Cards lock up Fitz (1 Viewer)

[njherdfan]

I don't know how anyone can criticize this deal from a Cardinals point of view. People are focused on the 50 million dollar guarantee, but there's almost no chance that Fitz gets cut at any point of this deal, so he's going to see every penny of the 120 million. I can't see the Cards owing him any dead money. Fitz is the best wide receiver in the league and he deserves to be paid like it. I'm curious to see how much Calvin gets from the Lions or a new team now that the bar on WR contracts has been set.

 

[SSOG]

Jeez, crazy loot for a just a few touches per game position.

5.68 receptions per game, the 5th highest total since 1960. Since his rookie season, he's been pulling down 6.03 per game (which would rank him 1st, although obviously it's not a fair comparison since the other guys have their rookie years included). The top 10 in receiving yards per game go: Andre Johnson, Torry Holt, Marvin Harrison, Larry Fitzgerald, Jerry Rice, Lance Alworth, Anquan Boldin, Michael Irvin, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens (side note: I don't think it's at all outlandish to suggest that those might be the top 10 receivers of the modern era, in one order or another). And he's only 28, which means he should easily have another half decade left in his prime. He's worth it.I think people really fail to understand the idea that the salary cap grows every season. Seriously. There are deals made where some good-but-not-elite guy sets the market at his position, and everyone comes out to say how ridiculously overpaid he is... and then the salary cap goes up so much that his contract is surpassed many times over in the next couple of years. You'd think after getting sticker shock EVERY SINGLE YEAR, people would realize by now that the salary cap goes up EVERY SINGLE YEAR. This deal seems huge because you're comparing it to deals made 2, 3, 4 years ago, when in reality you should be comparing it to the contracts that WRs are going to be signing 2, 3, 4 years from now. And by that standard, there's nothing wrong with the size of Fitzgerald's contract.

 

[cvnpoka]

attendance hardly matters to a teams bottom line anyway. they make all their bucks with the crazy tv deals.

to those disparaging the value of wr, where does it rank in your hierarchy of positions?

 

[kutta]

As others have said, this is very good for the Cards. Not sure why anyone would be down on it. I do think the Cards would lose fans if they let Fitz walk. Heck, they haven't sold out season tickets yet for this year, the first time since the new stadium. If we don't make the playoffs again, and they don't resign Fitz, the fans would absolutely not show.

Maybe some of you forget the AZ State stadium games. I remember going to a game in November when it was 60 degrees and there were maybe 20k people there.

The other positive to this is that it is really good to see the Cards step up and pay one of their draft picks really big money on a second contract. I think it bodes well for attracting free agents in the future if the Cards can shed the "cheap" label they have had for so long. This is a big step in the right direction.

 

[moderated]

Worth every penny.

You forgot the sarcasm emote. 50 Million guaranteed for anyone is nuts this year, espescially a WR.

No it's not. Teams are spending 30 mill guaranteed on losers, fitz is a guaranteed stud, one of the best wrs in history. After rice, and he could pass him when it's all over, there has been no better.

You're either an overt Cardinal homer or are trolling to get a rise out of people. Fitz is not even the best WR in football today. Stop it.

He is, by quite a bit. He had no qb at all last season, watch what he does with a semi competent qb like kolb.Andre and Calvin are the only wrs that have an argument. Roddy Is great but not a lock hof guy like Andre,fitz,calvin.

 

[SSOG]

attendance hardly matters to a teams bottom line anyway. they make all their bucks with the crazy tv deals.to those disparaging the value of wr, where does it rank in your hierarchy of positions?

TV revenue gets shared. Stadium revenue (specifically, certain classes of stadium revenue, such as naming rights and luxury suite sales) remains with the individual team. At least, that's how it was under the old CBA- no clue if they've added those funds to shared revenues under the new one.

 

[SSOG]

The other positive to this is that it is really good to see the Cards step up and pay one of their draft picks really big money on a second contract. I think it bodes well for attracting free agents in the future if the Cards can shed the "cheap" label they have had for so long. This is a big step in the right direction.

It's Fitz's 3rd contract. They gave him a 4-year, $40 million extension back in 2007. That's how he had so much leverage this time around- he forced Arizona to include a "no-trade" and "no-franchise" clause in his second contract.

