nfoligno

Not sure I go along w/ that as I would argue DM was essentially our 1st round pick. We traded just out of the 1st round and took him at the top of the 2nd, but he was none-the-less our 1st pick of the draft. So we have spent our top pick (counting Haynes & Rex) 5 times on offense and 3 times on defense, but as the last two were offense, I simply believe the next will be defense. I think this year will be similar to 2003 and/or 2004. In '03, we had two 1st round picks, and spent the first on DL and the 2nd on Rex, but after that, we went heavy defense w/ our 2nd, 3rd and two 4th round picks being defense. In '04, we went defense (Harris/Tank) in rounds 1 and 2, offense, then back to defense (Vasher, Joe, Harriott). I think this year could be very similar, espeically if we get an extre 3rd for Berrian. I can see our 1st and 2nd being defense. Split the 3rd w/ offense and defense. Then back to defense in the 4th and 5th. As much as I want offense, I have to admit, factoring how much better Angelo is drafting defense than offense, this may not be a bad plan. In those two heavy defense drafts, we got: Tillman, Briggs, Harris, Vasher, as well as Tank and Scott, w/ Berrian being the sandwiched offensive player. I would be fine w/ that. That is FAR BETTER than 2005 getting Benson and Bradley on day one.

Hatley drafted Terrell in 2001. Angelo joined the team that offseason, but after the draft.

If we were putting faces to stats, I think: WR #1 would be Lee Evans, who finished the year w/ 63-1,017-3 WR #2 would be Donal Driver, who finished w/ 74-1,012-5

