nfoligno

I am sure this will matter to agents, but I do not think this affect Harris that much. IMHO, Harris was already looking at something more similar to the Freeny $30m guaranteed. Another DT getting $18m isn't going to affect Harris' deal that much. He has alrady said he is looking at a deal top among defensive players, and taken himself out of the DT only negotiations.

Issue I have is, the reason I read NY is so high on Faneca, is the same damn reason I said we should be. Is an upgrade to OG worth the money being talked about. No? But NY and some other teams have seen more than the upgrade at OG. NY has Brickshaw Ferguson at LT and Mangold at Center. They believe both are potentially great players, but have not played up to their potential. The believe is adding Faneca will not only upgrade the OG position, but will help their LT and Center take that next step forward. Look at Minny. They already had Birk, who was a stud. McKinnie was a stud in the making, but most didn't feel he was as consistent as he should be. After adding Hutchinson, McKinnie's development seemed to leap foward, and the trio formed a dominating side. Cle is another example, and the one I was looking at us modeling after. Everyone talks about how they draft Joe Thomas, and how he became a stud LT in his rookie year, but there is another side to this few have talked about (though the NFL Netword had a piece about it). Cle also spent money and signed Eric Steinbach in FA, and then drafted Joe Thomas. While Joe may have been a stud LT regardless, the opinion in Cle is that it was Steinbach at his side that helped Joe become such a stud so soon. I am looking at a solid to great OT class in the draft, and logic says we are a good bet to draft one. While Bell, Scott or some other FAs may well provide us a solid OG, I am not sure any would help a rookie develop as well as Faneca would. So to me, the money it would take to sign Faneca would prove a value, not only in the upgrade at OG, but also in how it would likely help the development of a rookie LT.

I would argue that if you simply show blind faith in draft picks, then you are rebuilding. Okwo went down early last year, so while he was a 3rd round pick, he is not a player we can expect to simply step in and replace a pro bowl LB. As for Williams, he has been here two years. It is possible the staff likes him, but does not believe he is ready to take over. Seriously, we are talking about a 3rd and 4rd rounders here. We are also talking about replacing a pro bowl LB, and doing so in a year we have a ton of cap space. If we did not even consider FAs to replace Briggs, then I would argue that a sign we are rebuilding. By your logic, we should not look at OGs in FA. I mean, we just drafted Beekman in the 4th, so we should simply rely on him, right? We drafted Bradley and Hass, not to mention Hester. No reason to look at FA WRs. We drafted Wolfe last year, and Benson and AP prior to that. No need to look at RBs. Its a nice thought that a team can ignore FA and just rely on draft picks, but also unrealistic. There is not a team in the league that can get away w/ this. Every team uses FAs, and I would argue that every team signs FAs after having also drafted player(s) at that position.

Actually, he is the highest paid DT, not DL. Freeney makes a lot more than that, and I think there are a couple other DEs that may make more as well. I don't think this signing means a whole lot to be honest. Harris has already said he believes he should be among the highest paid defensive players, not DTs or DL, but defensive players. I still think Freeney's deal is the one Harris and Rosenarce will be looking at as a base.

