nfoligno

For the most part, I agree. One guy on the radio said, "since we were boys, we played football to get the girls. What is the point of playing if not for the girls." One guy responded by saying money. And the first guy came back by asking what was money for. Again, girls. Romo was a very fast rising star. He hit the scene last year, not even at the start of the year, and showed tons of flash. Then this year, he looks all sorts of explosive. After about one year of PT, he gets a deal that makes him one of the highest paid players in the league. So the spotlight is 100% on him. It isn't just how he deals w/ reporters asking tabloid questions, but how he deals w/ the limelight and success as a whole. So far, I think there has been enough scene to question how well he deals w/ it. You can say that you don't care what he does off the field, or if he goes hollywood, he is creating a profile which the media are going nuts w/. And it does in fact appear to be affecting him. Many can say they don't care what the media or fans think, but I find it hard to believe. They care, and it can have an affect. Reality is, if he wins, the profile becomes legend like Joe Namath or Jim McMahan, but thus far he is 0-2 in the playoffs (when the pressure is really on) and that profile is only adding to the attacks.

I live in Dallas, and let me tell you, as much as you may hear about it nationally, that is nothing compared to here. Understand though. Part of it isn't "just" Simpson, but how Romo seems to have gone hollywood. Previously, he was w/ Carrie Underwood, and some other celeb chick (can't recall who). So he is hopping around w/ high profile chicks. You may well say, so what. For the most part, I agree. But a point made recently which I tend to agree w/ questions how he has been handling his success. He has become more and more defensive speaking w/ reporters. He seems to have hit the party circuit more then ever. And this past week, which Dallas had a 1st week bye, he went to Mexico for a vacation w/ Simpson (also w/ a couple other players and their wives). I think most here could care less who he dates, but how hollywood he seems to have gotten, and how he seems to be handling the media and pressure these days, is something fans care about.

2004 was his last season. He is still in the league, but not a huge factor. I believe he was in the game at that mainly due to injuries NY suffered in their secondary. He is a return man and like a #4 DB for NY this year.

Couple things. One. I think you have to go back and remember the situation when Shoop came in. Crowton was the OC prior to him, and as you said, took a lot of chances. We turned it over a lot, and weren't a successful offense. We put a ton of pressure on our own defense. Crowton became vilified. Exit Crowton and enter Shoop. Shoop was w/o quesiton the anti-crowton. I just remember that back then, many liked Shoop simply because he did run the ball, something Crowton didn't know how to do. Also, while he was FAR from explosive, I think you forget how successful Booker was in his scheme. Two. I recall all too well prior to 2001, Jauron behind the mic talking about how conservative our offense would be. Not his words, but his meaning. IMHO, it was our defensive minded HC who wanted the conservative offense. That is part of the reason I don't blame Shoop as much as you. Three. I have said this before, but while I am NOT a fan of Shoop, despite what you likely think, I at the same time wonder if he would have been a tad more aggressive if he were given more pieces to work w/. He didn't have a homerun hitting RB. Far from it. He didn't have a QB w/ a great arm. Miller was never a great QB, and was often injured. How aggressive could you be w/ QBs like Mathews, Stewart, Burris and the like? Go back and look at how much Angelo ignored the offense when Shoop was in charge. Our best WR was a possession WR, and our 2nd best was a downfield threat that couldn't catch. No RB w/ speed and no QB with a great arm. I am sorry, but while I totally understand what you are saying, if you tried to make the players Shoop had to work w/ a high powered one, it would have been even uglier than it was. Back to Crowton, I simply feel he sucked worse. It is beyond me how any NFL coach can believe we can run the ball so little and be effective, unless you have a QB like Brady, which we didn't. I will simply never forget/forgive for trying to use a rookie Qb the way he did. One final point. I too want an offense that tries to score, as opposed to trying not to lose games. That is why I was disappointed when we hired Lovie. Great offensive minds are not in abundance, and usually to get one, you have to be willing to make the guy a HC. Our continually hiring HCs who were formed DCs is a great part of the problem. As a management, we have put the focus on the defense over the offense. I would further point to the players were brought in. We have not exactly filled our offense w/ big time weapons. So to me, while our offense is a problem, I think Phillips and Angelo are key in blame for this. Until our managment makes a real committment to the offense, I find it more difficult to lay all blame at the feet of the OC. The only exception is Shea, who I felt was simply is so over his head it was embarrasing.