1. to me a thousand yard deep threat receiver far outweighs a possession type receiver and especially in our offense. it only stands to reason if we had a deep threat wideout with over a thousand yard season that our other aspects of a passing game are also going to get a lot more work underneath with MORE success. defenses aren't going to be playing entirely in a 10 yard zone defending our passing game, where not only are our receivers bunched up, in but also our good receiving TE's. I would argue we had a deep threat this past year in Hester, but that alone did little to free up the underneath. Just having a deep threat does little if (a) you don't have an OL that can protect the QB, ( you don't have a QB defenses fear can connect w/ that deep threat on a consistent basis and © you don't have WRs who can utilize a more open underneath. I would point to our time w/ Rex and Berrian. I would argue that, even though we had a downfield threat, it did little to move defensive players out of the box. Teams continued to send the dogs because we could not protect Rex. Even if Rex connected w/ Berrian, it was not on a consistent enough basis to warrant opponents respect. again, this scenario listed is pretty sketchy without any details, but i have to assume this guy has speed to be a deep threat along with some decent hands. we already have an entire receiving corp who are SUPPOSED to be possession type receivers with the exception of hester. most people, including yourself, consider hester barely a #2 let alone a #1. One, I agree Hester is not a #1, but I would argue he is a deep threat, and would benefit far more from a legit possession WR than playing opposite another deep threat. Two, we may have an entire receiving corps that is "supposed" to be possession receivers, but they suck. Lloyd is gone, and likely Booker too. Davis should be considered no more than deep depth/special teams and we have no idea what we have w/ Bennett. You say we have a bunch of possession WRs, but I would argue that after Hester, we simplty have nothing. 2. i think you could even look at the 85 bears as a prime example. we had gault as a stretch receiver. in my opinion he wasn't that good of a receiver, BUT... what he DID do was extend the field to give our possession receivers, TE's, RB's a lot more room to make plays. he had to be accounted for because he had the speed to break the game open. Huh? You think Gault stretched the field for the '85 bears. As I recall, Gault had speed, but benefited far more from the rest of the offense, rather than making your case of a deep threat spreading things out. Regardless of Gault's deep threat, defenses still geared up to stop Walter, and Gault was simply able to capitolize on that. If we didn't have the OL we did in '85, or a QB that could connect w/ Gault, I question how much value his speed would have brought. i guess it would come down to this... if you had a choice for a wide receiver in his prime, would you choose chad johnson or housawhatever? a moss or burlson? me i take a johnson or moss deep threat without even blinking. I take TJ over CJ, but Moss over anyone (character aside). Moss was more than just a deep threat. Moss was simply put, one of the most talented WRs of all time, and not exactly a fair comparison. I would take TJ over CJ though, and I think that is a better comparison, and would point to this year as a GREAT example of why. CJ totally sucked this year, and two huge reasons were (a) Cincy's OL stunk and the QB never had time to look deep and ( After Palmer went down, Cincy didn't have a QB capable of getting the ball downfield. So, w/o an ideal OL/QB situation, CJ looked like a one trick pony. He ran downfield, but never was a factor due to the QB and OL issues. I realize there were other issues, but those two are keys IMHO. So w/o the solid QB and OL play, CJ finished the year w/ 53 catches for 540 yards. Simply put, Cincy didn't have the horses to utilize him, and he became a non-factor. Meanwhile, TJ had 92 catches for 900 yards and emerged as the only weapon on the offense. Opponents no longer double teamed CJ, but sent the extra coverage to TJ. If we had a healthy Carson Palmer and a solid or better OL, I may agree w/ you about getting the stud homerun hitter, but w/ our QB, OL and system, not to mention Hester as our other starter, I just do not see the advantage of the deep threat. To me, he would end up the year w/ numbers similar to CJ this year, and frustration to match. first of all i am not even sold that hester is even #2 quality at this point in his career. but even considering if you do, how many post or go routes has hester been successful at? is it orton (the egg) or hester (the chicken)? the fact is he has done much better on slants and curls getting his yards after catch. i can only assume a legitimate deep threat is going to improve our passing attack by making those thousand yard + seasons in this scenario. Just for the record, I am FAR from convinced Hester is a legit #2, and have actually often said I view him as a slot guy, but I would argue the teams plans have him as a starter, and believe we should debate w/ that as the assumption. I understand the chicken/egg analogy, but would make the following point. Whether it was Hester, Lloyd, Davis or whoever, when Orton was throwing the ball deep, how often did he connect? Is it your argument Orton has a solid arm w/ accuracy downfield? Few would argue such. If not, then I would say this year shows how ineffective a pure speed threat WR would be in our offense. We lack the OL to protect the QB long enough to look deep and the QB w/ the proven deep accuracy to consistently hit that go route. i would also like to answer your 1st down pickup point. isn't that what our possession receivers, TE's and runningbacks are supposed to do? right now all our receivers have the same M.O. Agreed all our WRs have the same MO. They suck. Seriously though, I would argue the only WR who we should expect to start is of a different MO (Hester). The rest may have the same MO, but are they even on the team next year, or part of the plan? You can say they are possession WRs, and thus it proves we need something else. I would argue they simply suck, and it proves we simply need better quality. again you want to build an entire team before picking up any key players. that is fine and good but does this mean we pass on real prospects until we have an all-pro offensive line? in fact, our OL has been much better at pass protection than run blocking. i can only assume (right angie?) our first round tackle improves that since that is what he was projected to excel at. is that to say we don't need improvement? a-b-s-o-l-t-e-l-y not!!! No, I am not saying you ignore stud talent just because you don't have all the pieces in place. At the same time, it is a building process, and IMHO, adding a stud deep threat to this team right now would not benefit the offense in general, or the players own development. How much development will he see running down the field a bunch, just to turn around and run back to the huddle after our QB is sacked. this whole model scenario is based on the production that was initially listed at the start of this thread so how can i or anyone converse about this without the assumption the receiver we got actually put up the numbers stated initially? If all we look at is the previously provided stats, then I truly don't see how you go w/ the option you did. Option two had more catches and more touchdowns. While the yards were fewer, were they really that much fewer? That is why I altered the numbers in another post. If you use the numbers provided, the yardage difference just doesn't even warrant consideration IMHO for the guy w/ fewer catches and scores. If the yardage difference was great, than at least the argument for that guy would be more substantial. again, you are assuming hester either IS or will become a #1 wideout so you have decided to pass on a deep threat type receiver. this is clearly not the case as he has proved nothing yet in regards to a franchise quality receiver. yet again i will state that possession receivers are a dime a dozen compared to deep threat thousand yard wideouts. if you can get a projected thousand yard per season wideout you plain and simple do it. Again, I am assuming only what I expect of the staff in regard to Hester. It has nothing to do w/ personal expectations of Hester, but simply how I believe the staff views him. As for 1,000 yard WRs, sorry, but big deal. There were 22 1,000 yard WRs this past year. Just as w/ RBs, I don't think 1,000 yards is a mark of greatness anymore. Two WRs I think perfect for our discussion. Lee Evans - 63-1,017-3 compared to TJ Hous 92-904-4. You can have Evans. I'll take TJ. Evans can be great if you have a great QB, but if you have a decent/good QB, I think TJ benefits the offense far more. IMHO, deep threat WRs like Evans can look unbelievable, but need a great QB for that to happen. Lacking a great QB, they are mearly inconsistent deep threats. On the other hand, a WR like TJ does far more to help a decent QB become good, and helps a decent offense the same way. i have to also comment on your flawed logic in regards to mason or ward: both of these receivers are/were #1 receivers. in their prime if they garnered less than a thousand yard season they wouldn't even have been considered as a #1. they both in their prime did have reasonably good speed and WERE considered deep threats. forget flacco, mcnair certainly was a deep ball qb and if you were to tell me ward wasn't an 18+ yard threat downfield i would have to disagree with you. One, the point was Mason TODAY is absolutely not considered a deep threat. Regardless whether or not he is the teams #1, there is no question he plays the role of a possession WR, and that is what helped Flacco this year. As for whether or not Ward was an 18+ yard threat downfield, all I have to say is, check the stats. If you look at Ward's YPC over the years, I would argue there is no question he was a possession WR. You can say possession plus if you want, as he did have the ability to run downfield routes, but he did NOT beat DBs w/ pure speed. Rather, he beats DBs w/ precise route running and making great plays on the ball. Check his stats. Ward has five 1,000+ yards seasons, and in those seasons, his avg. ypc is between 10.7 and 12.9. Not even his highest average would be considered more than a possession WR. Compare that to Chad Johnson, who you use as an example. CJ consistently put up 14, 15 and 16 average yards per catch. That is big play. 10, 11 or 12 is far more consistent w/ possession WRs. Let me ask you this. Back when Booker was in his prime w/ us, what sort of WR would you call him. Many called him a possession plus WR, as he was a possession WR, but able to run patterns further downfield. He could ran a 15-20 yard post pattern, rather than just a 5-10 yarder. He didn't beat DBs w/ speed, but w/ route running and just making great plays on the ball. I would argue Booker then was very simlar to Mason or Ward. Further, I would argue TJ Hous has proven to be very much in that same realm. TJ, who you simply consider a possession WR, has proven capable of (a) Big catch totals © going over the 1,000 mark © red zone threat (d) being more than a chain moving possession WR, as seen w/ his 12-13 ypc avg. Just because a WR doesn't have elite speed doesn't mean he can't gain more than 5-10 yards. The above WRs all would be considered possession or possession plus receivers. None had great speed, but all were/are capable of making plays both underneath and downfield, but simply doing it is a different fashion than the likes of Henderson, Lee Evans or Chad Johnson.

