Posted by ESPN.com's Mike Sando
Well, well, well. The mailbag tells me a few Cardinals fans seem to be high-stepping their way toward the NFC West end zone with seven games to play. My old man might have reminded them to act like they've been there before. But, of course, modern-day Cardinals fans haven't been there before. And so we won't throw a penalty flag for taunting just yet. Tony Corrente might, but we will not. Here we go ...
Chris from Denver writes: Mike, baseball has magic numbers. How does the magic number work in football? Us Cardinal fans would like to count down, considering it has been 33 years since they have won a division title. Chris
Mike Sando: Awful bold of you here in Week 11, Chris! I remember former Seahawks linebacker Darrin Smith pulling a hammy while high-stepping into the end zone with an interception from John Elway. Be careful there.
"Magic numbers" aren't all that magical. The Cardinals lead the rest of the division by four games with seven to play. Three more victories by the Cardinals would wrap up the division unless another team won out and held a tiebreaker. None of the other teams can finish better than 9-7. For that reason, four more Cardinals victories would wrap up the division no matter how the other teams finished.
Tyler from Phoenix writes: sando! first off, i love what you write, big fan, you speak the truth. Question -- The cardinals seem to have a lock on the division. But with everyone stressing how bad we will be without Warner, do we rest him after clinching the division, or do we strive until week 16 to win home field advantage and risk putting a very old Warner at risk to get hurt just before the exciting post-season this city has been waiting a decade for? Cardinals at home are deadly, but the playoffs have been out of the question for years. Your thoughts?
Mike Sando: Thanks, Tyler. Glad to see you don't believe in jinxes. I would rather go for home-field advantage than rest a quarterback whose game is predicated on rhythm. If it comes to that, I would rest Warner for the final regular-season game, unless home-field advantage remained at stake.
Everette from parts unknown writes: What is your address on "Denial Lane". You have got wake-up the fact that the Cardinals are easly in the top 10.
Mike Sando: My address is 72 Penalty Drive. Seriously, I was on the Cardinals early and had them as high as sixth at one point, as I recall. This is more a case of other teams passing Arizona than the Cardinals falling. Check back in three weeks and we'll know where Arizona belongs in the rankings.
Noah from Tucson, Ariz., writes: From 8th to 11th in the power rankings with a win? it was a sloppy game but i feel like it had a lot to do with sloppy officiating. that was one of the worst called games i have ever seen whether you are a cardinals fan or a 49ers fan. it seemed to me like the refs kept each of the teams from getting into a real rhythm.
Mike Sando: I thought the Cardinals should have won that game more decisively. Also, the Jets have played well enough lately to merit consideration for the top 10. And if the Jets move into that area, I have to put them ahead of the Cardinals based on the head-to-head matchup. Baltimore was another team I wanted to rank higher, but the Ravens haven't beaten top teams.
Ken from Bellevue writes: Similarity was recently mentioned in your blog about the current Arizona season to the Seahawks in 2005. Let's not forget a big reason for the Seahawks success that year was home field advantage throughout the playoffs. Watching MNF this week, the Arizona defense seems to be the team's weakness and I have my doubts about their ability go deep in the playoffs without this same advantage.
Do you feel they can match up with the other NFC playoff bound teams if they do have to play on the road? The Giants last year were a very strong road team all season and that was key to their Superbowl run. Lastly, it's very apparent that the team's future this season revolves around Warner. They won?t be half the team without him (i.e. if he were to get injured). Once they clinch a playoff spot, do you see them sitting him to avoid any potential injury or play on to try keep the momentum going?
Mike Sando: No, I don't like the Cardinals' chances in the playoffs on the road. That 2005 Seattle team was a 13-win team that rested starters in the final game. That team could run or pass on its own terms, regardless of situations. This Arizona team strikes me as a 10-win team without anything close to the offensive line Seattle possessed in 2005. None of the Cardinals' offensive linemen would start for that Seattle team.
Matthew from Chicago writes: Good morning Sando. I put this question in a thread you made about Keary Colbert, but feared you wouldn't read it since it's an old thread now. Anyways I wanted to know if you were in charge of Seattle and had a top 10 pick this year, who would you take, or what position would you target? Thanks man I really appreciate it. And you give Seattle and the State of Washington a good name with your excellent work.