First, let my start w/ Angelo's comment on competition. I do not believe it is BS in such a manner that he intends to do nothing. While I, and most, have talked about his meaning we bring in a RB to compete w/ Benson, I have also considered the posibility that his comment was BS in that he may consider a top tier FA. He could still call it a competition, even though it would not be. Still, I lead against that interpretation. I think he was very disappointed in Benson this year, but he also talked about how Benson did seem to turn a corner shortly before the injury. He said he didn't understand why it took so long though. Thus, I simply think he feels adding competition will quicken Benson's rise. As for drafting best available from, OL, RB, QB, WR, LB, S, as you mention. First, let me just say, this follows what I have always believed. I do not believe in pigeon-holing your selection and reaching for a need, nor do I feel you draft best available, regardless of need. I think you have a grouping of positions you feel are among your high priorities, and draft the best available at one of those positions. That is what it appears you want to do as well. The reason I talk about OL though, is because it is a position I feel we will best match need and best available. OT - Long will be LONG gone. After Long though, you have Clady (assuming he enters), Baker and Oher. All three would be solid values at our position, and would fill a massive need. RB - This RB class is shaping up to look pretty good, and where we pick, we could well be facing a very good RB. At the same time, (a) as said already, I think Angelo is looking to add competition and not yet ready to simply replace, which may mean RB is not a round 1 option, and ( I think we can get quality RBs later than the 1st. I would argue it is far easier to find RBs after the 1st round than it is LTs. QB - This is a very real posibility. I just do not know. I don't know enough about these QBs, and frankly, am simply not sure we will look to take one in the 1st. Most likely, a 1st round QB is not going to help us for a few years, and I am not sure Angelo is going to use our 1st pick on a player who isn't going to help the team now. I think he still believes we are a SB team (when healthy) and a QB is not going to help us get back to the SB, at least not for a few years. WR - This is an ugly draft for WRs. At 14, we could be looking at the #1 WR in the draft, and that is no great thing. I have not seen any WRs this year that would be considered among the top 3 in most other years. LB - We have drafted two LBs in the last two years, and the team seems high on Williams. While I am not sure there is a true blue chip LB in the draft (borderline maybe) it does appear to be a fairly deep draft at LB. So if we want, we can get one later, but I think we are more likely going to give one of our recent draft picks a chance first. S - This is the one position I can see us going if we do not go OT in round one. If Phillips from Miami falls to us, he could be very difficult to pass on. Still, I go back to this. Regardless what Angelo said about focusing on the offense, I think that is by far the most glaring need. The defense went downhill this year, but more than on offense, I think that can be blamed (at least in part) to injuries where we saw starting FS, both CBs and both DTs lost to injury, as well as Urlacher playing through pain and SS being wasted space. While our defense needs help, particularly at S, if we went into next year w/o any upgrades to the defense, they could still be solid. I do not believe the same can be said of the offense. It isn't often we have the luck of having a top need match a position considered deep in the draft. Adding an OT in the first may well meet both need and best available better than any other position. Final point. I understand what you are talking about when you talk about FA OL over draft picks, but I would argue finding long term LTs rarely comes from FA. Teams rarely let quality LTs go, and when it does happen, the cost is ridiculous. We went the FA route w/ Brockemeyer and Tait, as well as trying to move some athletic OGs over (Tucker/Gandy). We are still in search of a true LT. If Baker, Cady or Oher are there, I think we simply have to go OT. If we want to improve the offense, I see not better way than fixing the OL. I would add a FA OG (I want Faneca). Put Baker or Clady at LT, move Tait to RT, insert Faneca, and I think our OL could once again be awesome. Doing this will open holes for Benson and give Orton time in the pocket.

