don't believe he's moved past that one. Or that he's bothered to try.

** Or scream bloody murder about how Jake was being blamed for the performance of the team in excess of any damage he might be inflicting.

Well That's Just Swell, He Said Sarcastically

I read that some Arizona Cardinals' "fans" decided a proper celebration for the team's trip to the Super Bowl would be to burn cheers in the yard of Donovan McNabb's home.

Fantastic. People are just now finding out there actually are Cardinals fans, even if they think we're probably all bandwagon jumpers, and now they're going to think we're nothing but a bunch of goddamn soccer hooligan wannabes!

I'd like to think we could handle prosperity a little better than that, but I guess there are always going to be a few jackasses in the bunch. Too bad for McNabb, like he's not going to have enough trouble. I'm sure the NFC Championship loss with start up the talk about letting him go again in Philly, and the stuff about whether he shrinks in the big moments, or whatever else he'll have to hear about, now he's got to get his yard fixed up.

These Close Calls Are Tiring

While I'm certain the people at Monday Night Football, and the general viewing public, enjoyed this week's game as it was, I would have preferred Arizona win in a slightly less heart-threatening manner. Say, a nice 40-3 drubbing.

Still, first rule of Arizona Cardinal fandom is accept every win, no matter how narrow or lucky it may have been*. I've even managed to draw some encouraging things from the game, primarily that they won. Consider it: The Cardinals were at home, against an inferior team, with a chance to make other teams sit up and take notice of them. Historically, the Cardinals lose games like this. They lose to teams that appear to be even worse than them all the time. It's maddening. And while they certainly didn't play well - too many stupid penalties**, they did win, and that's a sign of progress.

You know what I didn't need though? Tirico and Kornheiser bringing up that damn Bears game from 2 years ago. Yeah, thanks for reminding me of how badly they cocked that one up. No really, I want to be reminded of that debacle.

* I am stunned that Mike Martz of all people would call for a fullback dive up the middle from the 2 for the final play. No double reverse? No option play? Not even a fake spike? I'm not complaining, but I am surprised.

** I was so worried they would blow this game, I didn't turn it on until there were 5 minutes left in the game, basically three plays before they scored the go ahead touchdown. This is probably for the best. After a stupid unnecessary roughness penalty that gave the 49ers a first down when it should have been 4th and 2 or 3, they ran a graphic that said the Cardinals had returned two INTs for TDs, only to have them recalled by penalties. Had I actually seen those, I probably would have thrown a footstool through my TV screen. So yes, best that I didn't start watching sooner.

Rage That Destroys Love?

The sad thing, to me, about this "Jim Edmonds is a Cub" situation is these Cardinals' fans I see online proclaiming Edmonds is dead to them now. Really? Why, because he still wants to play and the Cubs were willing to give him a shot? I can't see it being about money, since he's getting more from the Padres and the Cardinals not to play for them than he will be from Chicago. And it's not as if he left St. Louis on bad terms with the fans, like say, Clemens leaving Boston and deciding that the time to actually train during the off-season. These fans liked Jim two weeks ago, they were talking about how they would have cheered for him when the Padres came to town. Now, he's persona non grata.

So is this common? I meant to call up my dad and ask him if he had this reaction when Keith Hernandez went to the Mets back in the '80s, because my dad loathed the Mets back in the '80s, which is where I get it from (It was part of why the '06 postseason was so sweet. You gotta swing the bat to win the game, Beltran!), but I didn't get around to it. The thing is, Hernandez was traded, so it isn't really the same situation, as it would be more akin to when Edmonds got traded to the Pads, than his choosing to sign with the Cubs.

I've been trying to think of a similar situation in my experience, and I haven't so far. There have been players who joined a team I rooted for who I wish had stayed away (Emmitt Smith joining the Arizona Cardinals, John Mabry rejoining St. Louis in 2004, Gregg Jefferies being traded to the Cards in '93), and there are players I've been glad to see gone (Jeff Brantley, Ron Gant, Craig Paquette, well, it's a long list, and a post for another time), but I can't think of a player I liked when he left the team I rooted for, who I decided I disliked once he signed with a particular team. Maybe Stephon Marbury, but I think that was more the way he seemed to force his way out of Minnesota (because he hated playing 2nd fiddle to KG), than it was because he signed with the Nets. I didn't give a crap about the Nets one way or the other. I guess I've been lucky.

Has it happened for any of you (he said, as though more than one person is reading)?

The Opposite Theme Of The Last Post

What professional athletes have earned a lifetime on the field pass from a team's fans? What I mean, no matter how much they might be struggling at any given time, the fans shouldn't turn on them, because of what they've meant for the team.

