Hindsight is Always 20/20

[Cardsmasochist]

Fanboy article on AZ Central...........

Hindsight is always 20/20
01/23/2006 05:22:13

It doesn’t seem to matter that the Cardinals took their last snap about three weeks ago or that the NFL Draft is still months away. While the Suns seem to be primed for another postseason run and the D-Backs look to have found some organizational direction, it seems for whatever reason that the Cardinals are still on people’s mind.

Over the last couple of days we have gotten different versions of what the Cardinals' reality would have been like if they had drafted Ben Roethlisberger a couple of years ago.

On Saturday, Dan Bickley’s column painted a dim picture of what life with "Big Ben" would have been if the Cardinals would have taken him with the third pick in the 2004 draft. Today, Gambo writes about how the Cardinals blew it by not taking Roethlisberger instead of Larry Fitzgerald.

Both columns have some truth to them. It wouldn’t be hard to imagine Ben getting booed unmercifully by the fans after not being able to live up to the expectations of being the No. 3 pick in the draft. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that the Cardinals wouldn’t be the ones in the Super Bowl right now if they had taken Ben, and there are no guarantees that they would have won more than 11 games in the last two seasons.

On the other hand, it isn’t hard to fathom that having a young, talented signal caller in the fold wouldn’t have the Cardinals pointed in a better direction then where they currently sit without a young quarterback to groom behind Kurt Warner.

But my question is why the obsession with Roethlisberger? Sure, the Cardinals could have taken him instead of Fitzgerald, but wouldn’t that have been seen as a huge reach? Most draft experts had Ben as the third-best QB in that draft class behind Eli Manning and Phillip Rivers. Would Rivers have the Steelers in the same spot if he would have fallen into their laps? No one knows.

Roethlisberger has gotten the Steelers to the Super Bowl in only his second season and has had unprecedented success as a professional after only a handful of games under center, but he happened to land in the perfect system that fit his style of play. I’d venture to say that close to 50 percent of the quarterbacks in the league would have had similar success with a great run game, a solid offensive line, a dominating defense and a proven coach. He got every QB’s dream job. Not to take anything away from Big Ben, but he is not the reason the Steelers are in the Super Bowl.

We could easily have imagined what would the Cardinals' reality would have been if they had the foresight to draft Matt Hasselbeck in 1998. Every team passed on Hasselbeck at least five times before the Green Bay Packers took him.

Roethlisberger’s rival in the next Super Bowl lasted until the sixth round and only had success after being traded to Seattle. And it wasn’t like he had immediate success with the Seahawks, either. Mike Holmgren believed in him and put his coaching neck on the line. It has paid off.

And let’s not even touch the 2003 draft when the Cardinals had their chance at another playoff quarterback, Byron Leftwich and wasted that opportunity on Calvin Pace and Bryant Johnson.

How does this affect the current Cardinals? It, at the very least, proves that there is no easy path to finding a quarterback that can lead you to a Super Bowl. Winning quarterbacks come in all shapes and sizes and it is up to the coaching staff to find the right player to fit whatever system they happen to have in place. Coaching careers have been ruined by not having the right guy behind center.

Denny Green is still looking for his quarterback, and finding that player will be the key to his future. Will it be a lower round pick or a free-agent gem that leads the Cardinals out of the mire? No one knows, but I am pretty sure not many people within the Cardinals' front office are looking at Roethlisberger and thinking what could have been.

 

[joeshmo]

Pretty nice article from Fanboy, a first from me. Shows both sides of the arguement without bashing. Nice piece.

I really liked the 2nd to last paragraph.

 

[football karma]

I am just not losing sleep over the the 04 draft

If the 2004 draft was a "do over" -- sure Ben R would have gone first, then Eli Manning, but at number three you would probably be flipping a coin over Fitz or Sean Taylor. Maybe Vilma, maybe DJ Williams or Tommie Harris, but I think the nod goes to Fitz.

There you go -- third pick in the draft and you get the third best player in the draft and a pro-bowler to boot.