Okay, your wait is over. I know you have been waiting for my experct opinion to your expert predictions:) #1: Angelo will do exactly what he said (which is about like interpretting the Bible at times, but that being said . . . ) Like the bible of the constitution. Two people can read the exact same sentence, and come away w/ two VERY different meanings. #2: He will try to sign all our free agents: IMO JA has a set $$ amount, & when guys like Rex & Briggs get better offers--they gone. I agree he will make an attempt. I don't think anyone would argue this point. What will be curious is how seriuos of an attempt he makes. For example, if we offered Briggs equal or less than our last offer (a year ago), then I would not say we made a very serious offer. #3: RB will be priority #1--He seems pissed about our RB's. He'll break the bank for Turner. If not him, Jones or Fargas. Disagree. Again, like reading the bible/constitution. When he says "competition", I do not believe Turner would be that. We are going to pay Turner too much for him to be even potentially a backup. Turner would not mean competition, but replacement, and I do not believe Angelo is looking to simply replace Benson (yet). I can see us looking at Jones, who I think would be a good fit, and potentially at a reasonable price, but I fear his brother will stear him away, far away, from Chicago. I have liked Fargas since the year he was in the draft. I would love to get him. I simply do not know what the market for him will be, or how aggressively Oakland will try to keep him. He would however provide solid competition, and regardless who won the job, he and Benson would compliment each other very well. The FA group is not great, but this appears to be a good draft for RBs, which could lessen the cost of those in FA (minus Turner). I still think Chris Brown will be a target of Angelos. #4: Orton will be our #1 QB--If you listen to JA he's all about defense & running the ball. Orton doesn't get sacked or throw picks. Unfortunately, I agree. #5: Our first 4 picks (in any order) will be o-line, safety, WR, & QB I can very easily see this. The only position that may not happen day one, from this group, might be WR. This is a weak year for WRs in the draft. While there is no question it is a day one need, a weak class means less liklihood good WRs fall. More likely, teams will reach for mediocre talent, and I can see us waiting until day two for some project WRs. Especially if we tag Berrian (point 6), I think we pass on WRs day one. Instead of WR, I would throw in OG or a center. #6: We tag Berrian--Teams have Monopoly money & he's the #1 WR. Agreed. We are very thin at WR. Both the FA market and draft class this year are weak at WR. We simply can not afford to lose our best WR. The cost of tagging him bites, but I am not sure we can afford to do otherwise, and do not think we want to lock him up at the price he will be seeking. What will be curious however is, after tagging him, if he gets any interest from the likes of Wash and others. If Angelo is offered a 2nd rounder this year, would he take it? #7: We resign Ayanbadejo--(Remember that closed door meeting JA had with Rosenass back in November. Things got done.) I think we lose him. I really want to keep him, but he is seeking to be the highest paid special teams specialist, and wants around $2m. I think he is worth it, but I fear that (a) due to numerous other needs, ( having numerous other very good special teams players and © having one of the top special teams coaches, will all lead to our viewing Ayanbedajo as expendible. I disagree, but have seen Angelo let numerous other special teams aces leave in the past. #8: Along with Briggs & Rex, Ruben Brown, Arch, Gilmore, & Metcalf are gone. Not sure about Metcalf. We just re-signed him. His cap hit for this year is $1.5m, which is not cheap but not horrible, while at the same time we would eat around $400k if we cut him. I am not sure we would cut him if it forces us to eat cap dollars, especially when we are at the same time letting Brown walk. #9: Griese, Darwin Walker, Fred Miller, and Cedric return. I can not see Walker returning. He did little to nothing this past year, and is due a $5.5 roster bonus, and is set to count nearly $7m against the cap. Cutting him would free up better than $6m. If he were willing to significantly restructure, maybe, but I just do not see it. He essentially had a one year try out w/ the team and did nothing to prove worthy. Miller is another I have a hard time seeing on the team next year. He is due a smaller roster bonus as well, and is set to count $5.8m against the cap. While that is not awful for a good RT, he was not good this past year. I think Angelo thanks him for his service w/ the bears, and sends him packing. We free up $3.4m by releasing him. When St.Clair starting in his place, I am not sure we saw any dropoff, and w/ the expectation to draft an OT day one, if not round one, I think Miller goes bye bye. I have read he played a lot this year w/ injury, and that hurt him. I would not mind having him on the team, particularly as a backup/depth, but (a) I am not sure he would want to return as a backup and ( he is FAR too expensive for what he brings to the table. We have too many needs this year, and especially if we intend to tag Berrian, can not afford the costs of Walker and Miller, who simply do not provide play equal to their value. #10: Other then RB, no major free agent signings. I do not believe RB will be a major signing. I expect something far more like when we signed TJ. Decent money for a pretty good player, but not breaking the bank. Further, I think we will see at least one big time signing, and think it most likely will be on the OL. I think we will show heavy interest in Faneca, and if not him, another OG.

