nfoligno

I do not think anyone necessarily "wants" to get rid of Wolfe. I was never in favor of drafting him, particularly day one of the draft, but that has nothing to do with why I would cut him. We are not dumping Benson. Your feelings on Benson are well known, and have been since prior to our taking him in the draft. But the fact is simply that he is going no where. At least not this year. Angelo has however said we wish to add competition for Benson. To me, that means we can assume two RB spots filled. So then we have Wolfe and AP. We just drafted Wolfe, but we also just re-signed AP. AP is also a coaches favorite and one of our best special teams players. In fact, if we lose Ayenbedajo to FA, AP may well be our best special teams player. Wolfe is better in space than AP, but I would argue AP is better creating space. AP is the better WR (at least more proven) and a better blocker (even though I am not high on his blocking). Wolfe simply does not bring that much more than AP does, while AP is more proven and a far superior special teams player. So assuming we only keep 3 RBs, and until I hear the coaches talk about 4, that will be my assumption, I think Wolfe is the most likely to go. That isn't to say I want him to go, but I simply think he would be the odd man out. For the record, one thing that is rarely discussed is one of the big reasons why I believe we drafted Wolfe. It was known last year that teams would try to avoid Hester, and we may need to replace a blocker or two w/ return man in the middle levels. When we drafted Wolfe, and again in camp, Wolfe was a player we talked about using in such a way. As I recall, he struggled in the return game though, which is why we used Davis and whoever else as opposed to Wolfe. So while you focus on him as a RB, remember that special teams was a big reason he was drafted as well, and thus far, he has not been able to make strides in that area.

If they give him a big SB, that is upfront money and they would eat the majority of that if they traded him soon after. Theoretically, they could sign him to a deal where he would get a roster bonus in the 2nd year of his deal, and if they trade him prior to that, they would not be on the hook for that money, but there is really little incentive for Anderson to sign such a deal. Most likely, Cle simply tenders him at the highest level. Anderson would have a salary of maybe $2m (I don't know what the amount is right now). Any team that wants to steal him would have to give Cle a 1st and 3rd, which rarely ever happens. So Cle can most likely keep Anderson for another season for minimal cost. There are two downsides to this. One. Anderson would then be an UFA the following year, and Cle could not get compensation for him. They "could" tag him at that point in order to trade him, but teams could call their bluff and wait for them to remove the tag and sign him w/o compensation. Two. Cle may not want to wait two years before giving their 1st round pick a chance to start. The sooner he starts, the sooner he starts to develop.

I don't think it is so simple. I don't think it is so simple as saying you have to get a QB in the 1st, or you have to avoid 1st round QBs. The reality is, different teams have found booms and busts at all levels. We have tried just about everything ourselves. We have tried 1st round picks (McNown & Grossman), we have tried trading away a 1st round pick (Mirer), we have tried seasoned veterans (Miller & Griese), we have tries other teams backups (Quinn), we have tried late round picks (Orton, Krenzel, Burris). We have tried pretty much every avenue, and not "hit". To me, when it comes to QB, I don't think you can simply say this way is best, or this way is to be avoided at all costs. To me, it goes beyond this. I think we fail in several different areas. One, we fail in scouting. Two, we fail in developing. It doesn't matter if you get a QB in the 1st or 7th, or in FA or in a trade. If you scouting the coaching are not good enough, that QB is unlikely to do well. Maybe this is a negative view, and it makes me sick to think that way, but it is how I feel. I would love to draft a QB in the 1st round, but i have no faith in our staff to (a) evaluate and draft the right one and ( develop that player. That is why I would prefer to trade for a veteran. Yea, McNabb is who I want. You do not have to worry so much about evaluation or development. He is proven and developed. Basically, just get the stupid coaches out of the way and let him win.