 

[Rivercard]

you would probably be flipping a coin over Fitz or Sean Taylor.

No coin flip here - Fitz wins this battle easily. Hopefully Taylor will be in the slammer soon.

 

[Pariah]

probably be flipping a coin over Fitz or Sean Taylor.

I'd take Fitz over Taylor...but not Roethlisberger or Manning.

 

[Billy Flynt]

I'd take Fitz over Taylor...but not Roethlisberger or Manning.

Not Manning.... maybe Roethlisberger IMHO

 

[WildBB]

Fanboy article on AZ Central...........

Hindsight is always 20/20
01/23/2006 05:22:13

Denny Green is still looking for his quarterback, and finding that player will be the key to his future. Will it be a lower round pick or a free-agent gem that leads the Cardinals out of the mire? No one knows, but I am pretty sure not many people within the Cardinals' front office are looking at Roethlisberger and thinking what could have been.

That's for sure. Denny has to come through on this. Otherwise

 

[SunCityCarl]

I'd take Fitz over Taylor...but not Roethlisberger or Manning.

Fortunate or unfortunate Pariah, Manning & his daddy would've done the same thing to Arizona they did to San Diego. I'm with ya though I keep Fitz!

 

[Diamondback Jay]

First off, from the Pittsburgh perspective, the staff made no shakes about it: Roethlisberger was their second option at QB. The organization, all the way down to Bill Cowher himself let it be known they wanted Phillip Rivers.

Honestly speaking, if Ben IS picked #3 overall, I honestly don't see him having the same success he's had in Pittsburgh. Not saying he's the product of the system, however anyone who says he hasn't benefitted from being on a team like Pittsburgh, with veterans such as Ward and Bettis to alleviate some of the pressure on offense and having one of the best offensive lines protecting him weekly would be naive.

Looking back, I still would take Fitzgerald. Obviously, my opinion would be a lot different if he was stinking up the joint, however he hasn't therefore my opinion remains.

I'm more pissed about passing on Leftwich for Johnson and Pace than I am passing on Big Ben for Fitz.

 

[Pariah]

Honestly speaking, if Ben IS picked #3 overall, I honestly don't see him having the same success he's had in Pittsburgh. Not saying he's the product of the system, however anyone who says he hasn't benefitted from being on a team like Pittsburgh, with veterans such as Ward and Bettis to alleviate some of the pressure on offense and having one of the best offensive lines protecting him weekly would be naive.

Bad teams take good QBs all the time.

A lot of times it works out. When it doesn't, you don't hear people saying that it would have been different if they were on a different team. You don't hear anyone saying, "boy, if only Ryan Leaf had gone to Indianapolis instead of Whale's Vagina. Things would have been so different for him."

Teams that need QBs are often the ones picking at the top of the draft. We should have taken Big Ben (I said it then, I say it now).

 

[Redsz]

A lot of times it works out. When it doesn't, you don't hear people saying that it would have been different if they were on a different team. You don't hear anyone saying, "boy, if only Ryan Leaf had gone to Indianapolis instead of Whale's Vagina. Things would have been so different for him."

I hear people say that all the time. Maybe if Leaf went to a different team his career could of been different. And maybe he would be highly regarded as Peyton Manning right now.

And that's the basis of this 'argument' really. How Ben developed into the QB he is now in PIT isn't going to be the same way he developed here or anywhere else.

 

[Pariah]

I hear people say that all the time. Maybe if Leaf went to a different team his career could of been different. And maybe he would be highly regarded as Peyton Manning right now.

Haha--I've never heard that. Leaf was a head case, and SD didn't make him that way.

And that's the basis of this 'argument' really. How Ben developed into the QB he is now in PIT isn't going to be the same way he developed here or anywhere else.

So, what about Lienart? If he falls to us, should we pass on him? We still have a crappy oline and no running game.

How do teams ever draft a QB successfully? The teams with good olines, good running games and good defenses don't draft in the top-half of the draft.

