The Arizona Cardinals and Kyler Murray spent seven seasons tied together, and the relationship gave fans plenty to remember on both ends of the spectrum. Murray arrived as the No. 1 overall pick with the kind of tools that make front offices dream - electric athleticism, a big arm and the ability to turn broken plays into something dangerous. For a stretch, that looked exactly like the future in Arizona.
The early returns were strong. Murray won Rookie of the Year, made multiple Pro Bowls and helped push the Cardinals to the postseason in 2021.
But the momentum never held. His ACL injury late in 2022 marked a real turning point, and from there the picture got murkier as the Cardinals cycled through multiple coaches with Murray still on the roster.
By the time 2026 rolled around, both sides were headed toward a reset.
That’s why the Cardinals’ decision to move on from Murray can be defended even if it looks messy in hindsight. ESPN’s Seth Walder certainly didn’t give Arizona much credit in his offseason grading, handing the team a “D” and taking aim at how it handled the quarterback situation.
"Murray was due more than $78 million over the next two years, which would have been guaranteed had he remained on the roster on March 15. That was more than any team would have wanted to take on for him.
But what if Arizona had paid his $17 million roster bonus and then traded him? The Cardinals could have even converted some of his salary into a signing bonus.
They could have received draft pick compensation for Murray while paying him, say, $20 million this year to not play for them. Or even $30 million!
"Instead, the Cardinals released the quarterback, will pay him $35.5 million to not play for them and didn't receive any compensation. Perhaps no team wanted to bite on option A.
But if that's the case, was it worth cutting Murray ? If the $35.5 million was sunk cost, all the Cardinals would be signing up for by keeping him was a league minimum salary in 2026 and $19.5 million fully guaranteed in 2027 (he'd have been owed another $17 million or so if they wanted to keep him for 2027).
Surely Murray was worth that."
Walder’s point is fair in the abstract. Arizona would have preferred to extract value instead of simply releasing Murray and eating the money. But the contract was never a clean trade piece, and the idea that the Cardinals could easily move him while keeping some financial control feels more theoretical than realistic.
The larger issue is that the franchise had already reached the point where continuing the relationship only prolonged the problem. The Cardinals were staring at the same dead end, just with more time and money attached to it. If they were going to go through the trouble of paying the roster bonus and reworking the deal, they were already getting close to the outcome they ultimately chose anyway.
What tends to get lost in the debate is that this wasn’t only about dollars or draft compensation. It was about accepting that the marriage had run its course.
The Cardinals and Murray were clearly moving toward a split during the stretch run of the 2025 season. His ceiling in Arizona was never fully reached, and he also needed a new setting to try to prove himself again. That’s not a comfortable conclusion, but it’s the one the situation demanded.
The coaching changes only made the reset more obvious. It is rare for an NFL quarterback to outlast three different coaching staffs, and the arrival of Mike LaFleur signaled that Arizona wanted to start over across the board, quarterback included.
Keeping Murray around just to avoid an immediate financial hit would have created its own problems. It would have hung over the locker room and done little for a player who needed a legitimate chance somewhere else.
Yes, the Cardinals may have pushed themselves into quarterback purgatory. And yes, nobody knows when they’ll feel settled at the position again. But after firing Gannon, who believed in Murray more than anybody, the organization hit the point where the future had to come first.
That’s why this decision can look worse with distance and still be the right one. In Murray’s case, hindsight may be loud - but it doesn’t change the logic of the move.
In Other News...
Cardinals Fans Are Mourning A Heartbreaking Loss Tied To Larry Fitzgerald
The football world is mourning the death of Larry Fitzgerald Sr., the longtime Minnesota sports reporter whose name also carries weight in Arizona because of his famous son. Fitzgerald Sr. died June 1, leaving behind a career that stretched across generations of coverage and a family connection that made his passing resonate well beyond the Twin Cities.
The Cardinals joined the Vikings and other NFL organizations in paying tribute, a reminder of how deeply Larry Fitzgerald Jr.'s 17-year run in Arizona still ties the family to the franchise. Fitzgerald Sr. was respected for his work in Minnesota, but for Cardinals fans, the news lands as another painful chapter connected to one of the most beloved players in team history. [Read more 🡒]
Cardinals Once Came Shockingly Close To A Chicago Move They Couldn't Make
Long before the franchise settled into the desert, the Cardinals were already trying to solve a familiar problem: how to survive financially in a crowded football market. After Violet Bidwill remarried Walter Wolfner, who took over as managing director, the team explored a dramatic change in where it played home games, hoping a new setting could broaden its fan base and steady the business side of the operation.
The idea quickly ran into resistance from across town, and the fight escalated beyond a simple scheduling dispute. The Cardinals pushed the issue through the courts and asked for NFL intervention, but the challenge never got the traction they needed, and the move was eventually shelved. It was a reminder that even then, the franchises future could hinge on more than wins and losses. [Read more 🡒]