 

[kutta]

The other positive to this is that it is really good to see the Cards step up and pay one of their draft picks really big money on a second contract. I think it bodes well for attracting free agents in the future if the Cards can shed the "cheap" label they have had for so long. This is a big step in the right direction.

It's Fitz's 3rd contract. They gave him a 4-year, $40 million extension back in 2007. That's how he had so much leverage this time around- he forced Arizona to include a "no-trade" and "no-franchise" clause in his second contract.

Yes, you are correct. I should have said future contract instead of second.

 

[Daywalker]

Three years for $50mill is what the contract is correct? The rest of the years the Cards just have the option each season of paying 17mill/per, renegotiating or cutting him?

 

[Hoss Style]

In fact, if you extrapulate his past stats over the course of his career and he wouldn't even be up for debate as a first ballot HOFer.

I can't believe anyone would actually post this. Keep in mind the HOF selection committee is not a computer spitting out stats. They are going to look at the fact that he hasn't had exactly top-flight QB's tossing him the ball. Or good teams surrounding him to take the pressure off. To even imply that if he keeps up the way he has, even accounting for age, that there won't even be an argument for first ballot is silly. If you do actually post the numbers I bet that even solely using them I can make a debate, at least. But again, for something I believe to be so false I'm not putting in the work to do it initially.Since you brought it up, I'll put the onus on you - Go extrapolate his numbers and post here.

I think you have been extrapolating too much and it's got you a bit confused.

Or maybe you haven't been extrapolating enough. Sometimes it can clear your head. Better yet, find someone to extrapolate with you. It's so much better with a partner.

 

[SSOG]

"Once in a generation talent"? You're being sensational to emphasize your side of the debate. He's a fantastic receiver who does all the things you say, but that doesn't make you a generational player. In fact, if you extrapulate his past stats over the course of his career and he wouldn't even be up for debate as a first ballot HOFer. Besides, stats only go the other opposite way so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Didn't see this "extrapolate his past stats" argument my first time through the thread. This should be a relatively simple one to squash in a hurry.Here's the top 4 receivers since 1960 (because that's how far back the HDD goes) in terms of fantasy points through age 27:1477.1 - Randy Moss1215.9 - Larry Fitzgerald1085.3 - Jerry Rice1065.5 - Lance AlworthWhen your closest historical comparisons are Randy Moss, Jerry Rice, and Lance Alworth- the three most dominant receivers of the last 50 years- then yes, you're a first ballot hall of famer. Now, in case you thinking I'm skewing things in Fitz's favor (since he was young entering the league, so he had more seasons through age 27 than some WRs), here's the top 10 receivers in terms of fantasy points through 7 seasons:Jerry RiceRandy MossMarvin HarrisonTorry HoltLance AlworthLarry FitzgeraldSterling SharpeTerrell OwensChad OchocincoGary ClarkYeah, that list has a decidedly strong HoF slant to it, too. But maybe "fantasy points through X years" isn't quite your cup of tea. If you'd rather, we can look at his career per-game rates. Larry Fitzgerald currently averages more receiving yards per game than EVERY SINGLE WR IN THE HALL OF FAME. He also averages more receptions per game than every single HoF WR, and is in the top 10 in TDs per game (his 0.60 TDs per game compares favorably to Alworth's 0.63 and Rice's 0.65).There is no statistical measure you can use by which Larry Fitzgerald is not on pace to at least be in the DISCUSSION for first-ballot HoFer. Personally, given his statistical dominance paired with the fact that he owns pretty much every meaningful postseason receiving record, I think he's going to wind up being a first-ballot HoFer. It's not a given, but at this point, I think it's likely, barring injury.Edit: In fact, I'd be very curious to see if you could find a per-game, through 7 years, or through age 27 statistic where Larry Fitzgerald doesn't show up near the top. I've been looking, and I haven't come across one yet. Yards per game, yards per game through 7 seasons, yards per game through 27 years, FP per game, FP per game through 7 seasons, FP per game through 27 years, yards through 7 seasons, yards through 27 years, FP through 7 seasons, FP through 27 years, TDs per game... Fitzgerald ranks top 12 in all of them. The worst finish I've found so far is TDs per game through age 27 and TDs per game through 7 seasons, where he ranks 16th and 17th. If you want to go by a purely statistical argument, then Fitzgerald's statistics are historically elite no matter how you slice them.