That is what I expect. I think Cle will let him go if another team offers at least a 1st, maybe more, but neither Anderson, nor Quinn, hit the cap for big dollars this year, and they can afford to keep both. Honestly, I can see it either way. They gave up this years 1st for Quinn, and would like to get that pick back. While Anderson is helping now, if they feel Quinn is going to be their future, the sooner they start, the sooner he develops. So I can see them going either way on this one.

Where do I begin? One. Did you read my post? I said I would not give up a 1st and 3rd for him. While I am not sure what I would say his value is, we have too many needs to give up a 1st and 3rd. Two. The situation isn't so simple when you say if he was worth anything they would not be dangling him. This situation is very similar to the one w/ SD and Brees/Rivers. Brees was coming off a pro bowl season where I think he was even in consideration for MVP, and yet they let him walk because they had drafted Rivers. Well, Anderson is coming off a solid year, but they just drafted Quinn, who they gave up what, a 1st and 2nd round pick for? I don't recall the numbers, but while Quinn wasn't drafted high, I believe he signed for more value than his draft slot. So they have money and draft picks invested in him. So while I understand what you are saying, it is simply not that simple. As for the comment you are not impressed, and question him even being an upgrade over any of our guys, you have to be kidding. As a bear fan, it should not take much to be impressed by QB play. As a bear fan, having a QB that can avoid mistakes is usually enough. Our bar is set so low when it comes to QB it is embarassing. Look at Anderson this year, and compare him to Rex last year. I think that is a very fair comparison. You might argue Anderson had more weapons, but I would counter that w/ Anderson being in only his 2nd year in the NFL, and add how Rex had a great defense which often put him in good field position, and didn't put all the weight on his shoulders. Anderson had to win games, compared to Rex, who often just didn't have to lose them. Anyway, Anderson threw for about 600 more yards than Rex (3,787 to 3,193), with a slightly better completion % (56.5 to 54.6) and a better ypc average too (7.19 to 6.65). Anderson threw for more TDs (29 to 23) and fewer Ints (19 to 20) w/ a better TD/Int ratio (3.6% to 4.2%) Anderson had a good 82.9 QB rating, compared to Rex' 73.9. Rex had 5 games w/ 3 or more picks, compared to Anderson's 2. ReX had 7 games w/ 2 ore more TDs, compared to Anderson's 10. I simply do not see how you can argue Anderson isn't better than Rex, who is considered by most all to be our best QB. I am not saying Anderson is a sure thing stud for whoever he signs w/. I am not saying Anderson is worth a 1st and 3rd. But writting off even the idea of getting him to me is part of the problem in itself. We need to start looking at QB as a key position on the team and not simply as a position we can fill w/ whoever we find on the scrap heap. I would rather try and fail w/ a player like Anderson, then continue to throwing out there there trash we have suffered through for years.

I would love to trade for him, but it will depend on what Cle demands in a trade. To simply steal him outright, it would cost us a 1st and 3rd, plus a very sizable contract. That is simply too much. If Cle were willing to discuss a trade for less compensation, I would absolutely think we have to talk to them. If we could get Anderson w/o giving up a 1st, I think we owe it to ourselves to look at this option. If Cle demands at least a 1st, I would say we have to walk away. I would love to add Anderson, but we have too many needs to give up a top half pick in the 1st. If we could drop the price to a 2nd and maybe even a 3rd (since we have two), I would consider it. We could still sign Faneca and draft LT in the 1st, upgrading our OL. Doing this and adding Anderson could do wonders for this offense. I do not think Cle would give up Anderson for less than a 1st, but I think we have to be in discussion w/ Cle.

Disagree. First, Tenn didn't have a great team heading into the year. You say they had a good defense, but I don't think it was expected to be that good heading into the year. A big reason why they were good, IMHO, was due to solid coaching. As for one and done, I think injuries were a big part of that. Did you see their injury list heading into the playoff game?