Okay, I am looking at Scouts Incs top 32 prospects, and it appears we have numerous options coming our way. While I am not saying for a fact any of the following will be available, I think all are at least realistic. I am not listing the following positions, due to either a lack of value near our pick, or I simply do not see the argument for need: QB, RB, TE & LB. But in looking at need, as well as value... OT - Michael Oher - It seems absolutely shocking to list him, but everyone I read, his stock has fallen. I think he was considered for the top pick last year if he would have come out, but has simply watched his stock drop hard. While I have read his talent is w/o question, his motivation is often questions. At the Senior Bowl practices, a perfect example came about. An unknown DE blew his doors off on two consecutive plays, and the coach ripped Oher a new one. After that, Oher dominated. But it was considered further evidence that while Oher has the talent, he lacks the motivation. Most seem to have Andre Smith and Eugene Monroe ranked higher than Oher, while many are also putting Jason Smith ahead. Scouts Inc and McShay has Oher ranked at #20, while Kiper has him around 25. So an OT that seemed WAY out of reach for us at one point, very well could be in reach, but should we be looking at a player that is falling down boards so fast? WR - Darrius Heyward-Bey - Crabtree was always out of the question, but now it appears we will have no shot at Macklin either. DHB has good size (6'1 206) and is expected to run a sub 4.4 40. He has great speed, and is a big play threat, but I believe there are questions of focus and how developed he is. Raw talent w/ big upside, but unknown how quickly he will transition. Harven seems to be another WR discussed, but I am not sure he offers more than DHB, and comes in at only 5'10. OG - Duke Robinson - In truth, he isn't listed in most of the top "big boards" but OGs rarely are. Regardless, I am putting him on the list for us, as I think he is worthy of a mid-late 1st round pick. He is a freak of a stud OG w/ power and quick feet that is amazing. He would likely be an immediate starter inside for us. DE - Michael Johnson - It looks like this is a class that lacks an elite blue chip, but has numerous red chips. Orakpo is the only DE that seems to be ranked too high for us to reach in most big boards, but after him, there are about 4 DEs who have rankings from just out of the top 10 to high 20s. Aaron Maybin, Everret Brown, Tyson Jackson and Michael Johnson all seem to have value that could place them ahead of our pick, or available. I throw Jackson out because, at nearly 300lbs, he doesn't seem like an ideal fit for our scheme. I think Maybin is very likely to be gone, as he will be considered as a 3-4 LB/DE. That leaves Brown or Johnson. I used Johnson simply because I believe Brown is most likely of the two to be gone, but if it alters opinion, write in Brown instead. I really don't know how the DEs will fall. DT - Sen'Derrick Marks - Raji is a DT many might like too, but his stock seems to be rising to the point he could be closer than not to a top 10 pick. From what I have read, Raji has been dominating at the Senior Bowl as if he were a man among boys. Perry is also listed up there, but does not seem to fit our system. Frankly, I am not sure if Marks does either, but listed him for value sake. Really, the top fit for our system may be Raji, but it simply doesn't appear anymore he will be available. CB - Vontae Davis - He may not even make it too us, but for argument sake, I will list him. Decent (not great) size, but great talent. Huge question on him is motivation, as I read he was benched this year at one point "as a wake up call". S - Will Moore - W/ Mays out, it appears Moore has taken over the top S spot. FS w/ size. Neither McShay, nor Kiper, put his value high enough for this spot, but like Duke, I think he is a player who will have middle to late 1st round value. So, those are the options, unless you must have a write in candidate. I know some will be gone, while others on draft day will be viewed as reaches, but that's what you get when you talk draft prior to the freaking SB For me, I would take Oher. While his stock is down right now, I still view him as a stud OT. While we drafted Williams last year, we could easily play Oher at RT, and have our bookend OTs for the next decade. I think Forte and Orton would both write thank you notes. If Oher is gone, my next choice is Duke. Basically, see the above. Pair Duke w/ Williams, and you potentially create a dominating left side for years to come. Again, Forte and Orton write thank you notes.

