nfoligno

As sick as the names are, what also stands out is that in nearly 40 years, we have only had 3 seasons where we started one QB. Ouch!

FS is near out of the picture, IMHO. Unless Jenkins somehow falls to us, and we view him as a FS (and he is willing to play FS) I just do not see any FS near value at 18. I am with you on drafting OL over WR in the 1st. At the same time, there is a limited number of OL who may be availale when we pick. For me, Oher and Jason Smith, if either fall to us, are no brainers. After that, you have Britton, who is looking more and more like a decent value at 18, but who else? You have Unger and Mack, who are both centers but may also be viewed as OGs. Each are considered late 1st/ early 2nd round picks though, and I would seem a reach at 18. No true OGs are even considered 1st round values. So that's the thing. Do you take Britton over WRs who may be considered a much higher grade? Maybe. But after Britton, I just do not see any OL being close in value at 18. We could trade down, if we have a partner, but I am not a big fan of talking trade down as there are just so many factors in that. At 18, I would love OL, but our options are simply limited. If no OL is available, I think WR has to be our next choice. I would rather get a FS, but there are just none worth the pick. So if we stay at 18, and the OTs are gone, it may have to be WR. Problem at WR, for me, is the higher graded prospects I think would be very questionable fits for us. Nicks and Britt are far and away my top choices at WR, but are either of them worth the 18th? As of now, I am just really hoping Oher or Smith fall to us.

I personally want no part of DHB. I love the raw skills he shows, but he is simply very raw and a player I think will need a few years to develop. Worse, w/ our staff's history of developing WRs, I just question taking raw receivers, as I am not sure they would ever develop. I personally do not want Mac. I just believe he is too similar to Hester, and would not offer us a solid compliment to Hester. Remember, our staff really pigeon holes WRs into a position. I think our staff would view Mac as being similar to Hester, and essentially stick him behid Hester on the depth chart. He would be a slot receiver and not even a starter on our offense. Mac is a higher graded prospect/value in the draft, but for us, I think Nicks or Britt would offer a MUCH greater fit. No way, as much as I like him, would I take Duke over those mentioned WRs, as Duke could be there for us in the 2nd round. In terms of value, it is simply too great of a reach. Britton is looking like more of a value by the day. More and more mocks have Britton going closer and closer to our pick, w/ some actually having us taking him. I know Mac is the higher graded prospect, but I think Britton would be the better pick for us.

McGahee was expected to miss his entire rookie season w/ injury. Crabtree is expected to be ready to go by camp, and definitely ready to play game one his rookie year. He "may" drop some, but I do not see him being a McGahee. Actually, the player I think (draft wise) to better compare him to might be, gulp, David Terrell. Terrell was considered one of the best prospects in the draft. Not just at the WR position, but overall. Then it was reported he had a stress fracture, and his value slipped some, and we took him at #8, which at the time was considered a steal. I am not comparing the two WRs in terms of NFL production, but simply in terms of the draft. Both were considered elite prospects, not just at their position, but overall. Both were found to have stress fracture injuries, and thus their draft stock took a bit of a hit. Still, even w/ the stress fracture, Terrell didn't make it out of the top 10, and I doubt Crabtree does either.

Holt is due a roster bonus March 17th. It isn't huge, but the consensus seems to be that St.L will cut him at that point if they have not found takers for a trade. From what I read, the key reason no one has looked to trade for him is everyone believes he will be released before the 17th. He has asked to be released now because he sees other WRs getting paid, and doesn't want to hit the market when teams have spent all their money. Holt is not going to be super cheap, as I think many fans are hoping, but IMHO, he would still be well worth it. The deal will be a tad pricey, but would also likely be a shorter term (2 or 3 years) deal. That is perfect in my eyes. We have the cap to easily afford him. He would instantly upgrade our WR corp. Further, as he would be under a short term deal, he would not kill the long term develop plans for Bennett and/or a rookie who will likely still be added this year. I said this before, but I would love to add Holt or Harrison. I think either would offer the bear immediate upgrade, while not preventing us from developing other players.

