nfoligno

Why would Berrian accept any deal today? One, Berrian is set to be one of, if not the top, WR in FA, which likely means a bidding war. Taking a deal now w/ the bears likely leaves money on the table. Isn't his agent Rosenarce? How often does he leave money on the table? Two, Berrian has said he wants to know what we are doing on offense. Many took that to mean he wants to know if we are going to keep Grossman, which may also imply he is not big on Griese or Orton, who most believe lack the arm strength to utilize Berrian's downfield ability. So w/ our QB situation so up in the air, why would Berrian accept a deal w/ us now?

The Trib says several times the cuts were part of a youth movement, or trying to get younger. As all the guys released were 30 or over, I guess it is not wrong to say as much. But was that really the reason? I personally think age had very little to do w/ yesterday's cuts. If Miller's 2008 base was the vet minimum instead of $4m+, would he have been cut? I think that if he was due to make the minimum, the team would have talked about how he was injured last year, and give him another season. If Walker was not due that roster bonus, would he have been cut, or would he too have been given another year after an injury riddled season. Moose is different, as we did not actually save money w/ his release. At the same time, he has been w/ the team 3 years and not met expectations, as opposed to Walker's one season and Miller having a bad season after a good one. I think we will eventually let Arch go, and when we do, I think it will have far more to do w/ his play than w/ his age. Ditto Moose. I hope this moves were NOT part of a youth movement. If they were: (a) that would indicate we will not be making a play for the likes of Faneca, Booker or other FAs not considered young. Booker may be younger than Moose, but not so much as it would be considered a youth movement. Ditto moving from Brown to Faneca. ( young movement usually implies a building mode. While I think we have a lot of work to do to get back to the SB, at the same time I do not believe we need to start a new building phase. If we are indeed in a youth movement, I think QB just shot up the board in the draft, as it would make more sense to grab a rookie QB if we are in a building, development mode. Final point. The Trib said we saved over $15m w/ the three cuts made yesterday. I think LT2 is far more accurate in his numbers showing it closer to $10m. I think the Trib is looking purely at money saved, as opposed to "cap math". For example, I think they are likely counting Moose' release as $3.3m (or whatever exact amount) saved, as opposed to $100k saved against the cap after factoring the money we eat in accelerated bonus.

One reason I really do not like this move. Two years ago, Anderson came into the league and put up what, 12 sacks. When was the last time a DL had that many? So he gets the starting job, and doesn't live up to the hype. Brown gets the start back late in the season, and looks good. But my question is, did Anderson hit a sophmore slump sort of thing, or is he simply nothing more than a situational pass rusher. The issue I have is, w/ Wale still under a hefty deal and Brown now locked up till 2011 for likely some good coin, I do not think Anderson gets another shot. I would have liked to see an open competition between he and Brown. In the two years Brown and Anderson have been on the team together, we never saw that. I would have liked to go into camp this year and let the two fight for the starting job. No preferences. Whoever is better starts. Now we will not have that.

Some thoughts. First, I think it is a mistake to re-sign all three FAs, in addition to extending Harris. While we just created a chunk of space, and are sitting fairly well in terms of cap space, I do not see us re-signing our own AND adding much in FA. Last years team will not go very far, and w/o significant upgrades, I don't see the point, and I do not see the big upgrades if we re-sign everyone. Second, could a stepped up interest in Briggs be an indication of concern over Urlacher?

#1 reason why I do not see Berrian signing. At least, I do not see it anytime soon. Berrian is expected to be the top FA (again, outside Moss) and a bidding war could ensue. What is his incentive to sign w/ us early when a load of money could be left on the table.

Um, it was a joke. You understand that, right? Snyder might try something like that, but I would not. Re: Hamlin, I have no clue what he will cost. Re: Faneca, since he would never see the final two years, it would not matter. 7 years is simply a way to fluff the deal.

I have no issue for a player not being happy about a demotion. My issue was (a) griping about his contract w/ 3 years left on it, not to mention coming off a mediocre year and ( asking for a trade.

Almost. Faneca's deal may average $9m a year, but the reality is the yearly base salary is going to be different. Year one could be near the vet minimum, while the final year could be some $20m whopper. So the cap hit starts lower and rises. Since the players never see the final year, and the cap goes up, that is how most all teams structure their deals.

