clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

ROTB Roundtable: Larry Foote, Kurt Warner, and Superbowls

With the ending of the Superbowl comes the beginning of the off-season.

Matthew Emmons-USA TODAY Sports

To round out the first official week of the off-season, the ROTB Writing Staff tackled three questions surrounding the team, the football world, and the biggest game of them all.

Don't forget to answer the questions yourself in the comments below!

1) Would you rather Larry Foote retire and become a coach, or keep on playing?

Tyler Derby: I think it would benefit the Cardinals a lot of he came back and played next season. He provided a lot of leadership and stability to the Defense this past season. But if he were to decide not to play, it would be awesome to have him on our coaching staff. He has all the attributes of being a great coach.

Robert Norman: Keep playing. Foote can give just as good of coaching while being on the field and he clearly has the athletic ability to continue to play, proven by the fact he was the team's best linebacker. If he plays in 2015, I expect that fact to continue.

Randy Fields: Larry Foote had a heck of a year and I think he should retire and become a coach. He kept saying he had one year left in the tank and the Cardinals have been trying to get him for a few years and I'm glad he was able to fill in for our huge hole at MLB, but I prefer for a player to go out on top and not come back and miss a step. If anything I would bring him back to be #3 on the depth chart behind Minter and Washington in case one of them has issues or needs a break. Become a player coach now and retire next year.

Jess Root: I don't mind either. I hope he isn't the starter again, not because of him, but because he faded down the stretch. He would make great depth. But the thought of having him stick around as a coach is very intriguing because of the way he approaches the game and the respect he garners in the locker room.

2) Do you think Kurt Warner should have been a first ballot Hall of Famer, or do you agree with the decision to keep him out for this year?

Tyler Derby: I will be honest; I was a little surprised that he didn't get in this past weekend. Obviously I am biased, but I think he is HOF worthy and is one of the greats. That being said, he didn't have a super long career and several of those years he was hurt or was the backup QB. So if you look at it, he put up amazing numbers in a short amount of time, but that could of worked against him. That being said. It's just his first year of eligibility and he will get in sooner rather than later in my opinion.

Robert Norman: Personally, he was first ballot Hall of Famer. However, I can understand the rationale of not voting for him. His actually statistics are weak compared to who would be his contemporaries and he had some poor seasons with the Rams, Giants and even the Cardinals due mainly to injuries. However, if you look at what he did in such a small amount of time there is no question Kurt Warner is a Hall of Famer. I expect him to be inducted on his third try.

Randy Fields: Personally I'd have preferred Kurt get the first time nod, but that's okay, he should be in next year. If he had one more Super Bowl win he'd have been in for sure. He'll be in next year though, his resume is far too good to snub him in back to back years.

Jess Root: I was fine with it. I really think the league wanted him to get in in his first try. But I can see why waiting would make sense, especially since there are guys who probably deserve a spot in the Hall more than Warner who still haven't made it in. The interesting thing to see if whether he will have to wait another year after next. Brett Favre will make the Hall in his first try next year and if he doesn't, the process is dumb. Aeneas Williams had to wait, so there isn't a thing wrong with Kurt waiting.

3) Superbowl 49 is now being considered one of the most exciting Superbowls of all time.  In your opinion, which Superbowl is the greatest?

Tyler Derby: I would have to say Super Bowl 43, Cardinals vs. Steelers. I know the end result isn't what we wanted, but the game had so much excitement all the way through. Of all my years watching it, this is by far the most exciting and greatest Super Bowl I have watched.

Robert Norman: That's tough. SB 49 was one of the most exciting Super Bowls in recent memory, but I can't say it was more exciting than the Giants v. Patriots in SB 42 or Cardinals v. Steelers just a year later. Or even the Rams/Titans in SB 34? If I had to make a choice, I'm going with the Cards/Steelers in 2009 because of how much it meant to me personally.

Randy Fields: Easiest question Cardinals vs Steelers is the best Super Bowl I've ever watched. The excitement was palpable, it was a fight to the last seconds. SB 49 was fun but that last second play changed the course of the game, a game should be judged on the 60 minutes and the first 30 of SB 49 were not nearly as exciting as the Cards/Steelers SB. The second best SB was the Giants vs Patriots round 1. That was an amazing Super Bowl.

Jess Root: This is a tough one. This one was fantastic because they were both the best teams and both powerhouses. Naturally, there is sentimental value for the one the Cardinals lost. The ones I thought were the best -- Pats/Seahawks, Cards/Steelers, Rams/Titans, both Pats/Giants and then Bills/Giants