Regarding Babich, no question he had to deal w/ a lot of injuries, but his adjustment to such was non-existant. Also, and I have said this before, but even w/ the injuries, we still had a lot of talent on this defense. Far too much talent to be ranked among the worst defenses in the NFL. If we had an average talented defense, and suffered the injuries we did, I could understand. But we had a top tier defense, and even w/ all the injuries, still had a lot of talent. So while injury was an issue, I simply do not buy it as an excuse. Further, how we dealt w/ those injuries to me was a huge problem as well. Example. The cover two only works when you can get pressure w/ your front four. If your front four can not generate a good pass rush, then it becomes easy to find holes in the zone. Due to injuries at DT, as well as other reasons IMHO, we didn't get a great pass rush up front, and thus made the zone easier to beat. Yet we did little to counter this. During the Jauron years, one of the top complaints was our inability to adjust. A scrub would replace an injured starter, and we simply asked the scrub to step up, rather than realize the play of your 4th or 5th DB is not equal to a pro bowl starter, and thus adjust. To me, this staff did the same thing.

I disagree w/ that. Sure, often individuals get too much credit or blame for things. No argument there. At the same time, I think our coaching staff absolutely deserves a massive amount of the blame for 2007. I am no problem ripping players for missed tackles (for example) yet at the same time, our coaches flat out said that we do not practice tackling. I would point to D.Manning as an example. We have watched the kid time after time go for the ball and not the tackle. That is not how he played in college! That is what he was taught in the NFL. He didn't teach himself, and thus, while you can blame him for the missed tackle, I think you also have to blame the coaches for how they have handled the concept of tackling in general. I'll throw another exmaple out there. The DL and pass rush. In our scheme, our DEs AWLAYS rush outside w/ wide angles. The DTs shoot the inside gaps. Garay said himself in an interview that we do not stunt. Due to coaching, was predictable and easier to blcok. Ex-bear players have talked about this. You can have the best pass rusher in the NFL matched up against an average OT, but if that OT knows exactly how the DE will rush, it is easier to block him. We didn't allow our DEs to either stunt, or even use the edge speed to get the OT off-balance and then move inside. Due to coaching, we negated too much of our DEs talent. It is like having a pitcher who can throw 98 mph, and telling him to only throw fastballs and never use a change up or curve. As good as the fastball is, he becomes easy to hit because you always know what is coming. That is coaching. I could so easily go on. On both offense and defense, our coaches flat out failed this year. There is PLENTY of blame to go around for the players, but if the players are not put in a good position to win, it is difficult to blame them too much for their failures.

From this list, I think it would/will be Brown #1. Michael Turner, San Diego--(I know he's a favorite here, but I don't think I've ever seen him play.) First, I still question how great he is if he isn't on a good offense, running behind a great OL. Second, he will command more money than I see us willing to spend on a RB. We have too many needs, and upgrading RB w/o upgrading the OL seems pointless. Third, I see us looking to bring in a player to compete w/ Benson, not replace him, which is what we would be doing if we went after Turner. #2. Marion Barner, Dallas: Restricted--(If Jerry Jones wants him, we won't get him.) No chance he hits the market. He will either sign a large deal, or will cost a 1st and 3rd to steal. Also, see points 2 and 3 from Turner. #3. Jamal Lewis, Cleveland--(As explosive as Cleveland was this year, I could have produce for them. No thanks.) He was average, at best, behind a great OL and w/ a great passing attack. Speaking as someone who had both Edwards and Winslow on his FF roster, I can tell him many of his TDs were from the freaking 1 yardline, which ticked me off. Also, Cle has said they plan to keep him. #4. Julius Jones, Dallas--(The only thing down-side would be listing to Cedric cry about how Thomas's brother snaps him with a towel in the locker room.) I can not see Jones signed w/ us. I think TJ will have some advice for his brother, and I don't think it would be in our favor. #5. Justin Fargas, Oakland--(Not much talent, but he'd run head first into a brick wall. He made the worst o-line in the league look decent. I'd take him.) I would love to sign him. I think he would be a great compliment to Benson, but at the same time, I do not see Oakland letting him go. #6. Derrick Ward, Giants: Restricted--(The Giants had FOUR different running backs who looked awesome. Bad.) He will likely be given a high tag, and is not worth the compensation. #7. Vernard Morency, Packers: Restricted--(If you lose your job to a full-back . . . ) No thanks. #8. Chris Brown, Tennessee: Restricted--(The object is to bring in competition for Cedric, not collect bad running-backs.) We wanted him prior to the year. Injury prone, but not bad at all when healthy. He seems like just the sort of player we would target. He will not be too expensive. He would be competition for Benson, can block and catch the ball, and would be a solid upgrade to our RB corp.