PFT is reporting that Andre Davis was just re-signed to a 4yr/$16m deal w/ an $8m bonus. Yes, that is right. $8m bonus. Same amount we offered Berrian. Yea, I know we offered Berrian more money overall, but if Andre Davis is going to get $8m, what the heck will a good WR get. I fear the combination of a huge salary cap jump (meaning many teams w/ huge cap dollars to spend) combined w/ a very weak crop of FA WRs, will lead to very mediocre WRs getting paid big bucks and good WRs getting ridiculous money. More than ever, I think this deals sells me that we need to sign short term solutions at WR. After that, we can (a) see if Hester/Bradley/Hass can develop ( see what we can find and develop through the draft © look to next year for a better market. The last thing I want to do is over-spend big time, upgrading minimal now, while weighing down the team for years to come. Thus, David Patten is now a target for me. Yes, that is right. Old man Patten. He had around 50 catches for 800 yards last year, which would make him one of our best WRs last year. He is not going to be expensive, and we should be able to get him for cheap, and on a short term deal. he can still get downfield, and is more reliable than many/most alternatives. I am not pretending he is great, but we can not enter the season w/ Bradley and Hester as our starters, and Patten would offer a short term upgrade w/o hurting us in the future. In addition to Patten, I would still be looking to add Booker or Bryant Johnson. We do not have that possession WR on the roster (sorry, but I am not willing to rely on Hass). Adding either would allow us an intermediate to short range receiver who can keep the chains moving while others go for the throat downfield. Further, adding two of the above three would allow Hester and Bradley to continue their development w/o the intenst pressure of starting and w/o our QBs relying too heavily on them. Okay, blast away. Yes, I said we should sign Patten. But signing Patten on the cheap is a hell of a lot better than giving Andre freaking Davis the same amount of guaranteed money we offered Berrian. This is going to be an ugly year for FA WRs. It's be like watching junk stock bought as if it were APPLE stock. Take a pass on big money WRs this year, get short term solutions for cheap, and look to do more in the future.

Awful market for QBs in FA. Even a bad QB could look good to another team, or teams. If Griese is on the market, he would likely attrack interest for a few teams, and thus there are no guarantees you will get him. Also, I think money comes into play. If you trade for a player, you are not on the hook for the signing bonus. If Griese is a FA, you may have to pay him a couple million in SB. Heck, we just gave Orton what, $1.5m. A team may give up a 5th or 6th, but also would get Griese w/o having to give him a SB.

Cheap. No. I think it is FAR more a matter of strategy. Is Jerry Jones a cheap owner? Few would say that, yet until Parcells, he was well known for refusing to spend massive coin on coaches, and hated the idea of going after NFL has-beens and trash. He always wanted to grab the hot coordinators or college coaches on the rise, as opposed to grabbing a coach who had already failed. I see no difference in how we have done things. Wanny was a freaking hot commodity as I recall. He is so hated today, I think few remember how in demand he was then. He was the DC for a very good defense, and was one of the coordinators many sought after. Then there was Jauron, who was not as "hot" but a well liked and regarded assistant w/ long creds. Then there was Lovie, who was pretty hot himself, and from the Dungy tree so many have been stealing from. So you say cheap, but I say it is far more a matter of getting the young guys w/ upside rather than the ones who were already tried and failed. Funny thing about selective memory. It is hard to have such and win many arguments. Wanny was a the young stud DC, and we got him. Prior to the end of his deal, he was given more money. Not the sign of a cheap team. You say if we were not so cheap, we would have fired him sooner. I argue the issue was not money, but poor management. Do you believe he EVER should have received the new deal in the first place? I didn't. But giving him the new deal showed a total lack of management. As for later, I would argue many, if not most teams, have carried a coach longer than they should have because of the contract left. It is not unusual. What I think would have been unusual would be to fire a coach so soon after giving him a new deal. As I recall, there was a hell of a lot more to that whole thing than just money, and yet, you pretend that money was the whole thing. As I recall, it was also a big deal when Mikey went public and said we had signed McGinnis, when we were still in negotiations. I do not recall it being a matter of lowballing him, but a matter of Mikey being a dumbass, and McGinnis realizing what it would be like to work for him. Are you serious? So your argument is that it is better for a team to wait and pay a premium rather than try to get a deal done early? I think every manager in america would disagree. I suppose you wait until a stock hits a high before you buy too. Don't want to get a bargain. You call it being cheap. The 32 teams in the NFL call it good business. Again w/ the selective memory. Pretty much every report I recall said Saban was looking for a boat load of personnel power, power usually the GM employs. I recall the sort of money we were talking about, and it was FAR from cheap. I remember that deal dying mainly due to Saban making the power play, and Angelo not wanting to give up the power he had. He dealt w/ the power struggles w/ Jauron, and didn't want to go through it again.