 

[moderated]

"Once in a generation talent"? You're being sensational to emphasize your side of the debate. He's a fantastic receiver who does all the things you say, but that doesn't make you a generational player. In fact, if you extrapulate his past stats over the course of his career and he wouldn't even be up for debate as a first ballot HOFer. Besides, stats only go the other opposite way so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Didn't see this "extrapolate his past stats" argument my first time through the thread. This should be a relatively simple one to squash in a hurry.Here's the top 4 receivers since 1960 (because that's how far back the HDD goes) in terms of fantasy points through age 27:1477.1 - Randy Moss1215.9 - Larry Fitzgerald1085.3 - Jerry Rice1065.5 - Lance AlworthWhen your closest historical comparisons are Randy Moss, Jerry Rice, and Lance Alworth- the three most dominant receivers of the last 50 years- then yes, you're a first ballot hall of famer. Now, in case you thinking I'm skewing things in Fitz's favor (since he was young entering the league, so he had more seasons through age 27 than some WRs), here's the top 10 receivers in terms of fantasy points through 7 seasons:Jerry RiceRandy MossMarvin HarrisonTorry HoltLance AlworthLarry FitzgeraldSterling SharpeTerrell OwensChad OchocincoGary ClarkYeah, that list has a decidedly strong HoF slant to it, too. But maybe "fantasy points through X years" isn't quite your cup of tea. If you'd rather, we can look at his career per-game rates. Larry Fitzgerald currently averages more receiving yards per game than EVERY SINGLE WR IN THE HALL OF FAME. He also averages more receptions per game than every single HoF WR, and is in the top 10 in TDs per game (his 0.60 TDs per game compares favorably to Alworth's 0.63 and Rice's 0.65).There is no statistical measure you can use by which Larry Fitzgerald is not on pace to at least be in the DISCUSSION for first-ballot HoFer. Personally, given his statistical dominance paired with the fact that he owns pretty much every meaningful postseason receiving record, I think he's going to wind up being a first-ballot HoFer. It's not a given, but at this point, I think it's likely, barring injury.Edit: In fact, I'd be very curious to see if you could find a per-game, through 7 years, or through age 27 statistic where Larry Fitzgerald doesn't show up near the top. I've been looking, and I haven't come across one yet. Yards per game, yards per game through 7 seasons, yards per game through 27 years, FP per game, FP per game through 7 seasons, FP per game through 27 years, yards through 7 seasons, yards through 27 years, FP through 7 seasons, FP through 27 years, TDs per game... Fitzgerald ranks top 12 in all of them. The worst finish I've found so far is TDs per game through age 27 and TDs per game through 7 seasons, where he ranks 16th and 17th. If you want to go by a purely statistical argument, then Fitzgerald's statistics are historically elite no matter how you slice them.

Wow, there is owned and then this, I think we need a new word for what you just did to that poor soul.

 

[LHUCKS]