Few want to do "something" more than I, but this would just be an awful move. As I said in another post, he has now be cut by 3 teams, and all for the same reason. The guy just hates QBs. Seriously. He called his QB gay in SF. He really went to down on McNabb in Phily. And he has been cutting Romo off at the knees every chance he gets in Dallas. What do you think would happen w/ Orton? If those three QBs could not make him happy, what makes you think Orton can? I understand willingness to take risks, but in TO, it just doesn't seem worth it. He is not the player he once was. Romo was throwing to other receivers because TO just wasn't getting open, but in TO's mind, even if he is blanket covered, by 3 defenders, and another player is wide open, the QB should still throw him the ball. No question, even w/ his game diminished, he would be our best WR (like that is saying much) but he just isn't worth it. I would throw out a stone cold lock guarantee he would be ripping Orton sooner rather than later, and how well do you think Orton will develop when his top weapon is shredding him. That was the key reason Dallas dumped him. W/ TO on the roster, there was no way Romo could ever become a leader. And if your argument is Orton sucks, well then we are likely going to be looking for his replacement, and TO will just stunt that player's ability to lead and develop as well.

While I see where you are going w/ the Albert comparison, I am not sure it is there. While Unger did play LT for two years in college, I have yet to see anyone really believe he can play outside in the NFL. That doesn't mean he can't, but few believe he has the footspeed or quickness to seal the outside, yet he could be a great inside guy. Albert only had two starts at LT, but his intangibles led many to believe he had the potential to be a great LT. Albert aside, I don't have an issue w/ your outside the box thinking. I like Unger as (a) I think he could play OG right away and ( while Beekman may become a good center, there is little question Unger would offer a considerably higher grade prospect to eventually move over and take over for Kreutz after he leaves. One problem w/ Unger is draft value. He is considered a late 1st round pick, and would be a reach at 18, thus we likely would need to trade down for him. Honestly don't know enough about Smith to really say.

No. Not even worth a look. RW is a pure SS, and even in that regard, he is a massive liability in pass coverage. Teams worked hard to matchup TEs, RBs or 4th WRs against RW to exploit him. His pass coverage was so bad that he found himself on the bench more often than not, and spent most of 2008 there. While I realize the SS does not have to be as good in pass coverage as the FS, he still must be competant as he will have to cover against the pass against TEs and RBs often enough. He is just that bad. Frankly, it would not surprise me if he found teams wanting him to move to LB.

Yes, TO can play, but what does it say when three teams now have cut him despite the fact that he can play? All three teams that cut him put themselves in weak situations at the WR position, but it didn't matter to them. The most important thing was to get TO out of town. Here is Dallas, few are upset he is gone. The biggest problem is, he was doing here what he has done everywhere else. He was under-mining the QB and cutting him off at the legs every chance he got. He would call out Romo in film sessions. He would blast Romo in meetings. He would shred Romo during games on the sidelines. Worse, TO is a player who "can be" popular among some other veterans, and TO uses that to create clique's in the locker room, where he then begins to spread his feelings about the QB. And it wasn't just the QB, but also their pro bowl TE Witten, who was a target of TO's wrath because Witten was getting too much of Romo's attention. Seriously. TO may still be a great WR (I think he is good at this point and not great, but regardless). Three teams now have decided he just isn't worth it. In each of the three cities, he has done the exact same thing. He makes enemies w/ the QB and begins a campaign inside the locker room, as well as in the media, against those QBs. First he calls his QB gay. Then he says his QB is a pussy. Recently he has been saying his QB is a borderline racist, and that is why he prefers Witten to him. Whether it is Orton, or a new QB next year, how the hell can we ever expect a QB to take charge if we add a WR like this. Honestly, I am going to be very curious to see what TO's market will be, as he has now struck out w/ his 3rd team. In my eyes, TO is worse than most any other WR out there w/ character issues. No other WR I have ever heard of creates the internal problems that TO does, and does so in the same damn manner in every city he goes to. I just really wonder how many teams are going to want to add him, and for what price. Frankly, I would not take him for the minimum. Three strikes, your out.