Why we should tag Berrian At first, I was dead against the idea as well. Berrian is not a top 10 WR, much less a franchise player. But after discussion, I better understood the reasons to tag him, and frankly, I think it is in fact the best option. In an ideal world, I would love to let Berrian walk, as well as cut Moose, then simply replace them. Unfortunately, we are in a very poor position to do this. We have little worth speaking of at WR on the roster. Hester has incredible skills, but there is no way we can rely on him as a starter. He is simply not developed enough as a WR. Bradley has a play here and there, but has been a bust since joining the team. Davis is a nice slot guy and special teams player, but not a starter. Hass is a fan favoite, but we can not count on him. The problem goes beyond our team. Not only do we not have replacements currently on the roster (at least not that they are ready) our outside options are very limited. In FA, it should say a lot that Berrian will likely be considered the best WR available (not counting Moss). Worse, there is a pretty noticable dropoff after Berrian. After Berrian, the top FA WRs are the likes of Bryant Johnson, Andre Davis, Devery Henderson and freaking Justin Gage. This is a VERY weak crop of FA WRs. We might be able to get depth here, but not much by way of starters, and for sure not a #1. The draft is equally weak this year. The top WR may not be drafted until mid 1st, and even then, due in large part to his skills as a return man. There are no high end WRs in the draft, and much of the talent is either not as gifted as in past year, or is raw, meaning morel likely a few years needed before they can be truly productive. So while I would love to simply let Berrian walk, I am not sure we can afford to let him go as I do not see solid options. So I would rather tag him for one year. In doing so, we are forced to eat a big cap hit for him this year, but at the same time, we give ourselves another year to see if he furthers his development, and if not, stand a better chance to upgrade a year from now, either due to better classes in the draft and FA, or some current players on the roster develop enough to replace him. Berrian is not worth the tag, but at the same time, the situation may force us to do just that.

I use the outline view. I honestly do not know how I could even respond in the threads in the standard view as I do not understand how you can keep up w/ the various branches of discussion w/in threads. In the outline view, I do not see the posts being numbered.

Unless they wanted to up McNabb's market value. I think McNabb is the X factor. He was very outspoken about wanting out, and if he continues that, he may get his wish.

Angelo said that our defense is not designed to be a run stuffing team. I'm pretty sure he wasn't implying that he expects them to suck at it, but just that the scheme isn't oriented around that like one would if they have 2 buddas at DT. I understand that, but one of my biggest issues w/ Lovie's D has always been our ability to stop the run. If you go back to when Lovie was running the D in StL, his D's were always weak against the run. He got away w/ it more there because Stl was putting up 30 points in the first half, and teams had to abandon the run. But how well the defense (scheme) defends the run has always been a sore point of mine. As for the Mike Brown comment, it WAS in repsonse to a question. He was specifically asked if he could count on Mike Brown. The key to me in that exchange was that he wants Mike back. Thank you. I pretty much thought as much. It seemed like too great of an insult to Brown. As for keeping Brown, I am for it for the most part, though I want to go into the offseason w/ the plan on trying to replace him. But adding two safeties is not easy, and I keep Brown unless we do.

