Could the Mismanagement of QBs Cost Us Fitz? - Page 2

kerouac9 · October 28th, 2010, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by binkar

I know if has been mentioned previously, and articles have been written on this very subject recently, but we are in real danger of losing Fitz after 2011. Ron Jaworski on Gambo and Ash predicted that Fitz would leave after next season. This QB crisis couldn't have come at a worse time.

Jaws said that Hall simply isn't an NFL caliber QB and that he doesn't have the skill-set to succeed at this level. Therefore, we don't have an NFL QB on the roster at this point. In order to keep Fitz happy, something big needs to happen between now and the end of next season. The free agent possibilities have been mentioned, but in all reality great QBs USUALLY aren't around as free agents. If we are forced to draft a QB, there will obviously be growing pains for him.

Fitz' goal is to be the best WR ever. That simply can't happen with poor QB play. He is obviously frustrated, and I can't blame him.

Therefore, enjoy Fitz while we have him, cause he may not be here much longer. The mismanagement of the QBs, from offseason to now, may have cost us the most talented player in Cardinals history right at the prime of his career.

I don't know why anyone thinks that this team needs a "great" QB. We don't. The QBs that we have on the roster are two of the worst 70 quarterbacks in the NFL. Fitz will stay if we get someone who's simply not terrible next season.

Fitz wants to win blah blah blah. Fitz wants 100 receptions and 10 TDs every year. He knows what's going on. Yes, the Cards are going to have to bring someone in this offseason. Probably a veteran free agent (there'll be a couple of average to below-average guys out there) and a rookie from the first two rounds of the draft. With that, Fitz can get his 100 receptions and 10 TDs.

The question is who takes the fall this offseason for the terrible offense? I'm guessing it'll be Mike Miller and we'll hire a legit offensive coordinator next offseason.

cardpa · October 29th, 2010, 04:12 AM

The bottom line will be how much Fitz wants to stay in the Phoenix area or does he have desires to head North. If he has some inclinations to go North then he will not stay no matter who is behind center.

Catfish · October 29th, 2010, 05:33 AM

I am not about to say that it WILL cost us Fitz-----but it certainly could help him decide to leave unless we arrive at some favorable solution. Hopefully Max Hall matures enough this year to make it a mute point, or that we sign a solid starting QB during the off season. In my estimation, THIS is the real scary part about not having a legitimate passer on the squad right now-----the possible threat to lose our corps of really good WR's. The fact that FItz has a no-franchise clause concerns me.

Shane · October 29th, 2010, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

The fact that FItz has a no-franchise clause concerns me.

Can we please stop saying this. It isnt true.

DemsMyBoys · October 29th, 2010, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardpa

The bottom line will be how much Fitz wants to stay in the Phoenix area or does he have desires to head North. If he has some inclinations to go North then he will not stay no matter who is behind center.

FWIW: His brother said on Twitter (yes, THAT brother) that Fitz would stay in AZ because his son is here. We all know Fitz wants to see his name on the Ring of Honor. And in his "build a Fitz shoe" ad on Youtube he says he hopes to retire from the Cardinals. (Grant that last statement is a year old.)

I haven't consulted Miss Cleo yet.

dogpoo32 · October 29th, 2010, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DemsMyBoys

FWIW: His brother said on Twitter (yes, THAT brother) that Fitz would stay in AZ because his son is here. We all know Fitz wants to see his name on the Ring of Honor. And in his "build a Fitz shoe" ad on Youtube he says he hopes to retire from the Cardinals. (Grant that last statement is a year old.)

I haven't consulted Miss Cleo yet.

Boldin said the same things. Mismanagement will be the word of the year when he leaves as a free agent and we're stuck sitting on our hands.

Russ Smith · October 29th, 2010, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shane H

Can we please stop saying this. It isnt true.

Can someone actually clarify this? Somers implied not all that long ago that he had both a no franchise and no trade clause. I've read the no trade means he has to approve any trade. Then on the other thread someone said the no trade was removed from the deal.