Lt2 responded to part in another thread. We are about $8m away from the "floor", and it is really even less when you factor the rookie pool. That really isn't much, and meeting the "floor" should be very easy. What I have no clue about is when you ask when each team gets their share of the revenue. It seems like it would go against logic and reason for teams to get their money late, as the whole purpose is for smaller market teams to be able to compete w/ the bigger markets. If the small market teams don't get their money until some point after FA begins, and thus after the big markets have already signed all the top FAs, it just seems like that would defeat the purpose of revenue sharing. Not saying you are incorrect. I hear/read something everyday that goes against logic and reason. This may well be another example.

He is a RT who was forced to play LT. Oh yea. And isn't $5m/yr what we were offering St. Clair, who gave up more sacks than any LT in the league.

So you are of the opinion we should not look at any FA out there? Ever? You have to be kidding. Um, you have seen Angelo's draft record, right?

With next year currently scheduled as an uncapped year, the only real number you have to keep in mind in the salary cap floor which is about $114 mil. We're currently at about $96 mil so we really only have to spend $8 mil to reach the floor and probably $5 mil will go to rookies. I'm not saying that we will only shoot for the minimum, but that's all that's guaranteed if the prices for players are unreasonable vs. their value. I'm sorry, but why again are we assuming we only have to think about the floor if there is no cap? No, I have no delusion to think we would try to act like Snyder or Jones, but is it your opinion most teams in the league will be low balling players and going "that" cheap? One thing I think could hold us back from that might be if (a) we fail to add much this year and ( we suck this year. If that comes to pass, I am not so sure we go so cheap. What was done in the past is irrelevant because this is an entirely unique situation due to next year being an uncapped year. Not sure I agree. One. Next year is not for a fact an uncapped year. That is only if a new CBA is not in place. I personally do not believe we can assume that a new deal is or is not in place. Two, even if it is an uncapped year, while I agree this year is unique, I disagree the past is irrelevant. It's not a gamble, it's just irrelevant. In fact, teams can use bogus incentives that WOULD have moved cap space forward to actually spend beneath the salary cap floor. So teams have to count $114 against the cap and they are at only at $110 million? Sign someone to a LTBE bonus laden contract with $4 mil in it, and voila! you've achieved the salary cap floor. Not sure I undertstand here, or at least how it is responsive to the previous point. My point was, if (a) we do sign several players to LTBE deals w/ the plan of creating space next year and then ( next year is an uncapped year, have we not wasted potential cap space? As you said, we don't need to spend much to hit the floor, while we have loads of cap space, so I question the idea that LTBE (for us now) are to get above the floor. Seems like we are close enough now where that isn't an issue. On the other hand, if it is used to use up the $30m or whatever we have, it sure seems like that is wasted space. I think Angelo is going to do pretty much what he always does: If a situation with good value comes up, he'll pursue it. There is no way of knowing whether Holt will be released so there is no way he's counting on it. For instance, the Ogun thing was unexpected in March so how could he have saved cap space for it? Two things. One, while little is known in life, many things can be expected, and I think the majority out there expect St.l to cut Holt. St.L wants to trade the players, but as most teams expect them to be available for free (after being cut) no one is calling the Rams. So while anything can happen, there is a great enough level of expectation that I do think you can make plans in the event of. Two. We didn't "save cap space for Wale". As I recall, we actually had to creatively structure Wale's deals (multi year bonus) because we didn't have much cap space at the time. I think you'll see us picking up bargains later in FA and after the draft. No doubt about that one. Regardless of other moves, I think Angelo always does this. However, I do not think this will come close to using up the $30m in cap space we have, and regardless of your saying history is irrelevant, I have a hard time seeing us not using up our cap space, if for no other reason than the poor perception it would create. Thus, the point of the thread. Agreed we add bargains, but that won't use up $30m in space. I believe we will use up that cap space, and thus the question is how? LTBEs? Begin seriously front loading contracts. Trade not considered? FA off the radar? I hope this clears up a few misconceptions for you. Nope. Still have no clue how Angela plans to use up the cap space.

