The most interesting thing that happens every offseason is the information then misinformation we get as fans.
I have explained before I get information, but don’t always print it, simply because you never know how accurate it is.
Others, they do not subscribe to that idea, which is fine, because it is great to talk about on websites such as this.
One such instance occurred just the other day as Ian Rapoport of NFL Network broke the news on LeGarrette Blount signing a contract with the Philadelphia Eagles and in the same tweet, mentioned he had offers from both the New York Giants and your Arizona Cardinals.
This information was not only a surprise to everyone, but it was then backed up with different wording by Adam Schefter:
Eagles are signing former Patriots' RB LeGarrette Blount to a one-year deal, per team official. Cardinals also had some mild interest.— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) May 17, 2017
Did they offer Blount a contract? Who knows, but they definitely had interest, right? These are two of the most dialed in guys in the NFL.
Then local reporter John Gambadoro refuted the reports:
The NFL Network report on the Cardinals dangling an offer to RB LeGarrette Blount is false. The Cardinals never ever had interest - Zero!— John Gambadoro (@Gambo987) May 17, 2017
My thought on all of this... Why does any of it matter?
- Why does it matter if the Cardinals offered a contract?
- Why does it matter if the Cardinals had interest?
- Why does it matter if they never made a single phone call?
If the Cardinals offered Blount a contract I would be... shocked. Simply because of the weird provision tender the Patriots used on Blount, meaning he would have cost a compensatory pick.
I would not be shocked if the Cardinals had interest, because Blount would make this team better.
However, why was there a report about the Cardinals at all?
If the Cardinals had interest, it was likely low and likely coincided with when the compensatory provision fell off, but does putting the Cardinals name in there make Eagles fans like the signing more? Does it upset Cardinals fans that they didn’t nab Blount?
Yet, what does refuting these reports do either? Does it protect the Cardinals from the idea that the Eagles won out over them? I don’t know, if you look at both rosters and you have a number of Super Bowl rings like Blount, you are probably looking more at opportunity and less at closeness to winning. The Eagles offer way more carries than the Cardinals.
Again, none of it really matters though, the Cardinals didn’t get Blount... Neither did 31 other teams, the story is the Eagles got the 2016 rushing touchdown leader and the Patriots are likely to get another compensatory pick for a player they had zero intention of bringing back.
Somehow though, the Cardinals got involved.