I'd just like to know one way or another what his deal actually is, helps me decide if I think the Cards were stupid or not when they agreed to it.

I love Fitz too but if the Cards really do want to be a run first team, and trading Fitz could help them fix some holes, and he wanted out, I could live with a deal. It would have to be a hell of a deal, and we'd have to be sure we could keep Breaston, he'd be healthy, and we had other WR's etc in place.

But I'd rather keep him and build around him.

RugbyMuffin · October 29th, 2010, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerouac9

I don't know why anyone thinks that this team needs a "great" QB. We don't. The QBs that we have on the roster are two of the worst 70 quarterbacks in the NFL. Fitz will stay if we get someone who's simply not terrible next season.

Fitz wants to win blah blah blah. Fitz wants 100 receptions and 10 TDs every year. He knows what's going on. Yes, the Cards are going to have to bring someone in this offseason. Probably a veteran free agent (there'll be a couple of average to below-average guys out there) and a rookie from the first two rounds of the draft. With that, Fitz can get his 100 receptions and 10 TDs.

The question is who takes the fall this offseason for the terrible offense? I'm guessing it'll be Mike Miller and we'll hire a legit offensive coordinator next offseason.

+1

We went through this talk with Boldin for 3 years, and now Fitz ? This is talk for the offseason.

Peronally, I do not see Fitz going anywhere.

Shane · October 29th, 2010, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ Smith

Can someone actually clarify this? Somers implied not all that long ago that he had both a no franchise and no trade clause. I've read the no trade means he has to approve any trade. Then on the other thread someone said the no trade was removed from the deal.

I'd just like to know one way or another what his deal actually is, helps me decide if I think the Cards were stupid or not when they agreed to it.

I love Fitz too but if the Cards really do want to be a run first team, and trading Fitz could help them fix some holes, and he wanted out, I could live with a deal. It would have to be a hell of a deal, and we'd have to be sure we could keep Breaston, he'd be healthy, and we had other WR's etc in place.

But I'd rather keep him and build around him.

Whomever says he can't be franchised is wrong Russ. He absolutely can be. That assuming there even is a tag in the new collective bargaining agreement.

The problem with that is that his cap # if there is one goes up to like a top 5 QB salary. But he CAN be franchised.

Mitch · October 29th, 2010, 12:24 PM

The Cardinals will do everything they can to keep Fitz for the duration of his career. They will sign him to a record contract for WRs, and will likely do so sooner rather than later.

There will be an understanding with Fitz that the team management will do all it can to improve the QB situation...which will quell whatever misgivings Fitz may have. All Fitz needs to know is that he's the featured player in the offense, and he has been virtually since the day he became a Cardinal.

BigRedRage · October 29th, 2010, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shane H

Whomever says he can't be franchised is wrong Russ. He absolutely can be. That assuming there even is a tag in the new collective bargaining agreement.

The problem with that is that his cap # if there is one goes up to like a top 5 QB salary. But he CAN be franchised.

so why did somers report he had a no franchise clause?

Buckybird · October 29th, 2010, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedRage

so why did somers report he had a no franchise clause?

From everything I've read & heard, Shane is absolutely wrong on this issue. I would think that most the peeps who write about the Redbirds know more about details in a players contract than us fans. Urban & Somers have the insight.

Joe L · October 29th, 2010, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shane H

Can we please stop saying this. It isnt true.

When Fitz restructured his contract, he lifted the no trade clause.

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/card...ardsnotes.html

And yes, Fitz has a no franchise tag clause in his contract. I tried to find something local but this should suffice:

http://benmaller.com/2010/10/larry-f...-dont-find-qb/

az jam · October 29th, 2010, 06:46 PM

I heard on the Gambo & Ash show this afternoon when they were interviewing Ron Jaworski; they all said that Fitzgerald's contract stated that they could not franchise him. They went on to say that this is common information with all the GMs and with the current unstable Cardinal qb situation that Fitz could go wherever he wants and probably will.

az240zz · October 30th, 2010, 04:46 AM

Trade him