Maybe you should re-read. First, it is a poster talking about what some guys on the radio said, as opposed to an article, which you talk about. Second, toward the end, it is said that, "they said they think that his restrictions in terms of what he is given annually to spend on free agents, makes them rely on draftees. They have to exhaust every draft pick because they cant afford to replace them with FA." That comment deals w/ more than one year and says this current off-season is simply a continued example of how the rest have been.

Sorry, but find a tad much of this questionable. One. Per these two, Angelo flat out said the owners won't let him spend money. Does anyone realize how big of a statement this would be? This is the sort of statement that gets a guy fired, and one that really rubs the other owners wrong. Who wants to hire a guy who has previously called out his ownership? Maybe it is the truth, but it just seems odd Angelo would tell such a thing to these guys. Two. They indicate Angelo is restricted on how much he is allowed to spend annually, but have they seen the money Angelo has spent? Whether it is signing our own to huge deals, or adding veterans like Wale, Tait, Moose and others, or even in failed deals like when we offered Kearse $20m SB, it just doesn't seem like Angelo's hands are as tied as they act like. Three. Jerry "ran the drafts" in TB. I would bet that is news to McKay, the TB GM. Did Angelo play a big role. Most likely. But to say he ran the drafts makes it sound as if he were the GM, when he was just the Director of player personnel (or whatever the title is). Four. "missed on some draft picks"? "Some"? Sounding more and more like they are a pair of Angelo apologists. They talk about his coming to Chicago w/ Cred, but that seems a stretch. They act like he just missed on a couple picks, and then say cheap ownership is why he has to stick w/ them. They sound to me like Angelo apologists who are using ownership to excuse the poor job Angelo has done.

Im just wondering what could be happening, because I dont see the team getting better right now unless JA rolls a Yahtzee in the draft. Now here, I can agree w/ you. I don't see the trade options there, but it just seems like there is something we are missing. That is why I threw out there the thread asking how we will use our cap space. I just find it too hard to believe Angelo/Lovie feel we are so close/set, and that they do not see the glaring needs the rest of us see. Nor can I believe Angelo believes so highly of himself that he is relying on his ability to roll not one, not two, but many yahtzee's. I mean, if we don't see significant moves, we are going to have to see 3 or 4 major draft day hits.

I'd be fine w/ Barnes and Phillips, but both have seen significant interst, as well as visits, from other teams. I have to think that if either were in our plans, we would already know about it. As for Taylor, no way. One, he reportedly already said no to any thought of signing w/ the bears. Also, no thanks on adding the football version to Roger Clemens. We don't need a player who lays on the couch while the team busts their arces. What sort of teacher/motivator is that person. What does it teach the rest of the team? Hey, if you are good enough, you can sit back and tell the coaches how much you want to practice. No thanks. Seems like he would bring the opposite mentality we hope Marinelli brings.