"Once in a generation talent"? You're being sensational to emphasize your side of the debate. He's a fantastic receiver who does all the things you say, but that doesn't make you a generational player. In fact, if you extrapulate his past stats over the course of his career and he wouldn't even be up for debate as a first ballot HOFer. Besides, stats only go the other opposite way so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Didn't see this "extrapolate his past stats" argument my first time through the thread. This should be a relatively simple one to squash in a hurry.Here's the top 4 receivers since 1960 (because that's how far back the HDD goes) in terms of fantasy points through age 27:1477.1 - Randy Moss1215.9 - Larry Fitzgerald1085.3 - Jerry Rice1065.5 - Lance AlworthWhen your closest historical comparisons are Randy Moss, Jerry Rice, and Lance Alworth- the three most dominant receivers of the last 50 years- then yes, you're a first ballot hall of famer. Now, in case you thinking I'm skewing things in Fitz's favor (since he was young entering the league, so he had more seasons through age 27 than some WRs), here's the top 10 receivers in terms of fantasy points through 7 seasons:Jerry RiceRandy MossMarvin HarrisonTorry HoltLance AlworthLarry FitzgeraldSterling SharpeTerrell OwensChad OchocincoGary ClarkYeah, that list has a decidedly strong HoF slant to it, too. But maybe "fantasy points through X years" isn't quite your cup of tea. If you'd rather, we can look at his career per-game rates. Larry Fitzgerald currently averages more receiving yards per game than EVERY SINGLE WR IN THE HALL OF FAME. He also averages more receptions per game than every single HoF WR, and is in the top 10 in TDs per game (his 0.60 TDs per game compares favorably to Alworth's 0.63 and Rice's 0.65).There is no statistical measure you can use by which Larry Fitzgerald is not on pace to at least be in the DISCUSSION for first-ballot HoFer. Personally, given his statistical dominance paired with the fact that he owns pretty much every meaningful postseason receiving record, I think he's going to wind up being a first-ballot HoFer. It's not a given, but at this point, I think it's likely, barring injury.Edit: In fact, I'd be very curious to see if you could find a per-game, through 7 years, or through age 27 statistic where Larry Fitzgerald doesn't show up near the top. I've been looking, and I haven't come across one yet. Yards per game, yards per game through 7 seasons, yards per game through 27 years, FP per game, FP per game through 7 seasons, FP per game through 27 years, yards through 7 seasons, yards through 27 years, FP through 7 seasons, FP through 27 years, TDs per game... Fitzgerald ranks top 12 in all of them. The worst finish I've found so far is TDs per game through age 27 and TDs per game through 7 seasons, where he ranks 16th and 17th. If you want to go by a purely statistical argument, then Fitzgerald's statistics are historically elite no matter how you slice them.

That is a beatdown of epic proportions.Nice job SSOG.

 

[Team ROFLCOPTERS]

"Once in a generation talent"? You're being sensational to emphasize your side of the debate. He's a fantastic receiver who does all the things you say, but that doesn't make you a generational player. In fact, if you extrapulate his past stats over the course of his career and he wouldn't even be up for debate as a first ballot HOFer. Besides, stats only go the other opposite way so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Didn't see this "extrapolate his past stats" argument my first time through the thread. This should be a relatively simple one to squash in a hurry.Here's the top 4 receivers since 1960 (because that's how far back the HDD goes) in terms of fantasy points through age 27:1477.1 - Randy Moss1215.9 - Larry Fitzgerald1085.3 - Jerry Rice1065.5 - Lance AlworthWhen your closest historical comparisons are Randy Moss, Jerry Rice, and Lance Alworth- the three most dominant receivers of the last 50 years- then yes, you're a first ballot hall of famer. Now, in case you thinking I'm skewing things in Fitz's favor (since he was young entering the league, so he had more seasons through age 27 than some WRs), here's the top 10 receivers in terms of fantasy points through 7 seasons:Jerry RiceRandy MossMarvin HarrisonTorry HoltLance AlworthLarry FitzgeraldSterling SharpeTerrell OwensChad OchocincoGary ClarkYeah, that list has a decidedly strong HoF slant to it, too. But maybe "fantasy points through X years" isn't quite your cup of tea. If you'd rather, we can look at his career per-game rates. Larry Fitzgerald currently averages more receiving yards per game than EVERY SINGLE WR IN THE HALL OF FAME. He also averages more receptions per game than every single HoF WR, and is in the top 10 in TDs per game (his 0.60 TDs per game compares favorably to Alworth's 0.63 and Rice's 0.65).There is no statistical measure you can use by which Larry Fitzgerald is not on pace to at least be in the DISCUSSION for first-ballot HoFer. Personally, given his statistical dominance paired with the fact that he owns pretty much every meaningful postseason receiving record, I think he's going to wind up being a first-ballot HoFer. It's not a given, but at this point, I think it's likely, barring injury.Edit: In fact, I'd be very curious to see if you could find a per-game, through 7 years, or through age 27 statistic where Larry Fitzgerald doesn't show up near the top. I've been looking, and I haven't come across one yet. Yards per game, yards per game through 7 seasons, yards per game through 27 years, FP per game, FP per game through 7 seasons, FP per game through 27 years, yards through 7 seasons, yards through 27 years, FP through 7 seasons, FP through 27 years, TDs per game... Fitzgerald ranks top 12 in all of them. The worst finish I've found so far is TDs per game through age 27 and TDs per game through 7 seasons, where he ranks 16th and 17th. If you want to go by a purely statistical argument, then Fitzgerald's statistics are historically elite no matter how you slice them.

I had a good thing going here. Why'd you go and do that?