My thinking exactly. We have Rex Grossman and Kyle Orton. What has Warner ever done?

W/ regard to Briggs, the only way I see him coming back is if the market for him is simply FAR less than what Rosenarce and Briggs believes it will be. If Wash decides not to be a big player, it is possible the market will not be as great. If teams look to make Briggs rich, but not elite defensive player rich as Briggs expects, maybe we can get back into the picture. Personally, I think Briggs is simply gone. Berrian I think is another matter. While the market is weak for WRs in FA, it is looking up for the draft. W/ a better, and deeper draft than expected for WRs, that might push the FA market down a bit. Berrian, while he may be the best on the market, is not a proven #1 stud, and simply may not get the bank breaking offers he wants. If that comes to pass, I think we could step in and make an offer that could appeal to him.

Honestly, I do not have the answer. I think it is a combo of a lot of things, and plain bad luck may be part of it. Some of the best RBs in NFL history are Bears. Ditto at the LB position. I am not sure there common thing between some of those. When we hit on Sayers, and later Payton, what would be the common link. Ditka, Singletary, Urlacher. Is there a common link? I don't think so. I really prefer to avoid going to far back in historical terms. Recently though, I think it has to do w/ both those who made personnel decisions, combined w/ having a coaching staff to develop a QB. Cade McNown is a good example for me. You can easily blame Hatley for making the choice (I believe it was his) to draft Cade McNown. At the same time, might we also look at how our coaches handled Cade? I will simply never forget throwing an inexperienced QB into a very complicated system which many veteran QBs would struggle under. Cade McNown in an empty backfield should have never happened. So I do not really think it is one thing, but a combo of many. Scary part for me is, I have little faith moving forward. I see little chance for a QB to do that well for us this year. Time will tell, but I question whether or not our team will see the immedate improvements at OL, RB and WR for a QB to also improve. Further, I look at Angelo's record drafting offense, and I am FAR from impressed. So my faith in our offense improving much is not very high.

First, I believe it was basically personal speculation on what would be a good move for Chicago, as opposed to anything they had heard. I do not believe they said there was an indication we were looking at Warner, but just that it is a move they feel would make sense. Second, while they say SF has not spoken w/ Briggs or his agent, they also said it is possible SF is avoiding early contact w/ Briggs due to prior tampering allegations, but that they will jump back into the mix once FA period officially begins.

When it comes to the bears, I think too many try to rationalize all problems stem from being cheap. I think it goes way beyond that. For the last ten years or so, the team has been spending a lot of money. Prior to that, I far better understand the cheap label, but I do not believe it applies now, nor has it for about a decade. And yet our QB situation still sucks, so I just do not believe it is so much about money. It isn't about strategy either, as we have tried just about every avenue. We have spent 1st round picks on QB - Cade/Rex We have traded a 1st round pick for a veteran - Mirer We have spent later round picks looking for the next Brady - Orton/Krenzel We have sign unproven backups sitting behind solid starters - Quinn/Hutch We have signed veterans - Griese/Kordell/Chandler I mean, we have tried pretty much every avenue. We have simply bombed out every direction we go. Still, we have to continue to seek that QB. I do not buy that it is a money issue. The one argument I saw listed that does have the most merit (IMHO) is how we have so often employed defensive background staff. Wanny was both our coach and personnel man, and was a defensive backgrounded guy. Then we had Jauron, another defensive guy. Then we hire a GM, who is a former defensive scout, and he hired a defensive backgrounded coach. This is a huge aspect of the problem, IMHO. Scouts can provide all the info needed, but ultimately, it is still the GM making the calls, and our GM has shown an inability to draft offense, not just QB, but offense in general.

Are you serious?