 

[Redsz]

Haha--I've never heard that. Leaf was a head case, and SD didn't make him that way.

He was a head case. But there are ways to deal with a head case. If he went to a different college or different pro team his career could of been different under different coaching staff's.

As an example, Randy Moss is and will always be a head case. But Green knew how to handle him. It seems Norv Turner didn't.

So, what about Lienart? If he falls to us, should we pass on him? We still have a crappy oline and no running game.

Our line isn't bad at pass protecting. And we have two great WR's to help him out. And we have a good defense to get him the ball back. We have a much better situation to bring a QB in than we did a year ago.

How do teams ever draft a QB successfully? The teams with good olines, good running games and good defenses don't draft in the top-half of the draft.

And that's how bad teams stay bad. Draft a QB just for the sake of drafting a QB with the old sink or swim adage.

I personally loved what CIN did with Carson Palmer. Lewis established a team then brought in his QB with all the pieces in place then turned him loose on the NFL.

 

[Stout]

And that's how bad teams stay bad. Draft a QB just for the sake of drafting a QB with the old sink or swim adage.

I personally loved what CIN did with Carson Palmer. Lewis established a team then brought in his QB with all the pieces in place then turned him loose on the NFL.

First of all, that is most certainly not what Lewis did. He drafted Palmer when they were still not that good. Palmer came along WITH the team, and LED the team as they became good. It wasn't a matter of simply adding a QB to an already good team. Nice oversimplification.

And two, how do you think great QBs come into this league? Brady was a late-round pick, sure. Where was Peyton Manning picked? Troy Aikman? Palmer, for that matter? What was their team's record the year before they were picked? How was Denver (or Indy, as he was drafted by Indy) the year before Elway was taken? How was Buffalo the year before Kelly was taken? By your rationale, NO QBS WOULD BE TAKEN AT THE TOP OF THE DRAFT.

No, you don't draft a QB just for the sake of drafting a QB. But yes, indeed, you sometimes DO draft a QB. Why aren't you in favor of drafting one? Have you EVER been?

 

[Redsz]

First of all, that is most certainly not what Lewis did. He drafted Palmer when they were still not that good. Palmer came along WITH the team, and LED the team as they became good. It wasn't a matter of simply adding a QB to an already good team. Nice oversimplification.

They where a .500 team in Lewis first season with Jon Kitna at QB. They had a solid line, a great WR in Chad Johnson and two pro bowl backs in Dillion and Rudy Johnson. Please don't tell otherwise. It wasn't as simple as bad team + Carson Palmer = now good team. If anything YOU are over simplifying by not looking at the pieces already in place so that Palmer could succeed with the Bengals.

And two, how do you think great QBs come into this league? Brady was a late-round pick, sure. Where was Peyton Manning picked? Troy Aikman? Palmer, for that matter? What was their team's record the year before they were picked? How was Denver (or Indy, as he was drafted by Indy) the year before Elway was taken? How was Buffalo the year before Kelly was taken? By your rationale, NO QBS WOULD BE TAKEN AT THE TOP OF THE DRAFT.

Manning was drafted high and thrown to the wolves in his first season because they didn't have any other starting calibur QB's on the roster (and he nearly threw 30 picks because of it). But there where already great young players such as Marvin Harrison, Tarik Glenn, Marcus Pollard, Marshall Faulk on that team to help Manning in his development. It's not like that team was devoid of talent and Manning commanded 'let the Colts be good' and parted the red sea to a 13-3 record.

I wouldn't know anything about the state of Broncos or Bills when Elway or Kelly where drafted because I can't remember all the way back to 1983. So I will have to pass on those two. I do remember that Emmitt Smith and Micheal Irvin where drafted around the same time as Aikman. So I'm guessing those two did kinda help with turning the Cowboys around.

No, you don't draft a QB just for the sake of drafting a QB. But yes, indeed, you sometimes DO draft a QB. Why aren't you in favor of drafting one? Have you EVER been?

