Cards will find no help at QB in offseason

azdad1978

Championship!!!!
Joined
Dec 8, 2002
Posts
14,982
Reaction score
50
Location
ordinance 2257
By Scott Bordow, Tribune Columnist

A small platform is set up outside the locker room at the Cardinals’ training facility. Each Wednesday the team's starting quarterback steps onto the platform for a Q&A with reporters. Welcome back, Josh McCown. What's it been, a couple weeks? “Three weeks,” McCown said.

So it has.

Three weeks, three losses and this response from Dennis Green Wednesday, when asked if his not-so-new starter could still prove he's the quarterback of the future:

“I'm focused on all the players,” Green said.

Filmmaker Michael Moore was more enthusiastic about George W. Bush.

No matter what happens the rest of the season, it's clear Green has lost faith in McCown, who will play Sunday against the San Francisco 49ers only because rookie John Navarre is injured.

It's also apparent the Cardinals will go quarterback shopping in the offseason, spending either millions of dollars or a high draft pick on a position that should be set for the next 10 years.

Unless, of course, Green falls in love again with Navarre or Shaun King.

An NFL team's success — or lack thereof — often is based on the quarterback decisions it makes.

The Indianapolis Colts drafted Peyton Manning in 1998. The San Diego Chargers were left with Ryan Leaf.

The Cleveland Browns took Tim Couch with the first pick in the 1999 draft. The Philadelphia Eagles picked Donovan McNabb second.

The Cardinals have had two opportunities the last 21 months to fix a position that's been broken ever since Neil Lomax suffered a career-ending hip injury in 1988, Jake Plummer’s remarkable ’98 season notwithstanding.

Instead, they made poor decisions that are not only dogging them this year but will haunt them for years to come.

Arizona could have selected Byron Leftwich with the sixth pick in the 2003 draft, but it traded down for two first-round selections, which turned out be backup defensive end Calvin Pace and Bryant Johnson, currently the team's No. 3 receiver.

This year, of course, quarterbacks Ben Roethlisberger and Philip Rivers were available, but Green took wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald with the No. 3 pick.

Fitzgerald has had a nice rookie season (43 catches, 590 yards, four touchdowns), but he's done little to fulfill Green's assertion that he was the best player in the draft.

Clearly, Roethlisberger's success in Pittsburgh is tied to the talent around him. The Steelers have a solid running game, three productive wideouts and a dominant defense. It's just as clear, however, that Roethlisberger will be a star, a Pro Bowl quarterback for years to come.

While you're banging your head against the wall, consider this what-might-have-been: Arizona drafts Terrell Suggs with the sixth pick in ’03 and gets Anquan Boldin in the second round. This year, it takes Roethlisberger.

Think a team with Roethlisberger throwing to Boldin, and Suggs and Bertrand Berry chasing quarterbacks might be worth keeping an eye on?

But enough about the past. What about next year?

Well, there isn't a can't-miss quarterback in the draft, and it's unlikely Green or the organization will have the patience to develop a young player. The Cardinals are moving into their new home in 2006; they want to sell a playoff team, not another 5-11 squad.

Drew Brees?

Won't happen. The Chargers, with $21 million in salary-cap space, will slap the franchise tag on him, meaning any team that signs Brees will have to give up two first-round picks. Arizona isn't that interested. San Diego will likely keep Brees and Rivers for another season. The gluttons.

That leaves veterans like Aaron Brooks, who has fallen out of favor in New Orleans, or Brad Johnson, who's no longer the starter in Tampa Bay. Both players likely will be cut by their respective teams, but, really, who cares?

Might as well bring Plummer back if the Denver Broncos allow him to become a free agent.

I can't believe I just wrote that.

But, then, I can't believe the Cardinals are still looking for a starting quarterback.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=32849
 

RugbyMuffin

ASFN IDOL
Joined
Apr 30, 2003
Posts
30,485
Reaction score
4,877
Explain to me why Aaron Brooks, and Brad Johnson are bad pick ups ?

:confused: :shrug:
 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
88,284
Reaction score
39,917
RugbyMuffin said:
Explain to me why Aaron Brooks, and Brad Johnson are bad pick ups ?

:confused: :shrug:


Johnson is too old, Brooks has too many "Plummer moments".