Dan Snyder could find a way to get it done. So could I. Hamlin, Booker, Hester, OL, Rex, Briggs, and Berrian - Hamlin gets $25m/7yr including $10m bonus w/ 1st year vet min. $1.4 cap hit. - Booker gets $21m/7yr including $3.5m bonus w/ 1st year vet min. $1.2 cap hit. - Hester gets $35m/7yr including $14m bonus w/ 1st year vet min. $2.7 cap hit. - Faneca gets $60m/7yr including $17.5m bonus w/ 1st year vet min. $3.3 cap hit. - Briggs gets $70m/7yr including $24.4m bonus w/ 1st year vet min. $4.2 cap hit. - Berrian gets $35m/7yr including $14m bonus w/ 1st year vet min. $2.7 cap hit. - Rex (here is the hard one). Basically going to have to be a one year deal, but structured so his agent looks good. So the press will talk about the $70m/7yr deal w/ $10m in potential bonus money. What it really is, is a one year deal for the vet minimum and a $3m roster bonus, and a $7m 2nd year roster bonus. He will never see that 2nd bonus or the rest of his base salary, so his cap hit is around $3.7m for the one year. So for all those players, total cap hit for '08 is $19.3m. Just under $20m. Heck, we have money to spare.

I think the smiley guys toasting drinks, w/ a comment to Lt2, was indication he was being sarcastic.

Huh? You don't count the $30m you sign Berrian to. You only count the portion against the '08 cap. For example, just using some simple numbers. 5yr deal for $30m, plus a $10m bonus. Total deal worth $40m. Assuming all years even, you take $6m (30m divided by 5) and add $2m (10m divided by 5 years). So you have a cap hit of $8m, not $30 or $40. Now it would not be $8m, even if the deal was w/ the above numbers. The base salaries of the $30m deal would be spread out. Often year one is closer to $1m (since the player is also getting a big bonus up front) and they get progressively bigger. Rarely do players play the final year, and often that final year is a balloon year. So the cap hit year one might be around $3m while the final year is around $12m, at which point you either redo his deal, or cut him to avoid the big cap hit.

Per LT2 numbers, it looks like we cleared around $10m, to go along w/ the $20m or so we already were under. Now I should preface this. While $30m is a great deal of change, from a report I saw, it appears a lot of teams are going to have a ton of cap space to spend this year.

Moose may be off the books, but it isn't like we are saving money. When you count the accelerated bonus, per Lt2, I believe his cap hit ends up a wash. So he is off the books, but we do not save money, so I do not think this (financially) affects our intention w/ Berrian. Problem w/ Berrian is, this is a weak FA WR class, and Berrian is considered the best available (after Moss). It isn't simply that he will not be cheap, but he could be freaking expensive. You are not only going to caugh up #1 WR money for a guy that has not even put up 1,000 yards, but you are likely going to have to pay him more like a pro bowl WR.

Proving to be "our" #1 WR is not saying much.

I am not saying Bryant Johnson is better than Berrian. I am saying I like the combination of the two over Berrian/Moose. Booker over Moose is a huge factor in that for me. Also, while Berrian is a far better downfield runner, at the same time, he showed a boat load of inconsistency last year. Finally, also factored for me is how much it would cost to retain Berrian, as opposed to BJ/Booker. I think we can have both BJ and Booker, w/ money left to spend elsewhere, for what it would take to sign Berrian alone. I understand your argument that neither are big speed threats. Few points. One. I think it is over-rated to have that great downfield speed threat. I would argue that if you don't have a QB that can get it to the receiver downfield (and does Orton or Griese?) then deep speed doesn't mean that much. To me, an ability to get open and run routes is far superior. Two. You can use Hester as a 3rd WR for speed. I think we would both agree he has the speed. Three. If you start to utilize Olsen more, he can provide the downfield threat. No, he doesn't have Berrian speed, but he can be a downfield threat, and the DB/LBs covering him do not have the elite CB speed that Berrian would have to beat. By my first point is my key point. While everyone lives for that big play, I believe that deep speed can be over-rated, especially if you do not have a QB that can hit the WR downfield, or if you do not have an OL that can protect a QB long enough for the downfield route to develop. We have had the deep speed in Berrian for a few years now, and how much did that tip the balance. I'll take more 3rd down conversions over the couple plays a year where Berrian simply beats a DB deep downfield, and the QB actually connects w/ him.

It depends on the position, but yes, I would "consider" trading Anderson for a player. I do not believe I would trade Anderson for a WR. I do not think Anderson and a pick is going to get a an elite WR (not counting Chad Johnson, which is another argument), and frankly, I consider it easier to find quality WRs than to find pass rushing DEs. I would consider Anderson in a trade for QB or LT, two positions we have tried unsuccessfully to address for years. Most other positions though I do not believe it necessary to trade a young pass rusher like Anderson.

