Jonathan Gannon, the Cardinals, and the NFL’s Quiet Tackling Crisis

Jonathan Gannon’s frustration about tackling is about more than a 3-11 football team. It exposes a structural contradiction at the heart of the modern NFL: how do you maintain a violent sport while systematically restricting the very practice required to perform its most basic defensive skill safely and effectively?

On the surface, Gannon is explaining why the Arizona Cardinals are missing so many tackles. Underneath, he’s pointing at a league-wide problem that’s been building for more than a decade: the NFL has made the game safer in some ways, but it may also be quietly degrading one of the core competencies of defense.

The tension between safety and skill

To understand why a head coach is comparing NFL tackling restrictions to telling Scottie Scheffler he can’t practice wedge shots, you have to go back to the league’s concussion reckoning.

Starting in the late 2000s, mounting scientific evidence and public scrutiny around Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) forced the NFL to overhaul how practices and games are played. The 2011 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) dramatically cut back on full-contact practices, banned two-a-days in pads, and limited the number and length of padded sessions during the season. The 2020 CBA tightened that even further: teams are allowed just 14 padded practices in the regular season, with 11 of those front-loaded into the first 11 weeks.

These reforms were largely driven by health data. A study funded by the league and the NFLPA found that the cumulative head impact burden from practices was much higher than teams realized, and that reducing padded practices could cut down on subconcussive blows — the hits that don’t show symptoms immediately but appear to contribute to long-term brain trauma.

In that sense, the rules are working as intended. But those same rules also mean coaches have far fewer opportunities to practice live, full-speed tackling — the part of football that can’t be replicated with dummies, bags, or “thud” drills.

Gannon’s complaint lives in that gap: tackling is the most dangerous part of the game, so it’s where rules have tightened the most. But tackling is also the most technique-dependent skill on defense, especially as offensive schemes stretch the field horizontally and vertically and put defenders in more open-space situations than ever.

Why the Cardinals’ tackling problem is bigger than one bad season

The Cardinals are not just missing tackles; they are leaking yards after contact at an alarming rate. According to ESPN research, Arizona has allowed 40 rushes with at least five yards after first contact, the third-worst mark in the league. Pro Football Focus grades them as the NFL’s worst tackling team overall.

That isn’t just a technical detail; it fundamentally reshapes drives. A stopped run on first down is the difference between 2nd-and-8 and 2nd-and-3. Over the course of a game, consistently poor tackling can add the equivalent of multiple free drives for the opponent. When you overlay that with the Cardinals giving up 40 or more points in four of their last six games, you’re not talking about a marginal issue — you’re talking about the structural failure of the defense.

But here’s the key: every team operates under the same practice and contact rules. So why are the Cardinals at the bottom and not in the middle of league averages?

That’s where Gannon’s remarks — especially his offhand line, “You better just acquire people that can tackle because you ain’t going to help them at all” — get revealing. He’s implicitly acknowledging a shift in NFL team-building logic: if rules limit your ability to develop tackling, you must increasingly focus on acquiring players who already possess that skill at a high level.

That has multiple knock-on effects:

• Draft priorities shift: College players with proven tackling production and sound technique become more valuable relative to raw athletes you hope to coach up.
• Free agency premiums: Solid veteran tacklers command more value on the open market because teams know they have limited tools to fix the problem in-house.
• Roster churn: Struggling tacklers, especially depth players and special teamers, may be cycled out more quickly rather than invested in for development.

In other words, the Cardinals’ problem isn’t just missed tackles — it’s that their existing roster and development infrastructure may not be optimized for an NFL where live-tackle practice time is essentially a scarce, regulated commodity.

The evolution of tackling and space in the modern NFL

To fully grasp why tackling is so fragile now, you have to look at how the game has changed over the past 15 years.

Offenses have become more spread out and more matchup-driven. Teams use bunch formations, motion, and misdirection to force defenders into one-on-one situations in space. Running backs like Bijan Robinson — whom the Cardinals now have to deal with — aren’t just downhill runners; they are open-field weapons, receiving threats, and coverage manipulators.

At the same time, the rulebook has constrained how defenders can finish tackles. Hits to the head and neck area are heavily penalized. Defenseless receiver rules have broadened. The league has emphasized “strike zone” tackling, rugby-style wrapping, and heads-up technique. These are all smart reforms from a safety perspective, but they require retraining how defenders play — and retraining is exactly what limited padded practices make more difficult.

Former NFL safety and current analyst Ryan Clark has often noted that tackling is a “feel” skill that depends on angles, timing, and controlled aggression — and that you can’t simulate the chaos of real tackling situations with half-speed drills. That’s essentially what Gannon is describing as a “conundrum”: the league wants perfect technique and safer hits, but it restricts the live reps defenders need to internalize that new technique.

Expert perspectives: Is Gannon right, or is this a convenient excuse?

Coaches are not neutral observers; they’re also defending their own work. So it’s fair to ask: is Gannon genuinely diagnosing a systemic problem, or is he deflecting from roster construction and coaching shortcomings?

Several perspectives help triangulate this:

• Player-side view: Veteran defenders have been vocal for years about the trade-offs of reduced contact. Former linebacker Luke Kuechly, who retired early because of concussions, has said that technique and film study can compensate for some lost physical reps — but he has also acknowledged that tackling is partly learned through “feel” and repetition.
• Medical and safety experts: Neuroscientists and sports medicine doctors consistently argue that reducing repetitive head impacts, particularly in practice, is non-negotiable if the sport intends to reduce long-term brain trauma. From that vantage point, more live-tackling practice is simply not an option.
• Other coaches: Some defensive coaches, like the 49ers’ Kyle Shanahan and former DC Robert Saleh (now Jets head coach), have leaned into rugby-style tackling and extensive technique periods without going fully live. Their defenses have generally tackled well despite the same practice constraints. That suggests that coaching methodology and system fit matter significantly.