 

[Hoss Style]

Didn't see this "extrapolate his past stats" argument my first time through the thread. This should be a relatively simple one to squash in a hurry.Here's the top 4 receivers since 1960 (because that's how far back the HDD goes) in terms of fantasy points through age 27:1477.1 - Randy Moss1215.9 - Larry Fitzgerald1085.3 - Jerry Rice1065.5 - Lance AlworthWhen your closest historical comparisons are Randy Moss, Jerry Rice, and Lance Alworth- the three most dominant receivers of the last 50 years- then yes, you're a first ballot hall of famer. Now, in case you thinking I'm skewing things in Fitz's favor (since he was young entering the league, so he had more seasons through age 27 than some WRs), here's the top 10 receivers in terms of fantasy points through 7 seasons:Jerry RiceRandy MossMarvin HarrisonTorry HoltLance AlworthLarry FitzgeraldSterling SharpeTerrell OwensChad OchocincoGary ClarkYeah, that list has a decidedly strong HoF slant to it, too. But maybe "fantasy points through X years" isn't quite your cup of tea. If you'd rather, we can look at his career per-game rates. Larry Fitzgerald currently averages more receiving yards per game than EVERY SINGLE WR IN THE HALL OF FAME. He also averages more receptions per game than every single HoF WR, and is in the top 10 in TDs per game (his 0.60 TDs per game compares favorably to Alworth's 0.63 and Rice's 0.65).There is no statistical measure you can use by which Larry Fitzgerald is not on pace to at least be in the DISCUSSION for first-ballot HoFer. Personally, given his statistical dominance paired with the fact that he owns pretty much every meaningful postseason receiving record, I think he's going to wind up being a first-ballot HoFer. It's not a given, but at this point, I think it's likely, barring injury.Edit: In fact, I'd be very curious to see if you could find a per-game, through 7 years, or through age 27 statistic where Larry Fitzgerald doesn't show up near the top. I've been looking, and I haven't come across one yet. Yards per game, yards per game through 7 seasons, yards per game through 27 years, FP per game, FP per game through 7 seasons, FP per game through 27 years, yards through 7 seasons, yards through 27 years, FP through 7 seasons, FP through 27 years, TDs per game... Fitzgerald ranks top 12 in all of them. The worst finish I've found so far is TDs per game through age 27 and TDs per game through 7 seasons, where he ranks 16th and 17th. If you want to go by a purely statistical argument, then Fitzgerald's statistics are historically elite no matter how you slice them.

Ah, this is great. You see, I was logging on tonight and remembered this post. I kind of sighed and put myself in the mindset to hunker down and get ready to go through the stats. I hadn't read any replies after my post yesterday, though, and just assumed I was in for a statistical rundown on Fitz. I brought all my stat pages up and then logged in here. I had already just glanced at the stats and could see that Fitz was very comparable to Rice over his first 6 years. Before I got in too deep though I figured I better head on over to this post and start typing as I find the stats I need.Then I see your post. All I have to say is thanks. See, usually I'm the one throwing up tons of stats on boards to make a point. Yesterday when I posted, though, I was tired and just hoped I could skate by without having to make this argument. You did all the work I should have done yesterday and it was an excellent break down as well. Kudos to you.I'm new to the forums here so I'm not sure why, but when I hit the little "plus" sign at the bottom to vote your comment up it says "I have filled my quota for the day" or something like that, even though I've never voted on a post in my life - much less today. Not sure how my "quota" is used up. I'm not even sure if "voting up" a post helps you, but I gave it a shot anyway.Regardless, I love a stats man. That's my thing, too. I love your post.

 

[Buckna]

Just for comparison's sake:

-Brandon Marshall's new contract in April of 2010 was five years, $50M & $24M guaranteed, a record for a WR at the time.

-Andre Johnson signed a 2 year extension last August that made his new contract $73.5M over 7 years. It bested Marshall's contract as the highest for a WR, and he was one year older than Fitz is right now.

-Fitz's yearly average is $15M the highest for a WR in the NFL and tied for 5th highest of all players. The next 4 WR's are Steve Smith 10.9M, AJ $10.5M, Marshall 10M, & Calvin 9.7M.

Will be interesting to see what effects this has on DeSean Jackson, Gore & Chris Johnson now.