Really? I don't know, but his stat sheet shows him to have played in 77 of 80 games in his 5 year career. 1 game missed (or inactive) as a rookie, and 2 more in 2005. The other 3 years shows him to have played in all 16 games. I just thought it was more a matter of situation. Most often, WRs take 2 to 3 years before they breakout. BJ had the mis-fortune to not only be drafted in the same class, but by the same team, as Boldin, who broke (or threatened, I can't recall) the rookie record w/ 101 catches for 1,377 yards and 8 scores. To make matters worse, the team drafted Fitz the following year. So here is BJ. He plays a position that usually takes a couple years to adjust to the NFL, and is on a team where two other WRs are taken that breakout sooner than the norm. He was a 1st round pick relegated to 3rd on the depth chart by his 2nd season behind a pair of WRs that form one of the most elite duos in the league. Ouch.

Maybe, but I don't think so. Brown wanted a new deal or trade prior to last year. We said no largely because we saw Anderson was expected to start. That didn't seem to workout, but I don't think that means we intend to trade him. Why would we? Young stud pass rushers do not grow on trees. If you find one, why get rid of him. W/ Anderson, we have a great DE rotation. Everyone wants to trade to add draft picks. Sometimes that makes sense, but I do not understand the logic w/ Anderson.

Check the cost, but hell yea. Consider this. Many want to re-sign Berrian. Well, I honestly believe Johnson/Booker is a better combo than Berrian/Moose, and frankly, likely at a much cheaper cost.

I thought of the 2006 TE situation also, but.... One. TE is an extremely different position from OT. Not all teams place high value on the TE, where as every team placed high value on OT. Also, you start two OTs, as opposed to one TE. Thus if you have a lot of teams draft OT one year, it is unlikely you will not have teams needing OT the next. Two. While the class didn't breakout as expected, I think the class may still be better than you realize. Did you know that of the top 10 TEs this year, 3 were from that 2006 class. Owen Daniels (63-768-3), Vernon Davis (52-509-4) and Scheffler (50-550-5). Three. I agree they didn't have the impact some expected, but I would also say the situation has been at least a partial cause. While some like Klopenstein and Byrd (both drafted by Stl) simply seem like busts, others may have different stories. Davis dealt w/ some injuries and a very questionable offense, and yet when on the field, he was by far their best playmaker. Lewis has really struggled w/ injury, but may also be a bust. Fasano is being one of the best TEs in the game in Witten (I will never understand why Dallas took him). Pope has become a red zone target, but the team has too many WRs. Dave Thomas was behind Watson, and a slew of pro bowl WRs. Owen Daniels, as soon as they had a real QB, broke out. So while the class may have been over-hyped (aren't they always) I think it was still one of the best TE classes to come out in a long time. 3 of the top 10 in the 2nd year is pretty big. Regarding signing Starks and drafting OT, I just do not think it would happen. When you take a player as high as 14th, I think you do so w/ an expectation of him starting. If we sign Starks, we are locking up RT for years, and Tait is pretty set at LT. I do not think we would be looking at OT at that point. You can make the argument we could draft an OT and play him at OG, but why not just draft an OG? Anything can happen, but IMHO, if we were to sign Starks, it would all but take OT off the board for us. As for Fred Miller, if his price were lower, I could understand, but the money is simply against him. He will hit out '08 cap for nearly $6m, while cutting him would free up nearly $3.5m. St. Clair was better than him last year. I would think, even if we didn't draft an OT, we could add a RT in FA using the money we save, and upgrade. Heck, if St. Clair is an upgrade, it should not be difficult to find better. If Miller didn't have such a high cap hit, or if cutting him didn't net so much in savings, I could see the argument that he was injured last year and we want to give him another shot, but not at the price tag he comes w/. Heck, I think we could cut him and look to re-sign him, if we really wanted to, and still save money.

First, w/ regard to SS, I think we would have several options. - G.Wilson is a FA, and I am not sure he is going to command big dollars. We could sign him in FA, then draft Phillips, and potentially give us the best S combo since Brown was opposite Parrish. - McGowan looked pretty darn solid late in the year after finally replacing Arch. I am not sure if McGowan was that good, or if he just looked that good after Arch. Either way, I think he has earned a shot. - Payne - While I would not count on him as a starter, I think Payne could enter the picture. One of our most athletic guys in the secondary, and impressed the staff enough to trade away Harris. Injury hurt, but it would not shock me to see him over-take McGowan as the starter. - Brown - If we draft Phillips, could we move Mike Brown to SS again? I know he isn't cheap, but why not give it one more chance. W/ a rookie at FS, I would rather a veteran leader like Brown on the field w/ him. Brown would not only help the defense, but could also help the development of the rookie. McGowan and Payne have one more year to develop, as it is Brown's last. Further, if Brown goes down again, I think Payne and McGowan would be good to slide in. I really want OT in the first, but Phillips is damn tempting. FS is a huge need for us, and no question Phillips fills that need. Further, w/ the depth at OT this year, it is possible one of the good OTs we have talked about falls to our 2nd pick. Heck, I even wonder about using a 3rd to move up.