Well, it appears we now has some cap numbers to work w/. It looks like we have around $22m to work with. In addition, I expect us to cut a couple veterans who could bring in added cap space. Miller, Moose and RMJ would be the top three candidates, which could add around $5m or so. Anyway, the point is, we have some money to work w/. I know McNabb's price tag goes up after this year, but I doubt we would touch his contract immediately. We would take a year to make sure he was in fact back to pro bowl form. So while it is possible he could later be more expensive, this year his cost would only be $6.3m. That still leaves plenty of space to do things like adding Faneca and even tagging Berrian, which I think is a very real possibility. We would then still have room to do more. So I guess my main point is, we have the space to add McNabb, w/ plenty of room to do what is necessary to build around him. For me, w/ regard to McNabb, more than money, it comes down to compensation. I want to know what we would have to give up to get him. I really do not know what it would be. No way I give up a 1st. I cring at a 2nd, but would still likely do that. Frankly, I am not sure if it would cost us our 2nd this year. I just do not know (a) what sort of market will be there for him and ( how much Phily wants to trade him, if at all.

Sorry, but this is very debatable. "As for having nothing to work with, I call BS on that. He had a stud OL to begin with: LT Blake Brockermeyer, LG Rex Tucker, C Olin Kreutz, RG Chris Villarrial, RT James "Big Cat" Williams." Funny how Brock is considered so good now, but was ripped every year he was a bear. Tucker was able to remain about as healthy as Mike Brown. Big Cat was on the downside of his career, and the last time played well, so did the offense. This was FAR from a stud OL. "Also, Jim Miller was a decent NFL QB capable of putting up good numbers if given time." Really? What did Miller do prior to, or after the bears. It seems to me the only time Miller ever looked good was in Shoop's system, so I would think Shoop would get some credit for that. "Also, let's not forget the fact that Shoop had no clue how to use TEs or WRs, evident by the fact that Dez "Stone Hands" White continued to start." Or how about looking at who he had to work w/. At TE, I believe he had Fred Baxter. Wow, there is a great TE. At WR, Booker was his best WR, and Booker was a 100 catch, 1,000 yard receiver in his system. You rip Dez White, and no argument there, but look at what WRs Shoop had beyond Booker. Dez White. David Terrell. Or the oft-injured Marcus Robinson. Sorry, but you while you say he didn't know how to use his WRs, I would argue that he didn't have much to work w/. "Oh, perhaps everyone forgot about A-Train, who is still putting up stats when given the chance on the Bills." Your kidding, right? A-Train has been w/ three teams since leaving the bears, and has done nothing w/ any. In Dallas and NO, he was an after-thought. In Buffalo, you say he puts up stats when given a chance. Really? His 3.5 and 2.5 ypc averages beg to differ. The reality is, Shoop was given a 2nd round RB and turned him into the ROY. Under Shoop, A-Train had two 1,000 yard seasons, and has not have a combined 1,000 yards since. You make it out like A-Train is a good player, but he was only good in Shoop's system. "This is the same guy who would protect a 6 point lead in the second quarter! Maybe a few of you forget, but there was not such vehement hatred for a coach in these parts in a long time, and the clown would have been fired if not for being lucky and hitching a ride aboard the dual-Buddha led defense that allowed Urlacher to roam free, and the team to virtually stop all opposing scoring." I think you also forget that he ran a system as instructed by Jauron. I recall prior to 2001 how Jauron flat out said we would run a ball control, field position offense. The reality is, we didn't have much talent on offense, and ran a system that tried to win TOP, field positions and control the ball. Shoop was not a good OC. I am not saying otherwise. But I think you are absolutely wrong when you try to say he had talent to work w/. The players he had have done nothing since leaving the bears. The only time they looked good was under Shoop, which tells me (a) they were probably never that good to begin w/ and ( Shoop got about as much out of them as possible. Sorry, but I look at how Angelo has tried to add to the offense since Shoop and Jauron's departure, and see players brought in that Angelo never added. When Jauron was here, I think our top FA was Clark. Wow. Since then, Angelo added Tait, R.Brown, Garza, Miller, TJ and Moose, while drafting Rex, Berrian, Bradley and Benson. The reality is, Angelo did nothing to provide Shoop w/ talent to work w/, and instead asked our offense to not lose games. To me, Shea and Turner have been worse because they were given more talent to work w/, and failed regardless.