More and more, I think we are bound to draft heavy on defense, while attacking offense in FA. Look at our last two drafts. This past year, our top 3 picks were offense. The prior year, 2 of our top 3 picks were offense. Prior to these past two years, Angelo seemed to rotate between offense and defense each year. This year, I think Angelo will be going back to defense in the draft. W/ needs (at least in Angelo's eyes) at DE, DT, SLB, CB and S, I think it makes sense to Angelo to attack defense in the draft, especially as that is his strength. While there have been unquestioned misses in FA also, his better "hits" in FA have been offense (Tait, Reuben Brown, at least for short term, Garza, at least in his eyes, TJ, Clark) So, IMHO, we will look to add an OT in FA, and there are several to choose from IMHO, as well as a WR. Then we will attack defense in the draft. How would this look: Sign Gross and Bryant Johnson in FA. There has not been too much discussion about our adding Gross, but why not. OL is a huge need, and Gross is one of the best. While he played LT this year, it has been discussed how he was a great RT prior to this year. We can also cut Tait, which simply frees up more cap space. Then we add a WR like BJ, who is not great by any means, but one of the better options in a poor group. Then, in the draft, we attack defense heavily. My preference would still be TJ Hous and an OT like Carey or Starks, but I do not think we pay for TJ, but do think we could pay for OL. Remember, Angelo said last year he doesn't like to draft OL, as he feels it takes longer to develop, and prefers to go the FA route. So in this, we will go a long way toward upgrading our OL, while also upgrading our WR corp. Then we use the draft to infuse our D w/ more talent and young, both of which we need.