I still wouldn't be at all surprised to see Brooks as a cardinal next year, He's denny's type of guy except for the INT's and Denny will try to coach that out of him.

He's the same age as Jake and I can see Denny wanting to do for Brooks what Shanahan has done for Jake.

I'm just no longer convinced you can win with a QB like Brooks, I liked him a lot earlier in his career but the mental mistakes have gone on for so long I start to winder if he'll ever get past them?
 

Pariah

H.S.
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Posts
35,345
Reaction score
18
Location
The Aventine
RugbyMuffin said:
Explain to me why Aaron Brooks, and Brad Johnson are bad pick ups ?

:confused: :shrug:
Explain to me how they're the only options. I'd rather have Kitna or Bledsoe...but I'd also feel okay if we went out and got Johnson or Brooks--at least they got somebody.
 

Cardinal Bob

Glutton for Punishment
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Posts
2,451
Reaction score
279
Location
Garwood, NJ
If the Cards are gonna go out and get a QB, I'd be OK with Kitna. Brad Johnson is WAAAAY too old, and not that good anymore. Bledsoe is old, immobile, and throws too many INTs (he forces balls 'cuz he's scred of getting sacked). Aaron Brooks just sucks.

If people are gonna clamor for Brooks, they may as well just get Plummer back. Both make mistakes, but at least Plummer keeps a positive attitude after his. Brooks just thinks about himself and brings everyone else down tiwh him. Brooks is more of a LEON than Blake was.
 

WildBB

Yogi n da Bear
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Posts
14,295
Reaction score
1,239
Location
The Sonoran Jungle - West
azdad1978 said:
By Scott Bordow, Tribune Columnist

This year, of course, quarterbacks Ben Roethlisberger and Philip Rivers were available, but Green took wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald with the No. 3 pick.


Might as well bring Plummer back if the Denver Broncos allow him to become a free agent.

I can't believe I just wrote that.

But, then, I can't believe the Cardinals are still looking for a starting quarterback.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=32849


This says alot about the Cards delema right now and poor managememt and evaluation skills - including Greens this past offseason.

And they need to fix up the running game and OL.
 

pete

All Star
Joined
May 27, 2003
Posts
820
Reaction score
0
Location
91st & glendale. 2006!
Russ Smith said:
Johnson is too old, Brooks has too many "Plummer moments".

I still wouldn't be at all surprised to see Brooks as a cardinal next year, He's denny's type of guy except for the INT's and Denny will try to coach that out of him.

He's the same age as Jake and I can see Denny wanting to do for Brooks what Shanahan has done for Jake.

I'm just no longer convinced you can win with a QB like Brooks, I liked him a lot earlier in his career but the mental mistakes have gone on for so long I start to winder if he'll ever get past them?


Please. No Brooks! Or Johnson. I'd rather Navarre or McCown continue to get the opportunity to develop than bring in a retread. That goes for Plummer too.
 

CaptTurbo

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 5, 2003
Posts
16,782
Reaction score
5
Location
Pennsylvania
pete said:
Please. No Brooks! Or Johnson. I'd rather Navarre or McCown continue to get the opportunity to develop than bring in a retread. That goes for Plummer too.


I agree.
 

WildBB

Yogi n da Bear
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Posts
14,295
Reaction score
1,239
Location
The Sonoran Jungle - West
swd1974 said:
Dude if your going to have an agenda and blather it repeatedly at the very least make it a logical blathering.

You know what I'm talking about - Dude! It's the article.

By the way most of the people here agree , not just on this board - they blew the draft by not picking QB's in either of the last two years.

Now they'll pay for it. That clear enough. Read the original post.
 

Rats

Somanyfreaks,SofewCircus'
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Posts
4,075
Reaction score
6
WildBB said:
You know what I'm talking about - Dude! It's the article.

By the way most of the people here agree , not just on this board - they blew the draft by not picking QB's in either of the last two years.