Mike Sando: Hey, thanks much. Very nice of you. Seattle needs to start getting younger on offense. I would consider a top-flight tackle among the top 10 picks. Defensive line would be another position to consider there. Taking a safety in that range can make sense if you have a special athlete in the tradition of Ronnie Lott, Kenny Easley and Sean Taylor. I would generally avoid receivers, particularly underclassmen, because that is a high-risk position.
Jason from Reno writes: I read the report that Mike Martz blamed the officials for the bad spot and the loss of the game. Now I don't agree with that due to the fact they lost all that time before they even spiked the ball the first time and they could have done it again since it was only 3rd down.
My question though, are the officials not binded by the same rules on reviews that teams are? As far as I know a team has to get a challenge flag seen by the officials before the opposing team runs their next play to have the play reviewed. The 49ers already ran the next play. Was the play reviewable at that point?
Mike Sando: Yes. The 49ers did not challenge the play in question. The replay official initiated the challenge before the 49ers snapped the ball on the next play. The 49ers snapped the ball before they learned of the challenge. Without a challenge, the game would have ended on a 10-second clock runoff because the 49ers weren't lined up properly.
Alex from Seattle writes: Hi, Mike. Really enjoy your blog... It's been a dismal season for Seattle, to say the least, and with the exception of a near miracle, I think it's safe to say our reign over the NFC West is at its end. It's been awhile since the Seahawks have looked at a potential top 5 pick in the draft.
I know it's early and we still don't know exactly who will be joining the NFL ranks in 2009, but do you have any insight as to who or what positions the Seahawks should start scouting for? I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a new O-linemen. And since this is an NFC West blog, how about the same question for the 49ers and Rams?
Mike Sando: Thanks, Alex. Let's address the 49ers and Rams given that we hit on the Seahawks earlier in this mailbag. All three teams could use a talented offensive tackle. If a Pro Bowl-caliber tackle prospect is available, that is a position I would target. The Rams need help in their defensive back seven. The 49ers need help in their pass rush. All three teams need to start planning at the quarterback position, but probably not that early in the draft. All three teams could use a blue-chip safety prospect along the lines of the ones I described in the earlier mailbag question.
Matthew from Baltimore writes: Even though the Ravens lost three games, the only lost two of those by a combined total of 6 points. One to Tennessee and another to Pittsburgh. Their offense is looking sharp and their defense sharper. Why are they number 12, and how come you voted them 15!
Mike Sando: At that point in the rankings you almost look for reasons to rank teams a little lower. You simply can't rank 15 teams in the top 10. I downgraded the Ravens based on quality of victories. They beat Cleveland twice, Cincinnati, Oakland, Houston and Miami. Do not worry, though. I'll move them into the top 10 after they beat the Giants and Eagles over the next two games.
Michael from parts unknown writes: Love your work. Would really appreciate your thoughts on what Cable has decided in regards to Knapp -- to remove his play calling duties. Jim Mora has hinted at his desire to have Knapp as his OC. Living in Charlotte, I make seeing the Panthers-Falcons almost every year... and to say his Vick lead offenses were bland and underwhelming is an understatement. Thoughts?
Mike Sando: Thanks, Michael. I would not compare the Falcons and Seahawks simply because Michael Vick was a unique talent. The offense Knapp ran in Atlanta would necessarily differ from the offense he might install for Matt Hasselbeck in Seattle.
That said, I don't have enough evidence to tell me Knapp would be the right choice as offensive coordinator. I'm simply not familiar enough with his work. I wouldn't read too much into the situation in Oakland, however, because the Raiders have so many issues as an organization. They also have a young quarterback.
Jason from parts unknown writes: The Ravens at 15? They lost to Pittsburgh at Heinz field in overtime after dominating 50 minutes of the game and lost to the Titans on a 2 minute drive that should have stalled back inside their own 20 on a horrible personal foul call on 3rd and long. The only game they blew was in Indy, which gets the Ravens every year i seems. So you are saying that there are FOURTEEN teams better? Combined record of their 3 losses 20-7. The Vikes, Bears, Jets are better? Since you're on the west coast I would ask you to get up a little earlier to watch the Ravens play.
Mike Sando: The Ravens have not defeated any of the 14 teams I ranked above them.
E.J. from Manhattan Beach, Calif., writes: Thanks, I love the blog! Whisenhunt has obviously shown that he's not afraid to make a tough coaching decision when it comes to personnel, but I'm curious to know where he stands on Arrington. I was excited to see that he was getting a few touches earlier in the season, but I was surprised that he hasn't been returning kicks since the Dallas game (when he returned one for a td). Is there any reason for this. Is Arrington in somebody's dog house?