If we cut him, he would get enough interest in FA to easily offset. He would not get a monster deal, but I guarantee you he gets a nice contract w/ upfront money. I think he would take that in a heartbeat, so I don't think we have much leverage to get him to simply take a paycut. As for extending him at a reduced rate, I don't think we would be interested in that. I just don't think he is part of the long term plans, and believe we would rather find a replacement for him. I think it more likely we draft a DE this year, while also hoping Marinelli can get better development out of Anderson, and simply let Wale walk after this year.

Sad to think, but I suppose it is possible. I simply wonder what sort of market Brown will see. If a team wants a Safety who carries w/ him age/injury concerns, Brown will be just one of a fair sized group that includes: Brian Dawkins, Rodney Harrison, Sharper and Lawyer Milloy. If a team is looking for younger safeties who have not hit the ceiling, then there is a group available too. I just am not sure Brown will find a great market. I think he will end up being offered short term (if not one year) deals w/ very low bonus money, but decent incentives written in. Further, even when healthy, his play at FS wasn't great, and SS' is an easier position to find. So I just do not see the market for him. I can see him going to a team like NE for a near minimum deal, though I am not sure I would predict pro bowl for him. What I do think could also be interesting is, if the market for him isn't great, and we do get into the mix for lower contracts, would he choose to re-sign w/ the Bears? If he had offers about equal between us, and say NE, would he choose to stick w/ us? Frankly, I am not so sure he would.

Couple comments. One. While I may disagree, using the numbers listed, the "downfield threat" receiver doesn't seem to be that great of a threat. His yards just were not that much higher than the "possession" receiver. Further, he has fewer TDs, thus I question how great of a home run hitter he is. If the homerun threat doesn't produce many more yards than the possession WR, I just don't see any argument for the addition of that speed guy. Two, moving past those specific numbers, and just talking in general, how would a speed threat fit/help our team? I'll give you a prime player example, who I think may also be a FA this year. Devery Henderson. Last year, he had only 32 catches, but for 800 yards. That is a sick 25 ypc average. He is unquestionably a downfield, homerun hitting threat. But would adding Henderson really help us? I don't think so. (a) We would be starting Henderson and Hester, which means we have downfield threats, but no one the QB can count on when pressured, and no one to help move the chains. I am not sure how smart it is to start a pair of speedsters, which is what we would be talking about doing if we added a homerun hitter. ( To continue the first point, I would argue we be less likely to pickup 1st downs, and thus the opportunities for those homerun plays would be reduced. © Do we have an OL built to utilize a homerun hitter? I would argue not even close. To take advantage of such downfield speed, you need an OL that can keep the QB clean for 5 or more step drops. If Orton waited for Henderson to get downfield, he would end up on his arce before he had a chance to throw the ball. (d) Do we have a QB who can utilize such talent. While I think Orton can get the ball downfield better than most believe, I would not call him a gun slinger. In Orton, I think WRs who simply run better routes and can gain yards after the catch benefit more than a WR who can run go routes and count on Orton to deliver the ball w/ precision 40 yards downfield. We have a potential homerun hitter in Hester. What we need is a guy who can play that possession WR role. That doesn't mean he can't have speed, but IMHO, quickness is more important than pure speed. Route running and hands are more important than pure speed. Ability to get quick seperation is more important than pure speed. Homerun hitters are always the sexy options, but as often as not, a WR like Hines Ward (for example) can benefit a QB and offense far more than a guy who can simply run great go routes. An example I would like to point to is Derrick Mason. In Baltimore, you have a rookie QB who quickly was named the starter. Flacco has often said his success was largely due to Mason. NO ONE is going to mistake Mason for a home run threat, but Mason simply gets open quickly, makes the catch, and moves the chains. That helped Flacco FAR MORE than if he simplty had a speed threat to chunk the ball downfield to.