Now they'll pay for it. That clear enough. Read the original post.
They will pay for it? :confused: You mean they will be suckier than they have been for the past how many years??? Get a clue. A Qb in the last draft would not have made this team head and shoulders better. I would say at this point we would be worse off had we taken a rookie Qb. We have needed NFL talent at most positions for awhile now. Why spend all your cap money on the highest cost position by drafting one top 5. It makes little since. Do you think that San Diego would like a do over right now? Ben fell to 11th for a reason. We weren't the only team that passed on him. He has a great team around him that can rush for 200 plus a game. He is good but would suck on our team here just like our Qb sucks. Our draft has turned out pretty good this last time in case you still want to say we blew the draft. I agree with SWD....this is just your DG hater blathering....we get you already.
 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
88,284
Reaction score
39,917
Rats said:
They will pay for it? :confused: You mean they will be suckier than they have been for the past how many years??? Get a clue. A Qb in the last draft would not have made this team head and shoulders better. I would say at this point we would be worse off had we taken a rookie Qb. We have needed NFL talent at most positions for awhile now. Why spend all your cap money on the highest cost position by drafting one top 5. It makes little since. Do you think that San Diego would like a do over right now? Ben fell to 11th for a reason. We weren't the only team that passed on him. He has a great team around him that can rush for 200 plus a game. He is good but would suck on our team here just like our Qb sucks. Our draft has turned out pretty good this last time in case you still want to say we blew the draft. I agree with SWD....this is just your DG hater blathering....we get you already.

The reason San Diego wouldn't do it because Brees exploded though, not because drafting Rivers was too expensive. The reason Rivers contract got complicated was Eli Manning being a spoiled brat refused to play there so they had to work the trade, and Rivers' agent being an agent decided to ask for more than slot value since San Diego had the first pick but got the player taken 4th.

Ben wouldn't have gotten any better deal than Fitz did. The only way Ben came out more expensive than Fitz was if he hit more incentives than Fitz, or if he played so well here that his next contract was huge. In either scenario I don't see how that could be "bad" for us? It means he played so well he earned more money, which means likely more wins for us and a stable QB position for a change.

Maybe we have the next Brees on our roster right now, I hope so, but I doubt it based on what I've seen so far.

Qb's don't cost more in the draft, that's a myth, the cost is basically the slot. What DOES happen is QB's get taken earlier than they should because QB's are so valuable. Ben slid largely because Green fixated on Fitz. If you go bakc in time and Green doesn't take Fitz, odds are the first 4 picks are Manning, Gallery, Ben, Rivers. After we passed on Ben, the Steelers knew none of the teams in front of them were likely to take a QB so they didn't panic and move up. They gambled and it worked.

QB's are more expensive in their NEXT contract, not their first one, it's just that more often than not the first overall pick is a QB.
 

LVCARDFREAK

In the league 20 years!
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Posts
6,360
Reaction score
1
Location
Vegas
Rats said:
They will pay for it? :confused: You mean they will be suckier than they have been for the past how many years??? Get a clue. A Qb in the last draft would not have made this team head and shoulders better. I would say at this point we would be worse off had we taken a rookie Qb. We have needed NFL talent at most positions for awhile now. Why spend all your cap money on the highest cost position by drafting one top 5. It makes little since. Do you think that San Diego would like a do over right now? Ben fell to 11th for a reason. We weren't the only team that passed on him. He has a great team around him that can rush for 200 plus a game. He is good but would suck on our team here just like our Qb sucks. Our draft has turned out pretty good this last time in case you still want to say we blew the draft. I agree with SWD....this is just your DG hater blathering....we get you already.


Yeah the Cards would be much worse off by having their QB of the future already on the roster! :rolleyes:

Come on Rats, a rookie QB starting right now for this team would be in a baptism by fire but at least we would have someone on the roster who gives us hope. McCown and King certainly dont!

By the way, taking a QB at #3 would ahve cost the Cards no more then having to pay McCown this year had he had a (gulp) great year. So that theory is horsepucky!
 

Rats

Somanyfreaks,SofewCircus'
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Posts
4,075
Reaction score
6
Russ Smith said:
The reason San Diego wouldn't do it because Brees exploded though, not because drafting Rivers was too expensive. The reason Rivers contract got complicated was Eli Manning being a spoiled brat refused to play there so they had to work the trade, and Rivers' agent being an agent decided to ask for more than slot value since San Diego had the first pick but got the player taken 4th.

Ben wouldn't have gotten any better deal than Fitz did. The only way Ben came out more expensive than Fitz was if he hit more incentives than Fitz, or if he played so well here that his next contract was huge. In either scenario I don't see how that could be "bad" for us? It means he played so well he earned more money, which means likely more wins for us and a stable QB position for a change.