Put together, the picture is nuanced. Gannon is correct that NFL rules make it harder to get better at tackling through traditional means. But the existence of consistently strong tackling defenses under the same rules signals that scheme, personnel evaluation, and teaching methods remain decisive.

In that sense, Gannon’s comments point to the league’s structural problem, but they also inadvertently spotlight the Cardinals’ internal one: if you know you can’t rely on live practice to fix tackling, your margin for error in scouting, drafting, and technique coaching shrinks dramatically.

Data and the trend line: Are missed tackles really getting worse?

Public tracking data on missed tackles isn’t perfect, but various analytics services, including Pro Football Focus and team self-reporting, suggest a notable rise in yards after contact and missed tackles over the past decade, particularly in the open field.

Key patterns:

• Yards after contact for elite running backs and receivers has steadily increased, with top players regularly posting 500+ yards after contact per season.
• Explosive plays (runs of 10+ yards, passes of 20+ yards) are often strongly correlated with missed tackles rather than purely scheme breakdowns.
• Early-season tackling tends to be noticeably worse league-wide, with improvement as the year progresses — even though padded practices are front-loaded early in the season. That suggests a complex interaction between conditioning, tackling rhythm, fatigue, and game speed.

The Cardinals’ numbers — third-most runs with 5+ yards after contact and bottom-of-the-league tackling grades — place them on the extreme end of a league-wide pressure point. They’re not suffering from a unique disease; they’re an acute case of a chronic condition.

What this means for the future of team building and coaching

Gannon’s line about “better just acquire people that can tackle” may sound flippant, but it could preview where the league is heading.

We’re likely to see more teams:

• Re-weight scouting criteria: Tackling efficiency in college — especially in space — will matter more than 40 times or raw testing numbers for many defensive positions. Reliable college tackling production could become a premium trait.
• Lean into rugby and soccer influences: Technique systems that emphasize leverage, tracking hips, and controlling contact without head involvement will spread further. The Seahawks popularized this a decade ago; others are still catching up.
• Invest in analytics and biomechanics: Teams may increasingly use tracking data, VR, and motion capture to simulate tackling angles and situations without full-contact reps, effectively trying to replace some “feel” with visualization and mental reps.
• Redefine roster roles: Special teams aces and depth defenders who are elite tacklers will have higher survival value on the bottom of rosters, even if they’re limited in coverage or pass rush.

For a rebuilding team like the Cardinals, this shifts the question from “How do we coach tackling better under these rules?” to “How do we redesign our entire defensive roster and developmental pipeline for a world where we may never again get the kind of live-contact practice our predecessors took for granted?”

What’s being overlooked in mainstream coverage

Most surface-level discussion of the Cardinals’ tackling woes frames it as a performance or effort issue. That misses several deeper dynamics:

• Developmental inequity: Players coming from certain college programs — those that emphasize form tackling and physical practice within NCAA rules — may arrive in the NFL more prepared than peers. That can widen competitive gaps in a league that’s supposedly built on parity.
• Labor politics: The practice limits Gannon is frustrated with were won by the players’ union to protect players’ bodies and extend careers. Any conversation about increasing live contact for skill development runs directly into that labor history and the health trade-offs players fought to address.
• Fan expectations: Viewers want big hits and sound tackling but also demand better safety outcomes. The league is catering rhetorically to both sides, but the reality is that the product will look sloppier at times as the sport recalibrates.

Gannon is effectively voicing the frustration simmering across defensive rooms: they’re being asked to produce cleaner, safer football while operating with fewer of the traditional tools — and under the constant scrutiny of instant replay, social media, and analytics-driven criticism.

Looking ahead: What to watch with Arizona and the league

For the Cardinals, the next phase isn’t just about the final three games of a lost season; it’s about how they respond structurally:

• Draft strategy: Do their next draft classes prioritize proven tacklers at linebacker, safety, and cornerback, even if it means passing on more athletic, unrefined prospects?
• Coaching investments: Does Arizona bring in a dedicated tackling coordinator or consultant, as some teams have started to do, to modernize their approach?
• Scheme adjustments: If you can’t reliably tackle in space, you may need to play more zone, keep more defenders in the box, or change how aggressively you pursue after the catch to limit yards after contact.

League-wide, the tackling debate will likely resurface in the next round of CBA talks and rules committee meetings. Don’t expect a return to full-contact practices — that ship has sailed — but you could see proposals for:

• More nuanced contact allowances in limited contexts (e.g., controlled live tackling periods with strict rep counts)
• Expanded joint practices where technique can be tested at higher tempos against unfamiliar opponents
• Standardized league-wide tackling curriculum or certification, similar to the way the NFL has normalized concussion protocols

The bottom line

Jonathan Gannon’s comments aren’t just about the Cardinals missing tackles; they’re about the NFL’s struggle to reconcile safety with performance in a sport whose essence is controlled violence. Practice rules that were designed to protect players have inadvertently made it harder to teach — and re-teach — the safest and most effective tackling techniques.

Some teams have adapted better than others. Right now, Arizona is on the wrong side of that line. How they respond — in roster construction, coaching philosophy, and scheme — will determine whether this is a one-year anomaly or an identity problem that defines Gannon’s tenure.

Behind the weekly box scores, the league is quietly running an experiment: Can you fundamentally reshape how often players collide in practice, change how they’re allowed to hit in games, and still expect elite-level tackling? The Cardinals’ painful film sessions suggest the answer is far from settled.