Per the Tribune, Idonije is now represented by Rosenarce, which leads more to believe he made the move in hopes of getting a new deal. I don't blame him, as all players want long term security and he has only one year remaining, but no way I do a deal here, even if the deal is a good one for the bears. I like Idonije, and he is a nice player, but I think we should be focusing on getting a great player. What is the point of extending Idonije if the plan is to make him expendible? At DE, we should be looking to upgrade Wale, and develop Anderson. At DT, we have Harris, just drafted Harrison, and I think should be looking for a 3rd DT (whether on the roster or not) who is simply better than Idonije. Point is, if we move forward trying to upgrade the DL, I am not sure Idonije will have much of a role. He has been used as much as he has because the DL has failed. If we get it right, I am not sure Idonije sees the field much other than special teams. I did like Wale's comments. He said that if we went to the playoffs and played well, he could understand players looking for an extension, but coming off a 2nd failed season, players should keep quite and hope they don't get cut. Nice realistic attitude.

To me, this one is simply a no brainer. I think the argument would be better if the supposed deep threat had greater yardage numbers. For example, if you had: WR #1 - 60-1,100-7 (similar numbers to Vincent Jackson) WR #2 - 92-900-4 (similar numbers to TJ, who had an off year in a bad offense) WR #1 gets you a whopping 18.3 ypc, better spreads the field, and gives you more scores on home runs. WR #2 has a very mediocre 10 ypc, and doesn't score as much, but is a "QBs best friend" and better helps move the chains and keeps the offense on the field. I would still take the 2nd option. I believe we have a potential deep/home run threat in Hester, but lack a possession WR the QB can rely on. We need that go-to WR who can convert 3rd downs and keeps our offense on the field. W/ that player, I think Hester could develop far better. So I would still take option 2, but I think numbers like this make the debate more interesting as there is a greater difference in the numbers.

It will be interesting to see how much sway Turner has. If we go out and get a stud playmaker, whether that be in the draft or FA, I have to believe Turner has some sway, as it is obvious that is what he is pushing for. On the other hand, if we ignore playmakers in FA, and pass on offense in round one, I have to believe Turner lacks the power to get what he wants.

If that rookie is a 1st round pick, I am not sure how idiotic it would be. Maybe not ideal, but not idiotic. Personally, I would rather simply add a legit FS. FS is a position we seem to always be trying to ajust players. DM, I don't think, was a full time FS in college, but we tried to move him there. We have continually drafted SS' and tried to play them at FS. And now there is talk about taking a CB (Tillman) and moving him to FS. We can we not simply go out and get a legit FS? This reminds me of how we dealt w/ LT for years. Remember the years of never having a legit LT, but instead trying to move RTs or OGs to LT. I never understand why we couldn't simply add a legit LT. It gets really old trying to fill holes by "converting" players.