Adams is going to be expensive, is older than Faneca, and there have been many questions about his motivation. Adams was a hot topic here in Dallas every year. He was one of those players coaches constantly said could be as good as he wanted to be. It wasn't until a contract year he showed the sort of desire and motivation the coaches begged of him, which makes me really question going after him. I know you want Mendenhall, but I think this is a pretty solid/deep class of RBs, and feel we can get a better RB after the 1st than other positions of high need. I still dream of the scenario where Clady slips some in the draft, and we use our extra 3rd to leap frog Denver to get him. After signing Faneca, I think we would have an awesome left side, and after moving Tait to the right, an all around great OL. In the 2nd, or even maybe the 3rd, we can still add a very good RB to compete w/ Benson, who behind a much improved OL, might look like the player we hoped he would be when we drafted him. So what if we sign Faneca, Stallworth (cheaper verson of Berrian) and Booker, while drafting Clady and a RB, like maybe Charles (another Texas product, but one w/ speed). W/ those additions, Rex might even look like a good passer.

I think some of you are forgetting history a tad. One. Colvin was our SLB, not WLB. Holdman was out WLB back in the day. So I do not understand that talk of his replacing Briggs. If we signed Colvin, it would be to replace Huner, which I do not think is a need. Two. Colvin was never a very good LB for us. As a LB, he was far from special. In fact, I would argue Hunter has been a MUCH better SLB than Colvin ever was. But Colvin played DE on passing downs, and also rushed the passer standing up. At a time when the pass rush was nothing more than something the bears read about in a history book, Colvin was an anomoly. He was our best pass rusher, but in terms of LB, was never special. Heck, I am not sure he was more than average in that area. In a 3-4 scheme, he is a much better LB, but he was simply never that good of a LB outside of his ability to rush the passer, which for us, was mostly from the DE position. We have Anderson for that role. There are times when I would love to bring back a former bear, as I do now w/ Booker, but I simply do not see Colvin being a good fit. I think he would be a very good addition for a team that uses the 3-4, or for a team looking for a SLB that could also rush the passer, but he simply does not fit a need for us, and no way he can play WLB.

Hell yes it was a factor. Not to say it was the only factor, or even the greatest, but I would say there is no doubt it was a factor. Briggs - Well known issues in the offseason, and w/ the deal in place, he knew it was finally his contract year. Wins are nice, but unless he puts up the big stats, he won't get paid. Harris - He said some time back he believed he should be one of, if not the, highest paid defensive player in the game. Now that is some ego. IMHO, when a player makes a statement like that, he is thinking far too much about money (and stats equal money in this game) and not enough about the game itself. All players deal w/ the business side, but how many say they should be the highest paid. Alex Brown - Long time starter who was upset in camp about losing his starting job. He was vocal about it, and asked to be traded, while also asking for a pay raise. Not saying he was necessarily a trouble maker, but this was likely yet another sign of chemistry issues. The secondary was all about injuries, but at the same time, I would argue that if our front 7 played better, the issues in the secondary may not have been so obvious.

Simple answer. More than enough. I have said this before, and I think LT2 agrees (correct me if I am wrong LT), salary cap is not going to prevent us from doing anything we want this year. Cash and budget (bottom line and not salary cap) will dictate more. While some have argued, you could fit if you wanted Briggs and Berrian, extend Harris, and even add Faneca, and fit it under our 2008 salary cap. But in doing so, you would need to come up w/ about $80m or more in bonus money. We are not going to shell out $80 cash (for bonuses) at once. In fact, I believe we will be looking for ways to basically get rid of some of this years cap space. I think we will see some extensions (as we have started w/ Brown and Clark). I think we will see more LTBE incentives, as well as some roster bonuses. I think we will find ways to eat up some of our $30m in cap space (from a week ago) in such a way as to better our cap situation in future years. So cap space is simply not a big thing for me this year. I think it is going to be far more about what individual's players are seeking in upfront bonus dollars.