And yet, as further evidence of his greatness, he is in the HOF. I do not believe there is another individual in the HOF w/ as little time as Sayers. I think 10 years is usually considered a minimum time of service before being considered for the HOF, but Sayers was so incredible, he gained membership regardless of his amount of experience.

I think VERY few bear fans will be happy w/ Brown, but that is who I see us going after. We wanted him this past offseason, but for some reason he picked Tenn over Chicago. Brown has a history of injuries, yet at the same time has proven a capable RB. He has never been much of a receiver, but I believe is a good blocker. I can see him being a RB that would (a) add competition ( not cost too much © provide improved depth in the event of a Benson injury. Further, he is of similar style to Benson, and thus no changes in system are required. Like I said. Brown is exactly who I can see us going after. In many way, I think he is similar to TJ. Not so much in style, but being a veteran who had shown potential and ability over time, but never fully met expectations. Another good thing about Brown. He is still only 26 years old.

Sure, he would look great now, but that is hindsight 20/20. I know you say you felt it was a mistake, but I thought it was the right move. As I recall, he wasn't even expected to be healthy the following year. Sometimes, you can only wait so long on a player.

Well, Dallas is pretty happy w/ Columbo. We had bad luck (or he did) w/ injuries, but he did develop into a starting OT. But I was just making a joke. Texas has put out plenty of great RB. W/ that said, I am not as sure Charles is one. He doesn't get a tenth the hype Benson did. He is a great RB on a great offense, but I am not sure how much of it is him, and how much is the rest of the offense.

Dude, are you drunk? One. The point made, and go back and re-read, was "creating". How much creating did Jim Brown do? He freaking ran people over. I am not saying that is all he did, but the point of AZ's post was a RB that creates. You know. No hole in the OL so, using cutting ability, shifting, spinning, etc., they create a hole where none previously was seen. Are you going to try and say that was Jim Brown? Two. You comment that AZ loses all credibility because he doesn't list Brown as a top 3 back (though that is not what he was actually doing) is a joke as well. I think Payton, Sanders and Sayers were all better than Jim Brown. All three RBs did more w/ less, and against better competition. Until the end of his career, Payton was running behind shit OLs. I am not sure Sanders or Sayers ever really had a good OL. Jim Brown has a very good OL. Further, I would argue the defenses Payton and Sayers faced were better. All arguments aside, who the best RBs are/were is 100% opinion. If someone puts Benson ahead of Brown, I can understand you talking about a loss of credibility, but to act like it is so cut and dry in putting Sayers ahead of Brown is laughable. Frankly, you lose credi when you so easily dismiss the opinions of others. Final point. I live in Dallas, and many here would say you lose credibility for not having Emmitt Smith, who leads all RBs in total yards, on your list.

Jamal Charles? You want to bring in a Texas RB to compete w/ Benson?

Why does it have to be one or the other? There are many backs who are solid inside runners, who also have the speed to hit the home run. Lawrence Marony, Ryan Grant, Marion Barber, and of course LT. Why can't we find a back who is decent at everything instead of one who can only do one or the other as a "compliment"? First, I am not sure I would agree Marony is great at all of the above list. In fact, I would really question Maroney. He is playing on the most potent offense, and still has not broken out as expected. But him aside, I agree. There are backs like that in the world. I would simply argue there at not that many. And they are usually called pro bowlers. Look, I understand what you are thinking, and agree w/ the logic. At the same time, I am trying to think in terms of what Angelo is likely to do. I have seen many talk about Michael Turner, who some believe is a RB w/ all those traits. I have seen many others talk about Merenhall, and Stewart and other 1st round pcks. I simply do not think that will be an option, and do not think that would be "bring in some competition". Far more likely, that is an attempt to replace, which I do not believe Angelo is prepared to do. Competition is not adding a player so expensive that you can not afford for him to be a backup. I think you provide competition by bringing in the best back you can and then making Benson compete with him. If Benson wins, it is because he can be an all-purpose back (or our staff is a bunch of idiots ). If the other guy wins, then Angelo made a mistake drafting Benson with the #4 pick . Again. As I said above. That is a nice sentiment, but w/ salary cap, I am not sure how practical it is. You can not afford to have a $5m/yr backup RB. We were not happy w/ Benson (a 1st round pick) backing up TJ. No way, unless we have simply given up on Benson, would we be okay w/ a 1st round pick backing him up. Adding a 1st round pick RB or Turner is not adding competition. It is replament. Pure and simple.