I got to thinking about this because of all the discussion about Yankees' fans booing A-Rod. Or not booing at this particular minute. I didn't think it was that big a deal because Yankee fans boo everybody. I remembered in 2004 that Jeter started the season poorly, was hitting south of .260 at the start of June, and he was hearing boos. Naturally by the end of the season Jeter was back to his usual level of performance, and the bandwagon Yankee fans all loved him again, but the fact they would boo him really surprised me.

I'm no Jeter fan. I'm not sure whether he's overrated or underrated, or neither. But he was a big part of those four World Series championships the Yankees got to celebrate in the second half of the 90s, and given that his play has been at least above average (and usually good or better) his entire career, you'd think they'd cut him some slack.

So I know we've got fans of some different sports teams who read this blog, so are there any people playing, or that have played, for those franchises that you think deserve a pass for their on-field struggles? Or does the money they make mean no slack in light of past service? For example, if Craig Biggio is weighing down the Astros in his pursuit of 3000 hits, and blocking a talented prospect (is he? I don't know Houston's farm system), does he have enough goodwill built up from all his previous years to where the fans won't give him a hard time about it?

Working just from teams I root for, and staying within my time as a fan of those teams:

St. Louis Cardinals - Ozzie Smith (and honestly, even this little thing between him and LaRussa hasn't soured him on me), I think Albert's getting close (if not there already), Willie McGee obviously.

Arizona Cardinals: Aeneas Williams because he stayed with this team, and busted his ass to try and make them good for a decade. Jake Plummer. OK, this is probably just me, but he got Arizona it's first playoff victory in 50 years, over the hated Cowboys no less. The fact the organization spent too much money on his contract and not enough on the offensive and defensive lines, shouldn't be held against Jake.

Minnesota Timberwolves: Kevin Garnett, like Aeneas, gets points from me for sticking with a franchise that either isn't trying to win, or is run by people too stupid to help make it a winner. personally, I lean to the second option for both teams.

So, your thoughts?

Let's Talk About Sports Hatred

It seems like a good time. The NCAA Tournament's started up, and people are reveling in Duke's first round loss (expected though it may have been), and baseball's regular season is only a few weeks away, where the rivalries will be renewed. So I figured I'd ask what sports teams/players you hate/dislike and why? And how far does that dislike go? What I mean is, if you dislike Team X, and a player from that team joins your favorite team, do you root for them, or want them to crash, burn, and get lost?

I know a number of the Cardinals fans that read this blog seem to hate the Cubs. I get a little annoyed by their fans, but rooting for the Cubs is a lot like rooting for the Arizona Cardinals, so i guess I kind of get where they're coming from. When your team is pretty much always bad, false bravado and ragging on other teams is just about all you've got.

So I suppose my number one disliked team is the New York Mets. What can I say? I was raised as a Cardinals fan during the 1980s, who else am I supposed to hate (according to my father, Jeoffrey Leonard of the San Francisco Giants, but I don't remember him)? Arch-rivals of the cards during the mid-1980s, seemingly populated entirely by coke-snorting cheaters (Howard Johnson and his corked bat for instance), while the Cardinals were a good-spirited virtuous guys (having sent their trouble-maker to the Mets). What? I was like five years old, thus I was really stupid back then. Especially high on that list was Dwight Gooden, who managed to be phenomenal early enough in his career to block John Tudor from getting the 1985 Cy Young (far and away Tudor's career year). But it extended to the lesser players. Gregg Jeffries had a couple of pretty good seasons for the Cardinals (actually, the two best years of his career) in 1993 and 1994, was a godsend after the debacle that was Andres Galarraga in 1992, and I still wanted him gone. He was not only a stinking Met, he was a former Royal, so to hell with him. It's either because I've mellowed with age, or because players aren't identified as being from a certain team as much anymore, but I don't really do that much.

I dislike the Yankees in that "I'm tired of hearing about every little thing that happens with them" sense, but I don't really hate their players, or the team all that much. It is fun to watch them struggle, and I think their fans (and the media at large) are too hard on Alex Rodriguez, but it's not a feeling on the same level as what I felt towards the Mets.

I still can't stand the Cowboys, even though they aren't really all that good anymore. It's why I was overjoyed when they signed Owens last year, because I knew he'd help tear them apart, and I wanted to see it. It's why I was dismayed when Arizona signed Emmitt Smith in 2003, we didn't need broken down Cowboy running backs! (We did need some pass-rushers, but that's another issue) Watching them beat your favorite team roughly fifteen times in a row will do that to you. That's why that Jake Plummer-led playoff victory in the 1998 season is my favorite football game of all time, because they went into Dallas, and beat a Cowboy team that still had Emmitt, Aikman, Irvin, and Deion. Man, I didn't like Deion Sanders, hogging all the cornerback attention, some of which should have been Aeneas Williams'.

So, any teams you just despise, and why?