Oh Madman, how shall I begin. While I do not dislike him, I do find it humerous how so many who screamed for us to draft a TE to replace him for the last two years suddenly want to walk down the isle with him. Damn. And I just watched her in Mr and Mrs Smith again. Damn she looks good in leather. And now who is hating. You are saying Olsen will "quite probably" be injured because he had some minor injuries as a rookie? No, you said, "Clark could also have a mega year and ask for even more loot." My bad. It was mega, and not monster. And while you are not saying he will have a mega year, as it is part of your reasoning as to why we sign him now, I have to assume you support the idea of it happening. If you do NOT believe he will have a mega year, why sign him. Yea, you list several reasons, but are you not standing by this one now? And I did address your other points. Besides the potential "mega year" argument, you gave.... - Olsen could be injured - Well, if he is, then you have Clark as a backup. Clark was under contract already, so I am not sure how this changes. Further, Clark can be injured. It goes both ways. But instead of Clark being injured in his final season, now he would be in the middle of a contract just signed. - You say he (in 2009) could want more and could probably get more on the open market. This was one of my points. He would be a 32 year old average TE, and as I have argued, likely not coming off one of his better years. I argue his market in 2009 would be lower than it is today in 2008. - You argued, "We have some leverage now, why not strike while the iron is hot." Frankly, I do not understand this. That is what his agent was likely thinking, but not really the thinking of most GMs. Most GMs don't want to extend their players after a "hot" season. That is like watching a stock rise, and when it hits a high, saying you want to buy now since it is so hot. Most GMs like to buy low and sell high, not buy high and sell low. - You said, "Angel's always managed the cap rather well". Now your just trying to pick a fight. This would have to become a new thread, and would get my # of posts up into the thousands real quickly. - Your final point is the loyalty issue. While it was a backhand, it was also addressed when I noted that we showed tons of loyalty by not cutting him after consecutive 24 catch seasons. Yes, I understand that you show loyalty to team leaders. On the other hand, I was under the impression Brown, Miller and Moose were all considered leaders. Weren't two of them team captains? I am not saying we should have cut Clark, but I question how much this was about showing respect. Our methodology on what we should do in the draft and FA has no impact on what Angelo actually does. Does that mean we should not discuss it? Honestly, I have never understood this logic. My screaming at the TV does not motivate the players, but that doesn't stop me, nor I bet you. I said before, this is not a big deal. I am not a fan of the move, but so what. It's not like we are talking big money. My issue is in the logic of moves. My issue is that, while I like Clark, I want Olsen on the field, and I fear this moves hurts that.

Not to be argumentative (yea right) but I would argue football intelligence and character can change in the NFL. A person's character can change. I am not the same person I was at 20, and I am sure many here are not either. That doesn't mean a person's character will change, or that you do not factor character, but I disagree w/ the idea that character is an area that can not change. I view character of a veteran in FA a greater issue than for a kid about 20 or 21 years old who has yet to step foot into the real world. I agree w/ the other three. Intelligence, while it may not be fully seen in college, is something an individual either has or doesn't. Ditto w/ height and arm strength. At the same time, my earlier point was that, while we all talk about this or that being "teachable", I am not sure it is always thus. Look at Rex. A tendency to throw off his backfoot was a problem in college, but believed teachable. After what, 5 years, it is still an issue. QBs, particularly from major programs, have likely had many coaches working w/ him on many areas. If they have technical problems w/ their game, I am not sure how much you should expect to change. If you are fine w/ a kids 3/4 release point, fine. But I do not like the idea of drafting a kid on the belief you can change his release point, which I would bet previous coaches already tried.

Now that I agree w/. I do not "want" to draft two WRs, but I leave the option open if a WR we really likes falls to us. I would add that the logic used for a WR falling to us plays to the RB as well. The argument is it is a deep and solid WR class, and thus a solid prospect could fall to us. But it is also a solid and deep RB class, and thus a solid prospect there could fall to us as well.