Maybe we have the next Brees on our roster right now, I hope so, but I doubt it based on what I've seen so far.

Qb's don't cost more in the draft, that's a myth, the cost is basically the slot. What DOES happen is QB's get taken earlier than they should because QB's are so valuable. Ben slid largely because Green fixated on Fitz. If you go bakc in time and Green doesn't take Fitz, odds are the first 4 picks are Manning, Gallery, Ben, Rivers. After we passed on Ben, the Steelers knew none of the teams in front of them were likely to take a QB so they didn't panic and move up. They gambled and it worked.

QB's are more expensive in their NEXT contract, not their first one, it's just that more often than not the first overall pick is a QB.
That was my point with San Diego....how do we know with a better team around Josh or Navarre that they won't pull a Brees next season. The grass is not always greener with another guy being brought in. And so your saying that Fitz and Gallary are making as much as Manning is. A QB always commands more bonus money....thats the garuanteed money. The incentives will always reach higher if they are successful also. It is the slot as well but all things being equal if a Qb is drafted top 3 he will get more than other positions. I don't buy that the Steelers gambled. Washington needed a Qb to groom they could have and should have taken Ben at 6. Ben fell because he played at in a smaller conferance and teams really didn't know what they were going to get from him. He really is the Boom or Bust QB.
 

Rats

Somanyfreaks,SofewCircus'
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Posts
4,075
Reaction score
6
LVCARDFREAK said:
Yeah the Cards would be much worse off by having their QB of the future already on the roster! :rolleyes:

Come on Rats, a rookie QB starting right now for this team would be in a baptism by fire but at least we would have someone on the roster who gives us hope. McCown and King certainly dont!

By the way, taking a QB at #3 would ahve cost the Cards no more then having to pay McCown this year had he had a (gulp) great year. So that theory is horsepucky!
I noticed you didn't include Navarre...it craps out your whole premise...he maybe the future already on our roster...and we did draft him :rolleyes:
 

Pariah

H.S.
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Posts
35,345
Reaction score
18
Location
The Aventine
Rats said:
Ben fell to 11th for a reason. We weren't the only team that passed on him. ... He is good but would suck on our team here just like our Qb sucks.
He fell to the 11th because most other teams that were drafting 1-10 already had NFL QBs, and those that didn't took Manning and Rivers.

Ben wouldn't have made us much better this year--maybe he would have even "sucked"--but would he have sucked next year? The year after that? Or the year after that?

Now, ask yourself: will Josh suck next year? Will King suck next year? Will Navarre suck next year? Maybe they won't, but I'd rather be asking myself if Ben will suck next year and move on to all of the other problems we have instead of, once again, wondering who will be under center for the Cardinals.
 

JeffGollin

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
20,472
Reaction score
3,056
Location
Holmdel, NJ
I hate that article.

First of all, too much "woulda coulda" with regard to Roethlisberger and Manning. (Hindsight is 20-20).

Secondly, there is always an ebb and flow of surprises at all positions in the off-season - with good guys being let go, bad guys being picked up, supposedly good pickups winding up busts and seemingly insignificant moves winding up brilliant.

No way no how for one moment do I feel the Cardinals' only two FA options will wind up being Brooks and Johnson. And who knows how Dennis feels about draft picks like Rodgers or Campbell?

And perhaps the biggest unknown factor will be what McCown may have learned and how he plays after having 3 weeks to listen and learn on the sidelines with earphones and clipboard, having three good receivers to throw to and working with an offensive line that has improved its pass blocking somewhat.

By the end of the season, the issue of picking up another QB may turn out to be moot.

Or not.
 