While I agree w/ your sentiments, I would point out: (a) While you say other teams don't care about his injuries, we need to wait and see on that. We have no idea what other teams interest will be in Brown. For all we know, he may not get much interest in FA, and could end up back w/ the team. ( It is possible we do add a FA safety, and if we do, I would say our need to re-sign Brown is less. Ideally, I would like to add both Brown and the FS out of StL, but if we do add that FS, I would better understand our letting Brown walk. We could also add a FA SS who is simply better than Brown. Either way, if we do add a S in FA, the argument for re-signing Brown is lessened. What would make me sick though is if we (a) assume DM will start at FS, ( ignore S in FA and © don't look at S until day two of the draft. If we do that, and pass on Brown, I will be sick. But that is a long way off to know for sure. Angelo may today be talking about not resigning Brown, but he may also believe Brown is going to get solid interst in FA and warrant a nice sized contract. If interest in Brown is not great, Angelo may well look to re-sign him for a smaller contract.

Found on the Chicago Bears forum and thread for cap, where someone broke down our cap for 2009. It may not be 100% accurate, but I will say this. When looking at Wale, the base seems to matchup, and the bonus cap charge compares w/ the numbers Lt2 used in last years analysis, so I think it could be fairly accurate. It shows Wale having a base of $4.8m (as you also state) but a bonus allocation of $2.5m, for a total cap charge of $7.3m. Per Lt2, last year Wale had a $2.5m bonus allocation, so if that was accurate, it should likely be the same this year. That means, if we cut him, we eat the $2.5m, but save the base, and thus we would save $4.8m. FYI, Tait is nearly identical, and would also save about $4.8m. While I have no expectation it will happen, cutting both players would allow us quite a bit of money to upgrade at those two positions.

Agreed they drafted Otah w/ Gross' contract ending. They may yet hope to keep him, but it will not be easy. I am not sure how much letting him go helps them w/ the rest. As I undertand it, Carolina is around $10m under the cap, which compared to other teams, is not very much. I think Carolina is in some trouble this year. They would have to find an additional $7m in cap space just to tag Peppers, much less do anything else. Freeing up $7m is easier said than done. They may find a way to do just that, but in the end, I think it will be Peppers who leaves for another team, while Gross ends up sticking w/ Carolina. Gross will not be cheap, but will not cost anything like Peppers. W/ the offense they have, maintaining the OL is key, and Gross goes a long way toward that end.

I'll take WR #2, easily. He has more catches, which tells me he is more reliable for the QB. Also, while he doesn't have as many yards, it isn't like option #1 lit it up either. And #2 had more scores.

Doesn't matter. He was a very good LT, and many consider him in the elite category, or close to it. Regardless how well he can play RT, if he is viewed as a good/great LT, he will get LT money. Simple reality is, LTs get more than RTs.

No real argument on McGowan. I am not sure how good Payne looked at SS. He is simply not a good tackler, IMHO. He does a horrible job wrapping up, and thinks he can spear everyone to the ground, but too often his spears are just off the mark, and the ball carrier slips past him. IMHO, Brown in the box did a MUCH better job than Payne. I agree we should not move SM to FS, and should bring someone in, but if we believe anything Angelo said, it sure sounds like we are looking at DM moving back to FS.

I totally understand your thoughts here, and his injury history is what makes me go back and forth, but here is how I look at it. If we do not sign Brown, I would say we are most likely to enter next year w/ Payne, Steltz or McGowan as our starting SS. This is not good, but if I read into Angelo's comments, we would pair that SS w/ DM at FS. To me, this would be awful. Okay, lets say we sign Brown to play SS, and he does go down w/ injury. My response is, so what. We are then in the same position we would be if we didn't sign him, as Payne or whoever would fill in. At least w/ Brown, we have the chance of strong play at SS. If he goes down w/ injury, we can then turn to the others, who IMHO, should be looked at as plan B, not plan A. Now, if there is high interst in Brown, and it looks like he will get a nice sized deal, then all bets are off, but I doubt he gets big offers, and feel his next contract will be big on incentives, which I would be fine giving him.