A fairly young home run hitter that can catch, block and do some damage up the middle. Kind of a lot to ask for! Um. Yea, that sounds great. How about we just draft LT:) I would argue the combo of: a) homerun hitter between the tackles power and c) pass catcher are a fairly rare combo. You have some in the league, but not many. So while it is great to imagine all that, I am not sure it is so simple as saying that is what we are looking for. As for Mendenhall, and Stewart and all the other 1st round RBs I have seen mentioned and discussed, I am not sure those are who we should be talking about. I am not sure bringing in another 1st round RB qualifies as "competition". Seems a tag more than that to me. And beside that point, I still think we would be much better off w/ an OT in the 1st round. Look what Joe Thomas and the rest of the improved OL did for Jamal Lewis. That improved OL made a has-been RB look almost young again. W/ regard to Michael Turner, once again, I am not sure that is competition. If we add Turner, it will cost a boat load and he will not be coming in if he might not even be the starter. He is going to want a guaranteed starting job after sitting behind LT for so long.

Personally, I have been saying OL for a long, long time. But just because you do one, does not mean you can't do the other as well. Angelo has said bringing in competition at RB is a priority. I PRAY the OL is also a top priority. As for the sort of RB, you say it is obvious we need a speed back to compliment Benson, but would that be bringing in competition? That is the sort of catch 22 I was talking about. How do we provide "competition" for Benson while at the same time, having a player who would also be a compliment if Benson does win.

Looking at some of the talk about Mendenhall entering the draft, I got to wondering. What sort of RB do we want to add to the team to compete w/ Benson. Now, I know some of you want to simply write Benson out of the picture, but I do not believe that is the teams plans. So assume for this argument we are simply looking to add competition for Benson. Do we wan to add a RB similar to Benson? I am talking about style. A north/south runner that has size and can run well up the middle. Or do we look for more of a speedy, shifty back that is known for catching as well as receiving? I know Jason would like to add a homerun hitter, but is that the sort of RB we are going to be seeking. I would love a fast, homerun hitter that can catch, but I would think we would be looking for an inside runner similar to Benson. If not, it would seem like we would have to alter our offense depending on who wins the starting job, and by the time that decision is made, it would likely be too late for OUR STAFF to change the offense and tailor it toward a different styled runner. The other side of the argument though is, if we add a RB too similar to Benson, and Benson wins the starting job, that #2 RB may never play. If he doesn't offer anything more than Benson, would he see the field? Sort of a catch 22. Get a RB w/ a different style, and you run into scheme issues. Get a RB w/ similar style, but Benson wins the job, then your addition may rarely see the field. Thoughts?

James Harrison over Briggs? Hardly a reach. Harrison had 5 fewer tackles, but 8.5 sacks compared to Brigg's 2, plus 7 FFs, compared to Brigg's 2. Harrison also had a pick, compared to none for Briggs, though Briggs had several bounce off his hands. Beyond the pure stats, Harrison was an integral part of a superiour defense, and was key in putting pressure on the QB. Briggs is a tackle machine, but OLBs are more often going to put up playmaking stats, and whether due to scheme or player, Briggs does not do that. I can easily see why Harrison was picked ahead of Briggs. DeMeco Ryans over Urlacher? This is a different story here. I think Urlacher was hurt by (a) setting the bar for himself much higher, and thus appearing to have an off season and ( not really looking "urlacher-esq" until late in the year, when many minds were likely already made up. Ryans is an awesome LB. Urlacher is better, IMHO, and has proven to be a superiour playmaker, but due to the appearance of a down year, as well as being the captain of a defense that went from elite to flat out sad, I think factored greatly in this. I can see the argument for Urlacher making the team, but as I said before, in general, I think our defense was simply so bad that no one was deserving. I know you can argue Houston didn't have a great defense either, but again, I think it is about perception. Houston was not expected to have a great defense, while we were. So when our defense failed, it created a greater bias against individual players than in Houston, where players were not expected to be great.

