ESPN NFL

Posted by ESPN.com's Mike Sando

Dennis from Sacramento writes: Do you believe the 9ers have a shot at making the playoffs next season having brought back a disciple of the digit offense in Jimmy Raye II, which worked great with Norv Turner making the call. Can we have a similar/better year (cuz we got better "D" now too)

Mike Sando: I want to see how players respond to the new offense and what the team plans to do at quarterback.

Norv Turner was with the 49ers in 2006. Twenty-five teams scored more points than the 49ers that season. Alex Smith made some progress and the team appeared to be on an upswing. The defense is better now, as you stated.

The 49ers have the potential to make a push in the division because they appear committed to matching their scheme to their personnel more effectively. We don't yet have a feel for how they are approaching this season, however. We have seen the 49ers finish strong previously, only to struggle the next season. Skepticism is warranted.

---

Andrew from Los Angeles writes: Mike, Love the blog. As a lifelong Cardinal fan (St. Louis and AZ), I would like your opinion on the Anquan Boldin situation. While I think he is a huge part of the team's (and Fitzgerald's) success, do you agree that this is the time to trade him for top value? He never plays a full season. He isn't happy. We have talented receivers that can fill his position (Breaston, Urban, Doucet).

I believe the most important thing the Cardinals can do to replace Boldin is get a good tight end. This tight end could replace Boldin's over the middle productivity, RAC and run blocking. In fact, it would be a huge benefit to the run game overall. Considering Whisenhunt's background as a tight end, is this an offseason priority for my beloved Cardinals? I would love your input. Andrew

Mike Sando: Thanks for contributing. The Cardinals could stand to upgrade the tight end position no matter what happens with Boldin. That would not have to be an either-or proposition. Boldin is under contract at an affordable price. He is a bargain right now. For that reason, I would want to keep him on the roster. I would listen to trade offers and strongly consider the good ones, but only if I thought I could upgrade the talent level by making a move. The team reached the Super Bowl with an unhappy Boldin.

---

John from Great Falls writes: Another thing on the Cardinals super bowl and the penalties: The Cards being penalized a ton is not new to them this season. It's not like the Refs we're calling penalties to help out the Steelers, the Cards we're heavily penalized all year long, not just in the Super Bowl.

Mike Sando: They were also heavily penalized in past seasons. They had reduced penalties during the first three playoff games, however.

---

Jim from Tucson writes: Boldin has apparently taken the position now that neither money nor apology will be sufficient to rectify his discontent. That doesn't seem to leave many openings for the Cardinals. Is the situation really as grim as Boldin is making it out to be, or is there some Drew Rosenhaus posturing going on here? If it is inevitable that Boldin needs to be traded, how do the Cardinals make sure the damage doesn't spread to affect this new winning culture Boldin has played such an important part in building?

Mike Sando: On the other hand, what exactly are Boldin's options if the Cardinals decide to do nothing? He can either play or not play. He cannot get out of his contract. The winning culture is bigger than one player. The Cardinals should not rush into anything. The hold the cards.

---

Greg from Redondo Beach writes: Hey Mike, Is it possible the Seahawks go out and get Houshmandzadeh from the Bengals to have more leverage when they draft and Crabtree isn't on the board at #4? Also, if they do miss out on Crabtree, could they find a team willing to trade up to that #4 spot and what player is worth moving up for if Stafford, Sanchez, and Crabtree are off the board?

Mike Sando: I'm sure the Seahawks will try to fortify their receiver position so they can go into the draft with all options on the table. I do not anticipate teams clamoring to trade into that fourth spot. T.J. Houshmandzadeh would make some sense for Seattle and he is a West Coast guy, so that could fit. I don't have specific knowledge of the Seahawks' interest, though. The new staff is still figuring out the existing personnel.

---

Raj from parts unknown writes: I ran some numbers on the 2008 schedules of each NFL team to compare the projected strength of schedule (based on 2007 final records) and the actual ending strength of schedule (based on final 2008 records). I found that the whole notion of "schedule strength" and projecting it is virtually useless.

