Arizona Cardinals Free Agency: Should Richard Bartel Be Retained?

by Tyler Nickel on Feb 9, 2012 11:00 AM MST in NFL Offseason/Free Agency

Yesterday, we finished up the unrestricted portion of our free agency series by asking you, the voters, whether or no Dave Zastudil should be re-signed as the punter for the Arizona Cardinals. 54% of you said no, mainly due to age, injury and lack of net punting distance concerns. Zastudil could definitely return to the Cardinals in 2012, but I think it really depends on price and whether or not Arizona can get a young talent in or after the draft.

Now onto our first restricted player. Technically, quarterback Richard Bartel is listed as an exclusive rights (ER), which means that if an offer is tendered to him by the team, he will be forced to accept it. In essence, Bartel has no chance of going anywhere if the Cardinals wish to keep him. But should they? Let's find out after the jump.

Bartel was listed as the third quarterback on the depth chart in 2011 behind newcomer Kevin Kolb and sophomore John Skelton. He only took 29 snaps under center during the regular season, most of them coming after Skelton put on a terrible performance against the San Francisco 49ers in week 11.

The preseason is when Bartel saw most of his time on the field and he looked very competent as a third stringer. Although the preseason is not a great litmus test for any player, he still was able to play well in that time span, passing for 5 touchdowns and a 69% completion rate.

As aforementioned, Bartel is an exclusive rights free agent, so if the Cards want to keep him around, then that is exactly what they will do. According to Spotrac.com, Bartel made a total of $480,000 in 2011. In his new contract, Bartel will make more money, but it still won't be a figure that is going to break the bank. He showed flashes of playing well and already knows the team's offense, so for that, I think he should definitely be re-signed.

What do you think? Is Richard Bartel a quarterback worth keeping around? Tell us in the comments section below and leave your vote in the poll.

We invite you to follow Revenge of the Birds on Twitter at @revengeofbirds and like us on Facebook. Also, follow me on Twitter at @TylerNickelASU.

Poll

Should the Arizona Cardinals re-sign quarterback Richard Bartel?

Yes

237 votes

No

96 votes

333 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The simple answer, as you alluded to, is that he will be back

They’ll retain him for next to nothing, regardless of whether or not they land Peyton. If we do get Peyton, then he’s an extra camp arm and will likely be one of the final camp cuts. If our QB depth chart remains as is, he’ll be back as the #3.

As for whether or not he should be retained, while I don’t think he’s anything special or a future starter who just needs time, we could do worse for a 3rd string QB. I think the only two ways he’s not back is if we land Peyton or we draft a QB earlier than most of us expect them too (basically any QB who we can’t stash on the practice squad for a season).

Go big or go home!! Bet big to win big!!

by Steamin' Beamin' on Feb 9, 2012 11:54 AM MST reply actions

Why do you think they will cut him if they sign Peyton.

Kolb got a better chance at getting cut before Bartel does if the team sign Peyton.

by McCollum, Travis on Feb 10, 2012 10:56 AM MST up reply actions

In more than one occasion...

…I was screaming at the tv for Whisenhunt to bench Skelton and put Bartel in. He never did, and Skelton somehow pulled his own (albeit uglier) version of Tebow-time and won some games for the Cards last season. But as far as Bartel’s ability, he’s decent, not to mention a cheap backup. I say keep him.

"When life gives you lemons, I say f**k the lemons and bail."

by SGM on Feb 9, 2012 11:58 AM MST reply actions

why not...

go for some new blood. Is he a good back up? Yeah. But why not take a chance on someone in the draft? You never know. Save the money and sign CC to the contract extension that he deserves. They will franchise him and then he walks just like they all do. Of course, rumors are that CC is being greedy.

by ccnellie on Feb 9, 2012 1:18 PM MST reply actions

+1

Give Bartel’s contract to CC. That should do the trick and get our goliath locked up long-term

Being more realistic, Bartel has shown the ability to grow a nice beard. We don’t have too many guys with that skillset. Let’s keep him!

by cardinalbrown on Feb 9, 2012 1:43 PM MST up reply actions

Bartel

The thing is, Bartel wont cost anything against the CAP cause his contract will be in the bottom part of our overall contracts. No reason not to hang on to this guy if Payton never makes residence here.

by Fitz Fan on Feb 9, 2012 5:41 PM MST up reply actions

I remember reading some of his quotes during the preseason

The guy seems happy to be on the team and playing football at the national level, even as a backup. He seems like he has good energy and is a good due. He should be kept around because he is good enough and he seems like a good presence.

by Jesse Reynolds on Feb 9, 2012 1:49 PM MST reply actions

Agreed

And I like the way the team chemistry is right now. Don’t want to change that very much

Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan
Phoenix Suns, Arizona Diamondbacks, Phoenix Coyotes, Arizona Rattlers fan
[I have always lived in Arizona, dad is from Chicago].

Leading the NFL in swagtangibles

by JoeCB1991 on Feb 10, 2012 12:29 AM MST up reply actions

If he’s needed, I say retain him. He’s cheap and knows the system and can be used in a pinch. I think he did pretty well in the preseason. Again, if the Cards need or want 3 QB’s it’s a no brainer to keep him

by defense_dad on Feb 9, 2012 2:40 PM MST via iPhone app reply actions

Hey he's good at San Fran...

Scored our only points in the last two trips to Candlestick.

by Alex Mann on Feb 9, 2012 6:31 PM MST reply actions 1 recs

Keep him looks like got some potential. Yea John pulled out some games for us last year but if given a chance feel may have more potential based on Jons poor accuracy which may not improve.

by naironpalm3 on Feb 10, 2012 6:57 AM MST reply actions