But many teams do. SF took Alex Smith that high just because he was a QB. And you see how well that is working out for them right now. It's pretty much the epitome of what I'm talking about. Bad team selects a QB just because he is a QB and throws him to the wolves and then wonders why he doesn't suceed.

By the time they have actually put something together Alex Smith is pgoing to be damaged goods in terms of developing bad habits (look at Jake as an example) that won't be corrected. Of course now all the people who wanted a QB high are calling him a bust and want to draft another one (Leinart) and so the cycle continues.

I'm in favor of drafting a QB if it is done right (look at my avatar). Right now I would say the team is in a better postion to draft a QB than it was a year ago.

What I'm not in favor of is selecting a QB high just to say 'look we have a QB YAAAY!' and then expecting him to save a team by himself. That is just pure stupidity and it happens all the time. Get some help for the guy first, create a competive team and enviroment and then draft him so you can plug him in the offense and let have a chance to be sucessful at this level.

 

[Diamondback Jay]

Bad teams take good QBs all the time.

Valid point, but keep in mind Pittsburgh wasn't your typical "bad team". They were a 6-10 team that slipped for multiple reasons, but also remember the year before, they won the AFC North, went 11-5 and were on the wrong side of a penalty away from making the AFC Championship Game. The year prior to that, they went 14-3 and lost in the AFC Championship game. Keep in mind, this was with Tommy Maddox and Kordell Stewart manning the ship.

I don't disagree with the genius of the move. I'll go out on record as saying that getting Roethlisberger was the best decision the Steeler organization has made since trading a first rounder to the Rams in '96 to get Bettis. Roethlisberger has made a good team great. In Arizona, he would have been starting at ground zero essentially. I still think getting Fitzgerald was the best move the Cardinals could have made at that point. Whoever the QB of the Future is will have two very good WR to throw to, and depending on what they do in the post-season (draft and free agency) will have the pieces in place so whoever the QB is doesn't have to be Superman in order for the Cardinals to get back to the playoffs.

A lot of times it works out. When it doesn't, you don't hear people saying that it would have been different if they were on a different team. You don't hear anyone saying, "boy, if only Ryan Leaf had gone to Indianapolis instead of Whale's Vagina. Things would have been so different for him."

Ryan Leaf was an immature ass. You could have stuck him on a perrenial contender and he still would have been a bust. He just didn't have the mental makeup to be a quarterback at the NFL level, which is a damn shame because he had all the other tools that could have made him a great.

Teams that need QBs are often the ones picking at the top of the draft. We should have taken Big Ben (I said it then, I say it now).

Indianapolis, Atlanta and Pittsburgh.. All three picked game changing QBs high in the draft.. All three were also not far removed from successful runs in the playoffs (Vick to Atlanta in '01-- the Falcons were a Super Bowl team in '99.. Manning to Indianapolis in 1998-- the Colts had been to the AFC Championship game 2 years earlier and of course the previously mentioned Steeler success prior to picking Roethlisberger). In all honesty, I think the only highly selected QBs in recent memory that had to go to a team that had been a routine circler of the bowl (toilet variety) and worked the team up in to a regular contender were Palmer, McNabb and McNair.

In Arizona's case, they were pieces away from improvement. Roethlisberger would have improved the team, no question, but he would have needed a Herculean effort to get them to .500. Even with Boldin coming off his excellent rookie campaign, the two would not have been able to do it alone. Honestly, I'll take Boldin-Fitzgerald and whomever the QB of the future turns out to be over Boldin-Roethlisberger. Perhaps I'm in the minority though.

 

[Stout]

Okay, Redsz, we're probably just agreeing, but not articulating right. I agree that you don't take a QB just to take a QB, but there are times when you should indeed take a QB. I think the time is right for us, and I think there will be one available. We seriously need to try and get a starter in here for years to come.

Oh, and the Bengals only won TWO GAMES the year before they drafted Palmer.