CardinalChris

Big Man Himself
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Posts
3,929
Reaction score
0
Location
Fresno, CA
He responded well last year. I wonder if (this may sound bad) Josh is a slow learner. Remember, his ratings were good last year. Is it possible his regression this year was the new offense? Jeff could be right, just taking a step back will allow a step forward for Josh. Again, he is a RFA, so we can retain him for one more year. Everyone thinks he's gone after this season. I think King is gone, but Navarre and McCown stay. They are cheap and have some potential. We'll see this weekend!!!
 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
88,284
Reaction score
39,917
Rats said:
That was my point with San Diego....how do we know with a better team around Josh or Navarre that they won't pull a Brees next season. The grass is not always greener with another guy being brought in. And so your saying that Fitz and Gallary are making as much as Manning is. A QB always commands more bonus money....thats the garuanteed money. The incentives will always reach higher if they are successful also. It is the slot as well but all things being equal if a Qb is drafted top 3 he will get more than other positions. I don't buy that the Steelers gambled. Washington needed a Qb to groom they could have and should have taken Ben at 6. Ben fell because he played at in a smaller conferance and teams really didn't know what they were going to get from him. He really is the Boom or Bust QB.

Fitz's deal is reportedly HIGHER than Manning's if all incentives are met but yes he got less guaranteed, because he was the #3 pick not because he wasn't a QB. Most reports have his deal better than what Charles Rogers got at #2 the year before. Please note reports on Fitz' deal vary so widely I have no clue what it actually is, less than the reported 6 years 60 million for certain, but Rogers only got 7 years 20.4 million which can void to 6 years 19.5 per ESPN. Andre Johnson last year got 7 years 20.1 at #3, but if he hit incentives it can void to 6 years at 39 which is STILL less than what Fitz got from us.

Manning's deal is 6 years between 45 and 54 million depending on incentives, 14 million in bonus. Fitz' deal has roughly 20 million guaranteed, I don't know how much is bonus, his guaranteed money is virtually identical to Manning's 20 million guaranteed.

Since the terms have been kept so secret there hasn't been much talk about it but quite frankly if the reports are true, we overpaid slot value to get Fitz. The only reason nobody is complaining is the incentives it took for him to reach those goals are supposed to be quite difficult to reach, so if he reaches them, who cares again if he does he's playing so well it's good for the team.

We don't know if we have a Brees, neither did Pittsburgh. Obviously nobody really knows but many published reports have said the giants wanted Manning first, and Ben second, and would NOT have taken Rivers if the deal for Manning had fallen through. San Diego liked Rivers, I think Schottenheimer had some connection coaching him on some all star game or something but most NFL teams supposedly had Ben ahead of Rivers on their boards. Remember Blesto had Ben rated ahead of Manning, a LOT of NFL teams use the Blesto rankings. He basically slipped because of 2 things, us taking Fitz, and San Diego elevating Rivers ahead of him.

Qb's get more expensive later there's no question, but if we'd taken Ben at #3 his contract actually would have almost assuredly come out lower than Fitz' since it would appear that Fitz got a very favorable deal from us depending on which report you believe.
 

DevonCardsFan

Registered User
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
5,819
Reaction score
802
Location
Your Mamas
I would not mind seeing Brooks try to ressuruct his career here in AZ. I want to see a vet brought in like Brooks Kitna or Bledsoe.
 

CaptTurbo

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 5, 2003
Posts
16,782
Reaction score
5
Location
Pennsylvania
Russ Smith said:
Fitz's deal is reportedly HIGHER than Manning's if all incentives are met.


LOL at the current pace we might need to start up a collection for him. Does he have a paypal account?
 

Renz

An Army of One
Joined
May 10, 2003
Posts
13,078
Reaction score
2
Location
lat: 35.231 lon: -111.550
Leftwich and Roethlisberger will most likely be at least average NFL QB's, if not Pro Bowlers, IMO. Criticizing the Cards for not drafting Rivers is a bit premature though. He could end up being the next Heath Shuler/Ryan Leaf/Cade McNown.
 

DKCards

Registered User
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Posts
1,302
Reaction score
0
LVCARDFREAK said:
Yeah the Cards would be much worse off by having their QB of the future already on the roster! :rolleyes:

Come on Rats, a rookie QB starting right now for this team would be in a baptism by fire but at least we would have someone on the roster who gives us hope. McCown and King certainly dont!

By the way, taking a QB at #3 would ahve cost the Cards no more then having to pay McCown this year had he had a (gulp) great year. So that theory is horsepucky!
If a rookie was starting for the Cards everyone would label him a bust and would say they wasted another #3 pick. It is not a coincidence that they have started 3 QBs and they were all bad. They need to fix more then just the QB position in order to have a great QB
 

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
556,534
Posts
5,436,584
Members
6,330
Latest member
Trainwreck20
Top