Mike Sando: This was really curious to me, too. Whisenhunt said the job basically reverted to Steve Breaston once Anquan Boldin returned from injury. In other words, Arrington took over the duties only when Breaston became a starting receiver. Once Breaston went back to the No. 3 role, Whisenhunt reinstalled Breaston as the return guy.
I think it doesn't make sense. Breaston is essentially a starter given how many three- and four-receiver packages the Cardinals use. Also, Arrington busted that long one against the Cowboys. Why not keep him in there?
Denise from Chico, Calif., writes: I know you've probably answered this question before, but does it make sense for both
Alex Smith and the 49ers for Smith to return to the team next year? If so, what's your opinion on Smith being a good QB? I feel like I am the only 49er fan who still thinks Smith deserves a real shot at being an NFL QB. Love your column and all the cool information you give us. Thanks for considering my question.
Mike Sando: Thanks, Denise. I appreciate you taking the time to write. It does make sense for Smith to return under a scaled-down contract and without expectations that he'll become a starter immediately. I do wonder if Smith is damaged goods at this point, however. I say that with all due respect, not as a shot at him. Smith is a sympathetic figure in my view. He's just gone through so much physically and emotionally. I wonder how quickly he can bounce back.
Michael Carey from parts unknown writes: Can you get some clarification as to why the sideline catch in the first quarter by the 49ers was ruled as incomplete? The receiver got two feet in bounds, then stepped out of bounds with his right foot, the hit out of bounds with his left knee, then hit the ground with his arms before he lost control of the ball. How much possession has to be established?
Mike Sando: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the rules say the receiver must maintain control throughout the reception, including when he hits the ground. I know that is the standard in the end zone.
Craig from England writes: Mike - Do you think [Monday] night's victory for the Cards could turn out to be more important than initially realized? Whilst they didn't play great, they have shown they have the ability to play very well. What has been missing has been the mentality to finish games as seen in Carolina. Do you think this game could be the start of developing the ability to win close games, which they previously would have lost? Also, if the Cards can't reach a deal with
Kurt Warner, what do you think the chance is that they Franchise him as opposed to letting him leave.
Mike Sando: I love the idea of using the franchise tag on Warner as long as the cap space is there, but I would first need to know the figure. You wouldn't want to pay him $20 million for one season. However, if the figure were not prohibitive, by all means franchise him.
As to your other question, every close victory against improbable odds helps a team develop an expectation of winning, instead of the feeling that something is about to go wrong. And that is important for any team.
Julian from Frankfurt, Germany, writes: Hey Mike, great work as always, keep it up! After this weekend Kurt Warner should have a slight edge over
Drew Brees as far as the MVP title goes ( leaving out Portis and Haynesworth for once ). Lots of ifs coming now. If Kurt Warner should make it through all 16 games, which I desperatly hope he does, and if he should win the MVP, he would have won it every time he's had a full season as a starter. Correct me if I'm wrong on this and my question so to say is, has any other player ever come near such a percentage? Can't get all stats there.
Mike Sando: I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head, but Warner would have three MVPs at that point, and we would be talking about a short list of players.
Rafael from Mexico City writes: Mike, I'm a true 49er fan from mexico. I miss those great years 80's and 90's and they won't come back any time soon (with great teams coming through and the way they are playing). Every single season I hope for the best but expect the worst. A so called "great franchise", an nfl record 5 super bowl titles, names of hall'o famers, etc. must never miss a playoff stop.
I'm just tired, angry as any other 49er fan there is. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for a team like the niners to have another loosing seasons. How many seasons has it been since la niners went to the playoffs???? Was it with Jeff Garcia, man its just embarrising.
Teams like the patriots (whose injuries have been well taken) the steelers (always in the playoffs) Cowboys (never had 3 loosing seasons in a row). The managing, coaches, staff, etc. are responsible for the wrong way of this great franchise which I will always chear no matter what. But please give me a reason to still believe the 49ers will be a superbowl contender soon.
What can be done to save this team? It would be great to turn around the overall standings in the NFL. No matter what the sport is, club, etc. if you're the eye of the hurricane, then you better be the hurricane. I desperate for a hungry team.
Mike Sando: Rafael, I'm running your note out of respect for the sheer passion you bring. I can't honestly make the case that the 49ers can contend for a Super Bowl anytime soon. We need this team to find a quarterback before we start thinking along those lines.