There was only a correlation of .39 between the projected and actual schedule strength, according to the overall ranking (i.e. where the team ranked according to preseason projections and where it ended up), and an average difference of 8 spots in rank (i.e. if a team was projected to have the 9th hardest schedule strength, it would just have easily ended up as the toughest or at the 17th toughest).

Mike Sando: The chart we ran invites a familiar coaching cliché. It is what it is, nothing more. We can't know how good the teams will be next season, but we can see what the schedule strength would look like using 2008 records. I appreciate your use of correlation. It's one of my favorite functions in Excel.

---

Klaas from Phoenix writes: Mike do you think that the Hawks will be able to take Crabtree at four or the rams pick him and if available, is it a no-brainer to make him a Seahawk?

Mike Sando: I would not call it a no-brainer, but I don't know what the Rams or Seahawks think of him at the highest levels. Without knowing that, we're guessing.

---

Rob from Allentown, Pa., writes: Mike, it was a great season for the blog, and I am looking forward to a good offseason as well. As a lucky Cardinals fan, i was able to attend both the NFC Championship game and the Super Bowl, and as much as it hurts that the Cards lost, I couldn't be prouder to be a Cardinals fan.

I was disappointed by a couple of things in the Super Bowl, including some calls/no calls by the referee, the decision to defer after the coin toss, and the play call on the INT TD. However, the Cardinals did not lose because of the officiating. They lost because they couldn't make a stop at the end of the game, and the Steelers played a great game. No need for any Cardinals fan to be ashamed of what happened, and no need to blame the refs.

I guess in the end, the Cardinals showed who they really are: A strong team that had a magical season. My brother said it best after the game, this is the beginning of something special, not the end. See you next year Cardinals!

Mike Sando: Thanks for your contributions to the blog. They're appreciated. I think you put it very well, Rob.

---

Oliver from Pittsburgh writes: Listen, I'm tired of the litany of whines and complaints by all these (overnite) Arizona Cardinal fans blaming the officiating for the loss. They fail to realize that the officials did not fail them, their defense did. Their defense allowed Harrison to run back 100 yrds for a pick 6, their defense allowed Santonio Holmes to tap dance for a TD with 35 seconds left to play...NOT THE OFFICIALS!!!! The only reason Arizona was ever in the game is because of a holding penalty called in the end zone giving them 2pts and the ball, while denying the Steelers a 1st down and the ability to run out the clock. Where was the whining then?

Mike Sando: I hear you. Some of the officiating issues deserved our attention and criticism, but they did not supersede what the players did on the field. Note: This mailbag item and the next one arrived early in the week, but I am just getting to them now. These will probably put an period on officiating-related discussions relating to the Super Bowl.

---

ArizonaCheats49ers from parts unknown writes: Sando-- Can you and some of the other outlets get off the 'Nixon Supergate Scandal?' There is no scandal. Just like 3 years ago when NBC hosted the Superbowl (Seattle/Pittsburgh), the better team won. There was no determination of bad officiating to affect the outcome of a close game. What is it with fans, and you, that question how a game ended?

The 49ers went through it in week 10 vs. Arizona, and then vs. Miami at the end, two endings that cost the 49ers the game, yet you and the fans don't make an issue out of it. But when Arizona cleanly lost the Superbowl, you're crying foul. If you want to say the Super Bowl was a bad game, then acknowledge the 49ers were cheated in Arizona and in Miami that affected their season.

Can't have it both ways, Sando. There was no cheating in Super Bowl 43, the better team won so please accept it and move on as I've been told. Kurt Warner fumbled the ball and Harrison should not have been ejected. Otherwise, how about the Arizona player that hit Big Ben, why didn't he get tossed?

Mike Sando: There is room to question high-profile officiating decisions without questioning the integrity of the game or diminishing what the winning team accomplished. We did that.