If we keep only 3 RBs, then I agree Wolfe is most likely the odd man out, but I also believe we should keep a 4th RB. Seriously, how much value does the 2nd FB or 3rd TE give you? If we were talking about RBs who didn't produce on special teams (like Anthony Thomas) I could better understand the argument against keeping a 4th RB, but while I am not saying the coaches will do it, I don't see why it would be a bad thing. One. Benson has not been able to avoid injuries in the pros as he did in college. Two. While some want to add Turner, I simply do not see it. Far more likely, IMHO, we will add a RB that can compete w/ Benson, but will also have some question marks himself, whether those be injury or history or whatever. Point is, I think we are likely to go into the year w/ both our #1 and #2 having some question marks. That means RB depth is a greater concern. Three. As said at the start, both AP and Wolfe play special teams. Someone mentioned that Wolfe had maybe 5 or so special teams tackles. Not bad at all. Often teams have special teams specialists. In the past, that was often a LB or DB for us, where we would keep one more than we might otherwise, but why not do the same at RB. I would have absolutely no issue keeping a 4th RB, as opposed to a 2nd FB or 3rd TE. Frankly, you can have one player who fills the role of 3rd string TE and 2nd string FB. W/ that said, I simply am not sure I see us keeping 4 RBs.

No other bear should be on this list. Not the first team, nor the 2nd. Harris was injured far too much this year, and while he dominated at times, he was also invisible far too often. Likely due to playing through injury, but regardless, he did not warrant being on this list. Briggs gets a lot of respect, but until he starts making more non-tackle plays (picks, FF, FR, sacks, PDs, etc) I do not think he belongs on this list either. Urlacher finished strong, but the season is longer than 4 games, and he didn't have a great year. Frankly, regardless how any of them played, no one from one of the worst defenses in the league should be on the 1st or 2nd team. No, Hester is the only player that should be there.

Oh, where to begin, You say the offense would have been better if not for the turnovers, but how do you think you would have avoided the turnovers? We had average talent (at best) and tried to be explosive. I am sorry, but you are not going to avoid turnovers when you have QBs like ours in '99 (Miller, Mathews, McNown) chucking it downfield. It was Cade's first taste as a starter, and he had 10 of the interceptions. Should that not be expected? In '99, we were able to chuck the ball downfield, and Marcus Robinson did a great job coming down w/ it, but our offense had not consistency. That far more than turnovers was key to our sucking in scoring. We would get a huge pass completion, and follow it up w/ 3 and out. Just because we racked up passing yards does not mean it was a good offense. They were among the worst rushing offenses in the NFL, which is not shock when you have a run pass ration as we did. We threw the ball a LEAGUE LEADING 684 times, compared to being bottom five in rushing attempts, with 396. That is nearly 300 more passing plays than running plays. Sure, game scores were part of that, as was weaker rushing talent, but the reality is, few teams (NE is an exception) can do well w/o even trying to run the ball, and in '99, we didn't. Our high passing totals had far more to do w/ leading the league in attempts. We had 80 more attempts than the next highest, which was GB, and 140 more attempts than the league avereage. Let me put it this way. If Benson finished the year w/ say 1,200 yards, many would probably say that was a good year. But what if you then realized he had 340 carries and average 3.5 ypc? Would you still say it was a good year, or would you simply argue anyone who runs the ball that much will put up yardage, but that it doesn't signify success? I know you fairly well when it comes to what you like and want on offense. Believe it or not, we do not disagree as much as you might think in theory. You want explosive RBs. Even if Benson was what he was considered in the draft, you likely would never love him because he was NEVER going to be an explosive home run hitter. Many would have been happy w/ a RB like Rudi Johnson, and talked about how that would be bear football. You would not complain much if Benson put up Rudi Johnson like numbers, but would not be content either. Similar in the passing game. You do not want a conservative offense based on the run and TOP. You want explosive and big plays. That is fine. I personally think we can strive for both. But the point is, even though Crowton sucked, I think you liked him simply because he "tried" to bring an aggressive offense into a city not know for such. There was much about Crowton I didn't like, but the biggest thing I hated was how he used Cade. I am NOT saying anything to defend Cade. But we had a rookie QB (basically a rookie in his 2nd year too) and put him in a very complex offense. We often had Cade in empty backfield sets. Crowton's offense was based on very quick reads, and the QB/WR being on the same page through adjustments. It was an offense that would be trying for a veteran QB, but for a rookie? I remember the whole time Crowton was here, I watched Minny run an offense opposite from us. In Minny, they too had a young QB (Culpepper) but instead of asking him to do too much, they made a committment to running the ball, and max protecting Culpepper. It was a biatch to get to Pepper those years because they would often send out only two receivers, while everyone blocked. Yea, they had Moss and Carter, but Robinson and Engram were not slouches either. I never understood why we could not do similar. We could still be aggressive, but give the QB time in the pocket. Becasue teams know how pass happy we were, and because we didn't use extra blockers, we really hung our QBs (especially a rookie QB) out to dry. That was my biggest gripe w/ Crowton. His offense "might" have worked w/ a QB like Manning or Brady, and w/ an excellent OL, but w/ the QBs we had, I thought it was a joke. I have little tolerance for coaches who can not adapt a system to the talent at hand, and instead try to force square pegs into round holes.