One thing he said that makes me sick, From what I read, he said our defense is not set up to stop the run. Sorry, but that simply makes me sick.

Question on his Brown comments, I saw where he said, "how can I count on Brown" and was wondering if that was something he simply said, or if he was repeating a question posed by a reporter. While the comment is understandable, I think it is also a bit insulting. Through all Rex' injuries, I do not recall him ever making a comment like this. I simply wondered if a reporter flat out asked if he can count on Mike Brown, and Angelo began his answer by repeating the questioner's words.

The one thing I wish we could still have, though I have no clue if it is possible (I don't know jack about setting this stuff up) would be having the posts numbered. When threads get big, it is difficult to see the order. The posts are time stamped, which helps, but if they were numbered like they used to be, I would think it would make it that much simpler.

McNabb is under contract for three more years w/ Phily. When I talked about $7 for McNabb, it was due to his current contract, which he would still be under if traded. His base salary for next year is only $6.3m. I mentioned $7m because I do not know if he has roster bonus or other bonuses tied in. But the point is, we get him at his current contract, so I am not sure why you think we would have to pay him $10m or whatever to get him. What a safety got in FA does not matter. McNabb is under contract, and that contract follows him to any team that trades for him. I also still do not understand why you think we can not afford McNabb, while also upgrading elsewhere. The simple fact or it is, we can afford it. We can afford to sign Faneca (while drafting OL) to protect McNabb. Hell, if we want Berrian, we can afford him too. I simply do not understand why you think we can't afford McNabb. If the cost via trade rises above a 2nd round pick, I would better understand your argument, but I seriously doubt it would. As for how long McNabb can still play, I would say he has plenty of years left in the tank. 30 shows a big drop for some positions, especially RB, but not so much for others. Look at the top 10 QBs from this year. Romo and Rothlisberger are young, but other than them: Brady - 30 Manning - 31 Favre - 38 Hasselback - 32 Brees - 29 (about to turn 30) Garcia - 37 Gerrard - 29 (also about to turn 30) McNabb - 31

Crowton also back in college football, and running the offense in LSU. Shea was hired this past year by Miami to be their QB coach. Thought I would point these two out as well since we are talking about who is where today. I was never a big Shoop fan, but at the same time, I never felt he had much to work w/, and do not feel any of the rest were worth jack either. I would take Shoop over Crowton and Shea.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?s...2&year=2007

I think he is talking about 2009, not 2008.

Looking beyond the stats. In FF this year, I had Edwards, Winslow and Cle's kicker, so I watched as many Cle games as I could. Cribbs is a damn good return man, but the reality is, he was given the opportunities. I do not simply mean number of returns, but how he got those returns. On kickoffs, I do not recall EVER watching an opponent squib kick to Cribbs. He fielded legit kickoffs, and was dangerous. But look at what Hester dealt w/. He had opponents kicking into Lake Michigan, kicking out of bounds, kicking to the 40. Often, kickoffs would simply be lauched high. Hester would get under it, but opponents would be on top of him due to giving up distance for hand time. Similar on punts. Punts were angled far more for Hester than any other. Cribbs had the benefit of a great offense, which is something I have talked about for some time now. As great as Hester has been, imagine what he would do if we had an offense. This year, teams could give us the ball at the 40 and still have little fear of our scoring. If you gave Cle the ball at the 40, you were in trouble. So while the numbers may make it appear there is an argument, I think the way teams approached the two makes it clear otherwise. More than at any time in history, teams did everything possible to avoid Hester. As good/great as Cribbs and other specialists have been this year, NONE were dealt w/ and feared the way Hester was. I do not recall head coaches being grilled prior to a Cle game how they would handle Cribbs. How coaches would deal w/ Hester was the top question posed to opponents every week.