 

[Redsz]

You're proburbly right, Stout. Atriculation does seem to become an issue when we discuss the QB postion. I think we may just have somewhat of a philosophical difference in how to approach it.

In regards to the Bengals record, you are right in that they did win 2 games the year before they drafted Palmer. But that was before Marvin Lewis became coach of the Bengals. Once Lewis took over, they went 8-8 with Kitna at QB in 03', then 8-8 with Carson at QB in 04' and now 11-5 in 05'.

 

[spanky1]

An orator from Harvard will never convince me that passing on Leftwich was a mistake.

I believe that he will never amount to an elite QB.

 

[AsUdUdE]

What I don't understand... is how undervalued everyone is viewing Fitz...

DOES ANYONE REALIZE FITZ WAS A TOP 4 RECIEVER IN THE ENTIRE LEAGUE THIS YEAR?????

Add him to the Quan and we have the BEST young recieveing tandom, maybe in time the best in history!

They were the first recieving duo with 100 catches EACH... that doesn't happend..

Had we drafted Big Ben, I HIGHLY doubt we would have the kind of success for one main reason.... Ben has time to throw in Pittsburgh... he wouldn't in AZ.. and he is not mobile so he would struggle....

Sure if you brought him in now he would THRIVE because he has two of the top 8-10 recievers in the league..

We have some key componets to be a VERY good offense for a VERY long time, I do't look at that draft and say we made a HUGE mistake, I think we made the right desicsion!

 

[Pariah]

What I don't understand... is how undervalued everyone is viewing Fitz...

DOES ANYONE REALIZE FITZ WAS A TOP 4 RECIEVER IN THE ENTIRE LEAGUE THIS YEAR?????

I don't think anyone is undervaluing Fitz. I think people are undervaluing Roethlisberger.

Had we drafted Big Ben, I HIGHLY doubt we would have the kind of success for one main reason.... Ben has time to throw in Pittsburgh... he wouldn't in AZ..

Wow. Talk about beating a dead horse. No one --NO ONE-- is claiming he would have that kind of success. In fact, most posts begin with that caveat when saying we should have drafted Roethlisberger.

and he is not mobile so he would struggle....

Uh, yes he is.

 

[CardLogic]

First, Fanboy's treatment of the topic is far better than either of the so-called "professionals".

Second, if either Lienart or Young is sitting there at #10 the Cardinals would be foolish to pass on either of them, regardless of who else is available at the time. But most everyone believes that neither of them will still be on the board. It's a mute point.

Third, what the Cardinals should have done is past. I am certain that the Cardinals current leadership is not focusing upon what they should have done two and three years ago. (Ironically, if they are doing so, it would be a definitive explaination of why they repeatedly fail in the present.)

 

[NEZCardsfan]

Second, if either Lienart or Young is sitting there at #10 the Cardinals would be foolish to pass on either of them, regardless of who else is available at the time. But most everyone believes that neither of them will still be on the board. It's a mute point.

So do you extend the offer to Jay Cutler?? If he is still on the board would we be foolish to pass on him??

How long are the Cards going to use the team as a Retirement home for QBs?? How many more times do I have to hear that Dave Krieg, Boomer Esiason, or Jeff Blake are the veteran we need to get us over the top?? How long are we going to be haunted by the ghost of Kelly Stouffer?

 

[CardLogic]

So do you extend the offer to Jay Cutler?? If he is still on the board would we be foolish to pass on him??

I don't know...

I haven't seen him play!

Seriously, if the top two QB's are gone prior to the Cardinals pick at # 10, then I think they go BPA, that could be one of many different picks. But I don't think Cutler is among the top ten.

 

[Diamondback Jay]

I don't know...

I haven't seen him play!

Seriously, if the top two QB's are gone prior to the Cardinals pick at # 10, then I think they go BPA, that could be one of many different picks. But I don't think Cutler is among the top ten.

I hold this similar thought. If Cutler happens to be the best player available at 10 (I doubt this) then go for it. I don't want to see the Cards reach just for the sake of having a QBOTF.