The "if one more game" is the difference between being "close to" a consistent playoff team and actually being a consistent playoff team. Thats why we are close. To me, I think the key is, close to what? For me, being close should be about being a legit SB contender. Being close to being a playoff team? Sorry, but big deal. I think probably all but a very small handful of teams can say they are close to being a playoff team. This past year, take out Det, StL, Seattle, Cincy, Cle, Jax, Oakland and KC, and I think all the rest would say they were close. Of those who were not close last year, Seattle and Cincy each could say they were out due to losing their QB. Point is, if all "close" means is close to the playoffs, I would argue that is a VERY low bar, as most of the teams in the NFL are close by that definition. To me, close means, or at least should mean, close to being a legit SB contender. I do not think we are close to that. The goal should be to get to the playoffs. Once you are there anything can happen. Its easy to get hot. Turnovers. Breaks. So many things can happen that if you can just get to the playoffs you are in a good place. Its nice to be the juggernaught every year, but normally that doesn't happen. There are exceptions (Patriots), but even that does not guarantee a ring, because some team that barely got into the playoffs and got hot in the playoffs might beat you. We simply disagree. You should not be thinking about just getting to the playoffs, and hoping breaks go your way. You should be building a SB contender, rather than a mediocre team hoping for luck. The players watch film and get called out at position meetings, so mostly its the position coaches and perhaps the coordinators that do the butt chewing. If the HC has to do it, then those guys are not getting the job done. I hold the whole defensive staff accountable for this, including HC, the players, and the defensive captains. Again, I watched our defenders go half a** and take lazy routes too many times. It killed the defense. Shoot those last two games, it wouldn't have mattered if Bobo the clown called plays the way our defense lacked fire. Two things. One, I think the assistants take their cues from the HC. If you have a HC who does not stress accountability, then I think that carries over to the staff and players. Two. Other than Marinelli, where do you see the change in this regard? Lovie didn't seem to stress accountability as a HC. Why should we expect different as a DC. Babich didn't press accountability when he was the DC. Why should we expect different as the LB coach. As for the new DB coach, lets not pretend he is coming from a team where his secondary did much of anything. I agree this has been a weakness of the team, but I also question how much Marinelli alone helps change this and whether the rest of the coaching changes will create a different culture. I agree assistant coaches are like the drill sargent, but at the same time, i think those assistants take their cues from their HC, and I just question how much our HC will/can change the culture we have seen on this team. Again I think if Roddy Roddy M. can get the dline fixed, then we will be fine. It will allow us not to try and blitz so much (which I dont think our players are good at anyway) which should fix our coverage. Dare I say the defense is "close". I think if Marinelli can right the ship on the DL, it will have a major domino effect on the defense as a whole. That is why I have argued against major changes in our defensive personnel. My only exception is the FS position. a great pass rush (marinelli) may lessen the blow of weak FS play, but at the same time, that is the one area that I think coaching can help very little and the area i think we will see a major weakness if not address. I dont think we need coaching changes. I think Turner is doing fine. I thought the offense was much better last year. I think if Lloyd and Orton dont get hurt, then our passing game would have been that much better(I thought the Orton to Lloyd connection was just starting to blossom and then after his injury Lloyd was terrible. Plus Orton was just not the same after his injury. I think it bothered him alot more than he let on.) I thought Hester improved as the year went on (at WR not KR). Forte and Olsen were good. Again I think if we can improve the line and get 1 more good receiver so I never have to watch R Davis, our offense will be good. I go back and forth on Turner. I think he did well early on, but not so much later. While I agree 100% that Orton's injury was worse than he led on, and that he came back too soon, I also feel much of Turner's playcalling was very predictable. It worked early on, but didn't change as the season went on, and thus was predictable and too easy to defend. What I fear is, Turner is a coach he can do well enough if everything is going right, but not a coach who can adjust when changes are necessary (like injuries). Really though, on offense, I agree the issue is less about coaching. I simply feel we lack talent. The WR you said you felt did well w/ Orton (lloyd) is gone, and we have seen nothing in terms of replacement. Our talent at WR is simply bad, and the only area that is worse is OL. These are two areas I feel we need serious upgrades, and where I do not feel "coaching" is going to make enough of a difference as the talent is simply not there. I agree. We need OL, FS, and WR in that order. Personally, I would rank our needs: OL, OL, OL, WR/FS. We have our LT (we pray) and while his play has not been up to par, we have our Center. I believe though we lack two OGs and a RT. As for FS and WR, I think it is a toss up. I think we will sit in the cover 2, be aggressive on the Dline to get pressure, get back to a defense that might give up yardage, but will force turnovers and score points. My key hopes on defense: - Marinelli can get a solid pass rush out of this DL, whether it is through stunts, having them mix up how they attack, or simply getting them to play better. - No more playing the LOS on top of the LOS. I think it destroys Urlacher. He may not be the player he was, but how we used him (IMHO) only made the situation worse. Further, we left wide open the middle, allowing easy slants. - While I have no hope we begin to press our CBs, I hope to see them playing close to the LOS. There is simply no need to play as deep as they were, but per Vasher, that is what they were told to do. - When we do blitz, mix it up. You can do more than simply sending urlacher or Briggs up the middle. I do think our D can be better. I doubt they will be great, as they once were, but can be solid. My greater concern is our offense takes a major step back, and w/o upgrades at OL and WR, I see that as a very real possibility.