Agreed. I think people forget that Crowton came to us after running a good offense in college. It's not like he suddenly found success at LSU. But his offense simply did not translate to the NFL. He runs that spread system that simply gets eaten up in the NFL. Spurrier is another example of a college coach that tried to run his college offense in the pros, and failed. That is why when teams look at college coaches, the first thing I ask is, what sort of system do they run. Many colleges today run NFL offenses. Those coaches, and players, more often transition to the NFL, while Texas Tech, Florida (QBs) and many others who run college or gimick offenses do not.

Issue w/ transition tag. I think the transition tag is more for a player you really want long term. If we slapped the transition tag on Berrian, you can bet another team will in fact present an offer sheet to him. Yea, we have the right to match it, but if the whole point is to not be locked into a long term deal for big bucks for Berrian, then what is the point. You still let him walk, and do so w/o compensation.

I don't believe the comp picks have anything to do w/ the transition tag. If we simply let Berrian walk and he signs a big contract and becomes a big time WR, we might get a 3rd as compensation, though that also depends I believe on the ratio of FAs lost to FAs signed. We may loose a few FAs this year, but if we sign more than we lose, we are due no compensation.

I was originally dead against tagging Berrian, but I have come around. We have little at WR now, and this is a weak year both in FA and the draft for WRs. Tagging Berrian would hurt this year, but (a) it would give us another year to develop Hester or anyone else we draft ( potentially find us in a more favorable situation next year w/ regard to the draft and FA and © not lock us into a huge contract for a player who has yet to establish himself as a #1 WR, much less a top 10 WR like he believes he is. One player I would really like to take a look at in FA in Bryant Johnson. He was slower to develop than AZ wanted, but has looked pretty good when given an opportunity, which hasn't been very often due to two of the leagues best WRs in front of him on the depth chart. Problem is, w/ the weak market, I wonder what sort of contract he might command. Despite being so unproven, he could be viewed as one of the best WRs in FA, especially if we tag Berrian.

Maybe there is more to the story, but I would also point something out. Nickerson is probably not hurting for money. If he wants to take a year or two off, he can probably afford to. From the story in the Trib, I get the impression it is far more than the mothers simply being "sick". I get the impression his wife is likely caring for the mothers, which can be a fulltime job w/ loads of overtime. I have seen how caring for elderly who were sick can suck the time and life out of you. I can easily understand his wife needing help, both w/ the mothers and w/ their children. Again, I understand what you are saying, but (a) do not think you fully understand what it takes to care for elderly and ( assume you are not likely in a financial position to take a year or two off w/o suffering greatly for it, which Nickerson may well be.