Sorry, but I very much disagree. One, Gross is not a RT. He is the starting LT for Carolina. Even if a team wants to consider him at RT, they will be paying LT money, which is greater than RT money. Two, Sorry, but even if Gross were a RT and then taken off the market (lets say he gets tagged), that does not mean Carey gets the same money Gross would have. Just because you are the best available does not mean you will get a contract equal to the league's elite. You will likely get a deal greater than what you should, but not among the elite. Three, I do not agree you can simply sep the list by RT and LT. While it would be true that most RT can not play LT, I would argue many of the LTs on the list can play RT, and in fact, have. So whether he is the #1 rated RT (which I am not sure I agree w/) or not, if he is the 5th or 6th ranked OT overall, you are simply not going to see him getting the massive payday you are talking about. Four, Carey may not even be the top rated RT. Starks, Colon and Runyon are all right there w/ him. No question Runyon is old, but is probably still better than Carey. And I am not sure I would say Carey is better than Starks. Colon I would argue is better, but is restricted. While I would take Carey over Foster and Stincombe, I am not sure he is "that" much better. Maybe I will be proven totally wrong, which should shock no one, but I simply do not see Carey getting an $8m/yr deal, much less a $10m/yr deal. Looking at the OT signings from last year Ashkum found, I think he will get a deal that averages around $6m/yr, including a SB in the $12m range. If the price for him jumps much higher than that, I would move on and look at some of the other RTs. While I like Carey, I do not see him as a great player, and feel there are enough OTs on the market this year to not have to pay a good player great player prices.

What I do not understand is, why is everyone only considering Brown as a FS. I agree he no longer has the ability to play FS. Where as he once was able to use his smarts to make up for a lack of speed, I think his speed has deteriorated to the point that smarts can not make up for the difference. But my thing is, he is our best SS option. IMHO, he showed significant improvement once he moved to SS, or began playing in the box more, which is essentially the role of SS. IMHO, our best plan would be to sign/draft a FS, while re-signing Brown to play SS. I would take Brown over Payne, Steltz or McGowan any day, and twice on Sunday. Why are we only considering Brown as a FS? Play him at SS where he has looked best, and his lack of speed doesn't hurt him nearly as much.

Regarding Tait, I could be wrong, but I could swear a chunk of his bonus was in the form of a roster bonus. As I recall, he was slapped w/ the transition tag, and we offered him a bit of a poison pill deal, with the deal heavily front loaded. KC didn't have much cap space that year, and was not able to match the deal because it was front loaded. Not arguing the numbers, but simply pointing out that I believe a chunk of his bonus was roster, which would not still be applied today. As for Wale, I have read from several others saying he would net us closer to $4.5 or $4.8m in savings, though I do not know how that was broken down. I do recall our giving him a two tiered bonus, and though the initial bonus for him too was in the form of a roster bonus, which may by why some feel his cap savings would be higher.

Carey hopes free agency leads to a contract similar to the one another former UM alum, Eric Winston, received this season from the Texans. Winston, also a right tackle, reportedly received $30 million over five years, with $10 million guaranteed. I think this is what Brianbear is referring to. Not 10/year, but 10 guaranteed over 5 years. I am not sure whether Winston's deal would be a good barameter. His was an extension, right? Not only that, but he has only played 3 seasons, and thus if he signed a new deal, it would have been w/ a couple years left on his original deal. Thus, he likely didn't sign market value. Thanks for the research on the OTs though. Looking at these deals, I would be shocked if Carey got $8m/yr, much less $10m.

I simply see now way he gets $10/year, and frankly, doubt he gets $8m/year. As Ashkum pointed out, OTs have been signing deals closer to the $6m/yr range. And I have to disagree on talent being scarce at the position this year. While I won't say it is loaded, I would say there is more talent at the OT position than in most others I have looked at, and Carey is not at the top. That could change if players above him start getting tagged or re-signed prior to FA, but even then, I think $10m/yr is a pipe dream.