I do not want Starks. It isn't about Starks, but his position. If we sign a RT, then we are basically giving up on upgrading our LT position. I mean, if we spend to sign Starks, and have Tait on the other side, we are not going to draft an OT high in this draft, and IMHO, that would be a travesty. We are in the unique position of a top need also being a top talent position in the draft. Signing Starks would mean we pass on that. I like Tait fine, but he is not a great LT, and his play/speed will only continue to decline w/ age. We should be looking to move him to RT, as opposed to signing an expensive RT.

1) His age. The guy's 31 years old already and he'll want a 5 year deal. No question that is an issue. At the same time, his age could keep the overall contract from reaching the likes of Hutch, and I would also point out he has shown none of the signs of age. For example, when we signed Fred Miller, he was already starting to show signs, and the decline should have been expected. 2) Why is Pittsburgh ready to let him walk? Pittsburgh and New England have a talent for letting good players walk at the right time. It's funny. We so often believe we have cheap ownership, but I think the Rooney's far and away blow us out of the water in terms of cheap. Pitt is very much known for letting solid veterans go because they are simply not willing to pay market value. 3) Unless they sign with New England, FA's rarely do as well as expected. Big name guys the Bears have signed in the past few years, Moose, Tait, Wale, and even Thomas Jones, had very questionable first seasons. Maybe they were bad because the players around them were bad, but they were still bad. In other words, if we signed Faneca, he's likely to have a down 2007. So we'll be hoping for more in 2008 when he's 32? I do not recall Tait having a down year when he came over. I do not think TJ had much of a down 1st year either. He didn't have great stats, but did damn well that year regardless. Wale had a down year, but how much of that was due to being traded so late in the offseason, and having had sat out camp (dolphins) prior to that. Moose didn't have a down 1st year. He has simply sucked since coming over. Signing a FA is a risk, particularly when it is an expensive one, but previous failures should not prevent you from continuing to try. You talk about NE, but in years past, they avoided the higher cost FAs and only went after he lower tier guys. This year, gaining the likes of Adalius Thomas, Stallworth, Welker and Moss were all huge in their efforts. I'd just rather we don't over-pay for a guard, and if we do, find one who is not as old. Hey, his name was Hutch, and we had our opportunity, and passed. I am not usually as big on spending so much for an OG either, but this year I feel that a player like Faneca could have very real chain reaction. I think we are going to draft an OT, and feel Faneca would be a great person to "help" that young player. I think if we had Faneca, it would better allow us to start a rookie at LT, thus allowing Tait to move to RT, thus upgrading another position. I also think Kreutz' play has fallen off, and think part of the reason is inconsistency at OG. So adding Faneca could improve Kreutz. Much the way a great QB can improve the level of play of those around him, I think Faneca could have a similar affect on the OL this year.

Agreed. Unless he gets to the combine and doctors find an injury, or he runs a 4.5/40, or some other totally unexpected thing, he is not going to free-fall like some are reporting to gain some publicity. Now the one thing I would give is, it is possible he isn't the first RB off the board. That does happen. Cedrick Benson was far and away the #1 RB on boards, but then Brown moved higher and higher, and eventually did get drafted first. Still, that didn't mean Benson free fell.

IMHO, Rex and Berrian heading their respective positions is more indicative of the weakness of that position in FA. As for OG, I too saw the listing showing Brown as the #1 FA, and to be honest, that actually dropped my overall opinion of the web site. I am sorry, but there is simply no argument for this. Brown is coming off an awful, injury pleagued season, and is on the verge of retirement. No question he is still a name, and a legend, but it is Danny Snyder thinking to say he is the best of the group of FAs. While I am not saying the other FAs are w/o talent, at the same time I think there is simply a big dropoff, not only in terms of talent, but in terms of leadership and other benefits I think Faneca brings to the table. Flozell Adams - He is a LT and is going to get a boat load in FA. LT is simply too expensive of a position to get a top FA (though I altered on that stance when Walter Jones was available) Jordan Gross - I believe I saw he is being tagged. Lija - To be honest, I know little about him, but I personally am not big on getting Indy OL. While I am sure he is good, at the same time, I believe Indy OL tend to be over-rated as I think Manning (and their offense in general) make them look better than they may be. Starks - I really do not want to get a RT in FA. While we need an upgrade, getting a RT in FA basically gives up upgrading LT, as we would have no where to move Tait. Also, while I know you would like to open up options in the draft, signing a RT would basically close the option to draft an OT, which is among the richest positions in the draft. There are other FAs listed, but to be honest, I think you begin to see a pretty big dropoff. One. I do not see many LTs in FA, and the one or two I see are going to be VERY expensive. To get that AND a good OG is going to cost, and cost a whole lot (more than Faneca). Two. I do not buy McFadden is falling so much he will be there for us. Unless there is an injury we don't know about, I don't see it.