Agreed. - We re-sign Rex. Okay, I can deal w/ that. The market was very limited this year. Even if we draft a rookie, he isn't going to help this year. If we do not believe Orton can start (or Griese), then it makes some sense to re-sign Rex. But then to turn around and seek to extend Orton? If we like Orton, why did we first make the move to re-sign Rex? W/ Rex re-signed to a one year deal, regardless of the talk of competition, I think our starting QB has been declared. I just do not see the logic in seeking to extend Orton now. - I understand the logic on both sides, but I would rather have tagged Berrian. Especially looking at the weak WR market, I believe we could have gotten "something" for him. Further, tagging him may have pushed him to accept a deal from us. But now, I look at our WRs and cringe. Add in our QB situation, and what are we doing to help this offense. - We drafted a TE in the 1st round to replace Clark, then turn around and sign Clark to an extension? As I have said before, if we were using a two TE base package, I could see the logic, but has anyone seen anything to lead to the believe we will? FA has not actually begun, and we are a month from the draft, so there is still a lot of time to do a lot more, but thus far, it has the feel of status quo. It is like the staff believes what we have is plenty good so long as we can upgrade the OL. I can see that argument for the RB position, but not the passing game.

No fishing and no bait. Never was good at fishing. I do enjoy the drinking part though We could wait. Clark could also have a mega year and ask for even more loot. Olsen could be injured again, etc... And regardless, he could simply want more since he'd be a FA and could probably get more on the open market. We have some leverage now, why not strike while the iron is hot. Angel's always managed the cap rather well. I don't see this as an issue. And I could hook up w/ Angelina Jolie. Doesn't mean it will happen. Look at our offense? You expect Clark to have a "moster year"? I think it a reach to expect similar. Anything can happen. I agree. But I do not believe you make deals based on that logic. I think deals should be based on expectations. I expect Clark's numbers to be down as Olsens' go up. If we did a poll, I think everyone here (even you) would have to agree. You ask why not strike now while the iron is hot. Well, that is the exact point of my question. Why strike while the iron is hot? IMHO, it is very unlikely his value will be as high, or higher, a year from now. Striking while the iron is hot is good for the player, but not the team. Let the iron cool, and if you still want him, then sign him. Odds are salaries will go up in general, so signing now may end up being the same as waiting. Maybe. On the other hand, this was a big cap jump year, and thus deals may not go up next year. Also, there's the loyalty issues... Hey, we showed loyalty by not cutting him after consecutative 24 catch seasons. Now that is loyalty. We are not talking big money, and thus, it is not a big deal. I simply question the logic and reason of our staff. Look at our QB situation. We sign Rex for $3m+, which tells me we expect him to start. That start comes at the expense of Orton, who we do not seem very high on. At the same time, we are looking to extend him too? To me, that is reminicent of Angelo extending Metcalf, who the coaches never seemed to like. We used a 1st round pick to replace Clark, and then he puts up a good season, so we extend him? Sorry, but while we are not talking about big money, it is simply the logic I question. I do not believe he would cost more a year from now to re-sign then today, so why take the risk. If Orton plays to expectations this year, Clark w/ be a backup. I doubt he will be happy then, regardless of salary.

I think the point of his post though was this. You do not argue the idea of taking a WR in the 2nd, correct? The point of his post was not to continue in the draft after that, targetting another WR, but would you be open to taking another WR if a guy you really liked slipped some? His rationale is that it is a deep WR classm, and that if we take a WR in the 2nd, it is possible a WR we graded high slips some and is there for us in the 4th. Would you be upset if we took a second WR in the 4th in that scenario. I would not go into the draft looking for two WRs in the top 4 rounds. However, I would not avoid a 2nd player I ranked high either.