I too get that feeling, though it may be more based on hope than logic. At the same time, I just do not see the deals to add 1st round draft picks. As I said in response to your previous posts, I just don't see the talent on the roster which would net us a 1st round pick. Players we "could" conceivably consider trading: Urlacher - No way he nets us a 1st. Frankly, I doubt he nets us a 2nd. He is older, coming off multiple weak seasonsn, and then factor the chronic back issues. Wale - Again, no chance he nets a 1st. Coming off a bad season. Far from young. Only one year remaining on his current deal. He might bring a mid round pick, might, but no chance a 1st. Vasher - Maybe a 5th, but injuries and weak play are not going to see a 1st in return. Kreutz - I don't see it happening, but just stretching to think of "names" who some might argue. Again, older veteran who has seen a downturn in play over the last several seasons, and who also is near the end of his deal, thus no bargain. I just do not see the personnel on the team that would bring a 1st in return. The only two players who I think would generate a higher level of interst in a trade are Briggs and Harris, and I see each as near untouchable. I mentioned this before, but the daydreaming in me would see one of the rookie QBs fall to #12, which prompts Denver to talk Cutler trade. They draft a rookie QB, and trade Cutler to us. That eliminates our 1st round pick (opposite of what you talked about) but would add a player who we could then re-sign to a deal which could use up a ton of that cap space. But this is serious daydreaming here. Right now, one option I think has at least some level of logic would be to sign Holt (assuming he is cut) to a very much front loaded deal. A front loaded deal would help entice him to come to the city where WRs die (thanks Moose for that quote), use up a chunk of our cap space, and potentially give us a significant upgrade at an area of great need. Further, Lovie may have been running the defense, but may have a bit of a relationship w/ Holt from their days together in St.L, and further, Lovie did have to defend against Holt every day in practice, and knows him better than most. So I see logic here, but again, it could be as much hope as it is logic.

I think we all know that, but what would be the value of this board if we all simply sat back and went along w/ (w/o question) whatever the staff did? Lets go back a bit to an example of a coach few would support. Would you want a board that didn't allow fans to question the playcalling of John Shoop? It can easily be argued that our opinions didn't matter, and only the opinion of our staff did/does, but that would make for one boring message board. A more recent example. Have you not questioned the lack of playing time given to Bennett? If your opinion doesn't matter, and ony the opinion of the staff does, what is the point of questioning his lack of playing time. That was Mad's and my point. While in the real world, I think we all know our opinion doesn't matter, but that is the beauty of this board. here, at least we can pretend it does Here, we are all elite General Managers, talent evaluators and coaches.

No argument on Bennett, but I am just not so sure on Rideau. I would not have had a problem if we gave him a shot, but at the same time, we always seem to get high on deep depth chart WRs who were not even thought enough of to get drafted. Maybe Rideau is a hidden gem, but I think more likely he is just a guy who is on the roster only because our depth chart at WR is so pathetic. Again, it isn't that I would have had a problem w/ him playing, but I just question whether he is such a great example. In Bennett though, we have a rookie who the staff thought enough of to draft in the 3rd round. It is really difficult to argue he should not have seen the field more than he did. And like you said, at least then we might have a shred of an idea if the Wr we need is already on the roster.