Regarding the disagreement on Orton, we can agree to disagree. I think he has a windup throwing motion, which has been supported by many. Regardless, I to not want to get "too" bogged down by this. It is not a major issue for me. Frankly, I think it is lesser issue than size, which is a hinderance IMHO for Rex. I want to keep Orton, and in any plans I have laid out, he is part of the picture. The key for me is where in the picture he fits. I am fine w/ him being in play to start, but I do not want to go into next year w/ him as the likely starter. Regarding Griese, to me, whether we keep him or not depends on what we do at QB this offseason. I do not see Rex re-signing w/ the team. I think he is gone. If we draft a rookie, I think we keep Griese. We let Griese and Orton battle for the start, while the rookie develops. If we find a veteran (Anderson, McNabb or whoever), then we can more likely drop Griese, draft a QB day two, and go w/ that. No way do I see us cutting Griese in order to add a cheaper veteran. It simply would not be worth the savings, if there is any. I do not know the cap numbers, but I doubt we save much, if anything, if we cut Griese. I believe we still owe in the neighborhood of $2.7m in bonus paid to Griese. That means we are more likely to have a cap hit if we cut him. That is only made worse by spending more, even the veteran minumum, on another veteran. Add to that, i do not know if there are any veterans available that could be as good for us as Griese. Griese is not great, but he is not as bad as i think you may believe. Now, as to your final issue. You do not believe we can afford to go after McNabb right now. Your argument, which I understand, is that we are more than just a QB away from the SB. I do understand you point, I simply disagree we can not still go after him. First point I would make it, I believe it is all about the QB. Few teams do well, much less long term, w/o a great QB. I believe McNabb is still a great QB, and one that can make the rest of your team better. Now, as to "my plan". Let's say we give up a 2nd for McNabb. I do not believe the cost would be so great. Few players get traded for a #1, and fewer still who are not young franchise players. I think McNabb can be had for a 2nd, if even that high. If the cost is more than a 2nd, I walk away. Okay, we give up our 2nd, but we still have our 1st and two 3rd round picks. W/ my 1st, I draft an OT (Clady). That still leaves us two 3rds to look at OG, WR, S (best available). So in terms of draft picks, I think it is very doable. So then $ is the next issue to address. I do not know our cap situation. I have read $19m, but really have no clue. First, I would point out that McNabb would not be that expensive. We do not take on any part of his SB, and only pay him his base salary. His 2008 base salary is $6.3. Not sure of any roster bonuses, but let's bump it up to $7m just in case. That isn't chump change, but not too expensive for a pro bowl QB either. We can afford him. I would let Briggs walk, which saves a bunch of coin. I might add a veteran LB, but not an expensive one. More likely, it is time to let Williams or Okwo step in and play. I do not expect either to be equal, but if we better ourselves elsewhere, the overall affect should not be negative. I would be looking to FA/draft to add a S, but otherwise on defense, I do not see the need to do much. We need to get healthy, but we still have a ton of talent on defense. Our money would be used on offense. The one big signing I make is OL, which I want Faneca. I would love to add some WRs, but it is both a weak draft and FA group, so I don't see much happening here. We can likely afford to tag Berrian, and cutting Moose would offset some of the cost. I would argue that McNabb can do more w/ our WRs, and thus we improve w/o adding much. I also love the idea of what McNabb can do w/ Olsen and Clark. So my money this year would go to McNabb and Faneca. I think both would be money well spent. I like Anderson (Cle) but would then agree we can not afford to add him. He will cost a 1st and 3rd, plus a big contract (w/ brings bonus money into play). Adding him would not work for a team like us who needs more than just a QB to get back to the SB. I simply believe McNabb would cost significantly less.