First, let me first just say that I do not believe Cade was ever considered a technically sound QB. He was lacking in numerous "attributes". W/ Cade, it was more his cocky demeanor and what some felt was that "it" factor that drove him. How wrong they were. Anyway, while I agree w/ some of what you say, I do think many of the so called "attributes" are important. No one attribute makes or breaks a QB (maybe intelligence), but when talking about your big investment positions, you need to look at it all. Some things can be learned, but at the same time, most QBs who have "bad habbits" have also had numerous coaches try to alter those bad habbits, and were obviously not successful. So if a QB has a 3/4 throwing motion and you draft him thinking you will "teach" him to thrown over, I question the logic of that. I do think some of the things you somewhat write off are important, but not ultimately important. If a guy has a 3/4 throwing motion, does that kill his prospect? No. But can it alter his prospect? One of the biggest things about a release point is ability to get the ball over the LOS. If you have a tall QB w/ a 3/4 release, it is not as big of a deal as having a 6' QB w/ a 3/4 release. I also think what system a QB comes from can be a factor. You mention a QBs intelligence, but what system that QB comes from might indicate just that intelligence. There are systems in college that are very QB friendly, which make reads, routes, and the like far easier. Ability to master this offense does not mean the QB has enough intelligence for the next level. On the other hand, ability to master the USC offense does indicate a particular level of intelligence. So while I agree that intelligence is a major key, I would argue the system from which a player is also a potential sub factor in this equation. A QB's speed, agility, athleticism matter more if they are of the Vick, McNabb, Young mold. Personally, I am not a huge fan of the running QB, and thus those attributes are not as important to me. On the other hand, for these "athletic QBs" these attributes are important. If they win by a large amount w/ their legs, it needs to be known how their speed matches w/ the NFL, compared to college. Intelligence - Agree w/ you on this. This is not book smarts, but field smarts. I want a QB that doesn't simply memorize the playbook, but understands it enough to make adjustments on the fly. Further, he should be smart enough to look at the defense, and have an idea what is going on there too. Height - I didn't always see the need here, but have come to believe it is quite important. Have their been QBs that lacked the height? Sure. But those are usually the exception and not the norm. Nice when you fall into the exceptions, but I do not know that you want to jump into them. Arm Strength - One of those oft talked about attributes. I don't think you have to have an Elway cannon, but at the same time, I would argue watching Griese shows a QB needs a good enough arm to get a spiral downfield. Otherwise, defenses can play a smaller field, and life just got tougher for your offense. Pocket Awareness - May be one of the most difficult things to "grade", but also one of the most important areas for me. Some QBs seem to have that 6th sense. They feel the pocket collapsing and begin to roll or move around. Most important, they do this w/o taking their eyes off the field. Here in Dallas, I have seen quite a bit of Romo. This is one thing he is awesome at. He has made the OL look good. He feels the pressure, and rolls away from it, but does so w/o taking his eyes off the field. He turns what looked like a sack into a downfield pass. Rex is the opposite of this, at least for me. He doesn't feel the pressure, and often doesn't seem to see it when it is directly in front of him. When he does spot the rusher, and begins to move to avoid, he takes his eyes off the field and focuses on the rusher. Overall, I think the combine is fairly funny. I do not particularly care about the vertical of a QB, or the 40 yard dash time for an OG. While I think many "attributes" are over-blown (none more than the 40) I also think most have value. The level of value though can be widely argued.

To any who believe this is a good move, let me ask you this? Why not simply re-sign Clark next year? Think about it. Clark is coming off one of his best years ever, or was it his best? His market is pretty high today. What will it be next year. Does everyone not believe Olsen is going to see more snaps? Does everyone not believe Olsen's numbers are going to go up? While some might argue, I think logic will say that if Olsen's numbers go up, Clarks numbers are most likely to go down. Today, Clark's market value is pretty high. A year from now? He will be a year older (he will be 32 at the start of the 2009 season). He will not likely be coming off a career high. He may not even be a starter, as I think most would expect Olsen to win that job by some point this year. So the most likely situation, IMHO, is Clark's market a year from now will not be as high as it is today. That tells me he would not be difficult to sign a year from now, if we still want him, which brings me back to my ealier issue. Will we even want him a year from now if we do not use a two TE set? A year ago, Clark was a guy we were looking to replace/upgrade. While never bad, he was never that great for us either. We spent a 1st round pick to replace him, and make no mistake about it. Olsen was signed to replace Clark. One year later, we are giving him an extension? Sorry, but I fail to see the logic. IMHO, we could have/should have let Clark play out his final season, and if we still had interest, we could have signed him then. I bet you his market a year from now would not be what it is today. Further, if we do not want him, we simply let him walk away.