Okay, this is not a complain thread. There are plenty of those which I have plenty of comments on. My question is this. We have about $34m in cap space. It was reported to be around $30m, then it was reported the cap went up another $4m for all teams, thus $34m. Each year, we spend close to our entire cap allowance, if not the full amount. That doesn't mean we use it all up loading up on FAs, but on paper, we do use up all our space. This year, we simply do not have the in-house players really due to be extended, which has used up a ton of our cap space in recent years. So where are we going to use our $34m? While we have seen a slow start, I would assume we will see a few FA signed. Further, I would not be surprised to see those deals more front loaded than backloaded. I remember when we signed Tait, we gave him a large roster bonus, thus minimizing the later years cap charge. I think we could see similar, albeit on a smaller scale, this year. I think we could also see some deals w/ higher likely to be earned incentives, or is it unlikely to be earned. Whatever the phrase, I think we can see some deals that eat up current cap space, which will free up space next year. Normally I am all for this, but the question I have is, if a new CBA is not in place and next year is an uncapped year, would these deals not go to waste? What is the point of using 2009 cap space to free up 2010 cap space if there is no cap in 2010? Seems like this would be a bit of a gamble. I think we could also set aside a chunk of cap space for a player or two to be signed during the season. If orton gets off to a hot start, I think we could look at re-signing him mid season, while allocating a chunk of his new contract against our 2009 cap. The only other thing I wonder about is, could Angelo have something up his sleeve? We all remember the year we made a late offseason trade for Wale. Could a similar deal happen this year? Could we make a late run at Boldin? Or maybe we are waiting for Holt to be released, and then we would be in a prime position to make a run at him. It doesn't appear we are going to use up our cap space on big name FAs, but I doubt we will leave a bunch of cap space on the books by years end. So the question is, how do we use it?

The Berrian situation sort of touches on a long term gripe of mine w/ Angelo. Often it is not so much our letting a player go so much as it is our lack of action w/ the money saved. I remember years ago saying I could handle letting Parrish go, so long as we earmarked that money to find a suitable replacement, or at least see a solid upgrade at another position, but we really did nothing w/ the money saved. Similar, when we let Colvin walk. I think NE gave him like $25m, which was a heck of a lot more then than it is now. I was fine letting him walk, but w/ the idea we would use that money on other FAs to better the team, if not the position. Well, we assumed Knight would replace Colvin, and didn't see that money used to upgrade our LB or pass rush. Same w/ Berrian. We had the money to re-sign him. That wasn't the problem. We didn't feel his play or potential warranted the cost. Okay, fine. But what did we do w/ the money instead? Lloyd? Booker? Nothing for the OL. For me, it isn't nearly as much about the lost players as the lost opportunities.

Seriously, they can have him. Henderson does nothing for me. He is a one trick pony (go route downfield). Granted, it is a nice trick, but if you do not have the OL or possession WRs in place, you will never have an opportunity to see that trick. Further, I would rather have Hester serve as our downfield threat.

First, I am not acting like anything. I am simply stating we do have free agents to consider. In the end, I see them extending Manning, Idonje, and Orton. Hey, I can see us extending all three as well, but seriously, how much would all three combine to hit our cap? That's my point. Not that all mentioned players are as good as gone, but simply that they are not going to command the sort of money you need to really reserve future cap space for. Sure I believe some of the FAs that are being signed could help the team. But my opinion doesn't matter here. Actually, here is the only place your opinion does matter. FA is fluid. Like I stated earlier, the market changed. 15 players were tagged and several others were signed before the market opened. Maybe Angelo was going to spend big money on one of those players. We will never know for sure. As I have argued, the more shallow the pool gets, the less it makes sense to sit back and wait for the water to drain.