Which would you choose (purely hypothetical)

[Shane]

If you could only choose one player and the other HAD to go which one would you rather keep?

Dansby?

or

Fitzgerald?

You could make a case that they are equally important to each side of the ball. You could even make a case that Dansby is more important to the team. The guy is a HUGE playmaker on D who plays at a PB level even though he hasnt been to one YET.

They are both young and seem tohave great careers ahead. Who in your mind impacts the game more and why?

Remember this is urely hypothetical. I think it is possible to keep both no problem but if you had to choose who would it be and why?

 

[earthsci]

Dansby. You remove Dansby from the D and the D gets markedly worse. IMO the same doesn't happen to the O if Fitz is gone.

 

[FArting]

I picked Fitz. We would need someone to help Boldin.

 

[Shane]

Dansby. You remove Dansby from the D and the D gets markedly worse. IMO the same doesn't happen to the O if Fitz is gone.

I concur. I think the D drops off signifigantly more when Dansby is out as compared to FItz.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I can't choose. I will be very upset if we lose either one.

I am troubled just thinking about having to choose. One of these contracts needs to be done this year, so we don't have to do both next year.

 

[Stronso]

Dansby - defense wins championships

 

[Shane]

I can't choose. I will be very upset if we lose either one.

I am troubled just thinking about having to choose. One of these contracts needs to be done this year, so we don't have to do both next year.

Just do it! Pick one by gosh

 

[MadCardDisease]

Whos been to the pro-bowl twice already?

Hard choice though

 

[Shane]

Whos been to the pro-bowl twice already?

Hard choice though

True. But you could absolutley argue that Dansby has been snubbed. That D just isnt the same without him and he is just so damn disruptive.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

True. But you could absolutley argue that Dansby has been snubbed. That D just isnt the same without him and he is just so damn disruptive.

Where do you think that the Cards would have been this year without Fitz?

 

[CardLogic]

Where do you think that the Cards would have been this year without Fitz?

Is this assuming the Boldin is healthy?

Because the Cards offense would be about the same place as the Cards defense is without Dansby and Wilson...

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Is this assuming the Boldin is healthy?

Because the Cards offense would be about the same place as the Cards defense is without Dansby and Wilson...

It isn't assuming anything.... you can decide how you want to answer the question.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Dansby - defense wins championships

Ditto.

 

[PortlandCardFan]

Dansby...

 

[BigRedRage]

we have boldin, i voted dansby.

 

[joeshmo]

True. But you could absolutley argue that Dansby has been snubbed. That D just isnt the same without him and he is just so damn disruptive.

This is the first year that you can say he was sort of snubbed. But then again I wouldnt pick another LB that went to the Pro Bowl for the NFC that I would have taken out in favor of Dansby either. So I dont think it would be much of an arguement.

Finding LB's is easier then finding WR's. It is why WR's make more in the open market, more of a demand for them. It is why WR's are taken more often and higher then LB's as well.

 

[Skkorpion]

Ask me at the end of the year, after I get to see them both perform for 16 weeks with their futures at stake.

Then and only then will I take a position on either or both.

 

[Pariah]

Dansby. The defense doesn't have another player at LB that's his arguable equal. We do have that at WR.

 

[DaisyCutter]

This is the first year that you can say he was sort of snubbed. But then again I wouldnt pick another LB that went to the Pro Bowl for the NFC that I would have taken out in favor of Dansby either. So I dont think it would be much of an arguement.

Finding LB's is easier then finding WR's. It is why WR's make more in the open market, more of a demand for them. It is why WR's are taken more often and higher then LB's as well.

The problem with Dansby and the Pro Bowl is that the Cards still call him / he markets himself as an OLB. He'll never beat out Julian Peterson/DeMarcus Ware for that spot. With a monster year, he could edge out Lance Briggs, but he won't get the exposure in AZ unless they start winning.

That said, I know you can make the argument that Fitz is a Top 5 WR in the NFL and it's almost impossible not to include him in the Top 10. Can you make that same arguement for Dansby? I don't know.

I think that a holdup in both extension discussions will be that the Cards are going to have a hard time convincing their own players that they can get the exposure that they want (and the endorsements that come with them) if they stay in an Arizona Cardinals uniform. I think they can sell that to outside free agents that haven't been here, but until the Cards start winning, it's nearly impossible to sell in their own lockerroom.

I think that if Fitz were a Jet or a Steeler or a Packer or Bronco or whatever, he'd be able to increase his income 25-50% from the opportunities he'd get with a higher-profile franchise. For now, Fitz could argue that the Cards should make up some of that difference.

If the Cards start winning, everything changes.

 

[Shane]

I think that if Fitz were a Jet or a Steeler or a Packer or Bronco or whatever, he'd be able to increase his income 25-50% from the opportunities he'd get with a higher-profile franchise. For now, Fitz could argue that the Cards should make up some of that difference.

That is about the weakest negotiation argument I have ever heard. If I was a GM and a player/agent came at me with that crap I would say "well if you like those high profile cities and their supposed endorsement opportunities so much better how bout we ship you there ASAP" I would then trade him no questions asked.

 

[CaptTurbo]

Without Boldin I vote Fitz with Q I vote Dansby