Joey from New York writes: Mike, Thanks for answering as always. I still believe the window of opportunity lies in a productive Matt Hasselbeck and sitting him out the rest of the season does not bother me. I am already onto next season with the high draft choice, but wanted your thoughts on current players being around in 2009.
Deion Branch (owed 16.4M through 2011) and TJ Duckett should be cut next year regardless of the cap hit (around 9.7M combined), and
Brian Russell seems a possibility to be cut with his play and 8M in remaining contract, but what do you think about
Julian Peterson (owed 30.5M from 2009-2012) with the always solid play of
Leroy Hill. Is he a goner next season to get Hill under contract? Thanks as always, Joey Scott
Mike Sando: Agreed on Hasselbeck determining the "window" for the Seahawks. I would give Branch one more season to earn his money. I would stick with Julian Peterson as he is the most reliable pass rusher on the team given Patrick Kerney's health concerns. And I would keep Duckett while expanding his role, something that will almost certainly happen under Jim Mora.
Jess from La Quinta, Calif., writes: Sando, great debate forum regarding the return of Hasselbeck. Here's my take;
Charlie Frye will ensure a 2 and 14 season, and with Seneca hurting there is reason to start him when he isn't mobile enough to create. With Hasselbeck, the Hawks can at least move the football better, and assist with creating the balance of run vs. pass that this team needs to be successful under Holmgren for the rest of the season.
I must give a little props to the Hawk D his past week given that they allowed two big plays, but kept the pressure on Pennington and kept Ronnie Brown out of the game for the most part until late. They got the big play on the pick that Babineaux returned for a TD, and Tatupu, Peterson, and Trufant showed alot of heart and leadership out there. The Defense truly showed that they weren't giving up on the season, and played hard in that East Coast time zone where no West Coast team has been successful. The offense is our key to success, and Hasselbeck is (whether good or bad going forward) the answer. Love your stuff Sandman, keep it coming!
Mike Sando: You, too, Jess. Always a pleasure. The Seahawks need to see if Hasselbeck can get any kind of rhythm going. And they need to keep going all out just in case the Cardinals falter.
Jared from Seattle writes: Sando love your stuff. I was wondering if you could help me out. I am trying to see how Jones and Morris compare as far as rush yards are concerned. However the twist is this, I want to know how many rushing plays of Negative yardage, No Gains, 1-4 yards, 5-9 yards and 10+ yards they have respectively. I can't find this anywhere. Can you help me out? Again, just to clarify I want to know the number of rushing plays that have resulted in the following ranges of yards gained, or something similar. Part of me suspects that
Julius Jones is much like SA in that he is a drip, drip, drop kind of runner. Meaning, he gets a lot of 0-2 yard gains and then rips off a big one. Thanks.
Mike Sando: I could request that information. Usually I would chart more Seattle games, but there's little point given all the issues affecting the offense. I have charted four games this season. Jones had 64 carries in these games. Morris had 26 carries. Morris lost yards on 15.3 percent. Jones lost yards on 14.1 percent. If we combine rushes for lost yards with rushes for no gain, these account for 23.4 percent of Jones' runs and the same 15.3 percent of Morris' runs.
Paul from Phoenix writes: Mike! I love the blog... keep up the good work. My question is about the Card's RB situation. The big story is, of course, the switch to Hightower from James... but why does it have to be a straight up switch? The Giants ran THREE RBs on Sunday Night Football. Their third RB, Bradshaw didn't even come in until the end of the third quarter. Have I just missed the conversations about running Hightower early in the game (looking for yardage on big plays) and Edge at the end of games (looking to keep the clock moving against a tired 'D'? Is anyone with the Cards considering this?
It seems like eveyone has already written off Edge because he didn't get any carries in ONE game. It seems like a combo situation would be ideal to move the ball and keep everyone healthy. And of course you keep mixing Arrington in there... He's playing too well to lose carries. Thanks and GO CARDS!!!
Mike Sando: Thanks, Paul. The Cardinals are giving James a few reps here and there. Neither back is getting enough carries to wear down that way, though. I think it's easier to divide carries if you have more carries to divide.
Sando joined ESPN.com in 2007 after nine seasons covering the Seattle Seahawks for the Tacoma (Wash.) News Tribune. He lives in the Seattle-Tacoma area with his wife and two sons.
