nfoligno

History is essentially right, but I think there is another aspect of this. Angelo said all along we wanted St. Clair back, but did he ever say the starting RT job was simply his? I don't recall that. IMHO, what the contract we offered St. Clair reflects is that we do not view him as a legit or solid starter. He is a good backup, and that is the sort of money we offered him, but not the guy you want to enter the season as your starter. IMHO, our offer to St. clair makes me believe more than ever RT was also a high priority in the draft for Angelo, regardless of the St. Clair signing. If you want to gripe about the money given to Omiyale. Fine. If you want to gripe about our lack of interest in other OL FAs, get in line. But I just do not get the uproar over the loss of St. Clair. I swear to you that I wanted to blow the entire OL up. Kreutz included. It was never going to happen, but I have hope it will come damn close. Williams and Omiyale now on the left side (Omiyale was moved to RT for a mini-camp. Don't read too much into that). Kreutz will still play center. We will have a new RT (I want a 1st round rookie) and while Garza is the probably the favorite, he could find himself in a greater competition to keep the job. We most likely will have 3 new starters on the OL, and could have 4. I like that. The status quo stunk, and we needed major change.

I like Nicks or Britton in the first, though I heavily learn toward Britton due to need. I like Loadholt a lot, but I think he is a huge reach in the 1st, and LONG gone before we pick in the 3rd. I really would have no problem w/ Johnson in the 3rd, but just have to question our interest in him. We have always gone for the athletic OL. We have never looked at maulers or big boys. While i read we may be trying to add some more size to the OL, this would be a huge, extreme change, and I just wonder how legit our interest is.

Nicks in the 2nd? I doubt he gets out of the 1st, and may not last long if we pass on him. Agreed on Britton though.

I don't think anyone has simply written off WR in round one, much less day one. But if you look at your own list, while there are hits, the percentage is simply not as good as in other positions, like OT, which has to be our top need right now w/ St. Clair not even a potential RT. I don't care who you have at WR, if the QB has only 3 steps (or less) worth of time to get rid of the ball, I doubt your offense will have much success. I would add that, at least IMHO, better value can be found at WR in round two than for OT.

You do what you know. Simple as that. Think in terms of a coach. If you have a coach who spends all his coaching career in one system, and then you hire that coach, what system do you expect him to run? You can argue he should change the system all you want, but if that is the system he knows, that is the system he will stick w/.

Is it your belief then ownership is running the show? If not, I do not see what the point of the 80s bears is. Does Pitt build through the draft? Yes. But my point is difference between TB and Pitt is TB puts a higher priority on re-signing their own players. They do so, often, by early extensions, which is something Pitt does not do. You mention Ward, but in fact, he was in a VERY hot dispute w/ ownership not long ago because he wanted a new deal, and ownership said it was their policy to not extend players w/ more than one year remaining on their contract. Ward stewed for a year, then finally got his deal done, but many many others have simply been allowed to walk away. When you draft/coach as well as Pitt, you can get away w/ this. Frankly, I am not sure there is a team in the league that resembles Pitt. Most any other team in the league that would allow as many upper tier players to walk away would not sustain a high level of success, but that is what Pitt has been doing. They draft well. They coach well. They ignore players requests for extensions until they only have one year left. Even then, they don't get extreme in their contracts, which is why so many choose to wait another year and max out in FA. Angelo is different. From the start, he was looking at players w/ multiple years left on their deals for extensions. He was quite to extend Azumah, and tried to extend Holdman and Colvin when both had two years left. I can see why some would look at Pitt, or NE, as examples we try to follow. Each build their team primarily through the draft. Angelo is similar in that regard. But I think a big difference is in player retention, which we advocate far above either NE or Pitt, and are far more like TB when Angelo was there.

First, I have never been among those who give out huge props for our handling of the cap. If you have cap space, that is great, but a better evaluation for me is in how that cap space is utilized. If you are not putting good teams on the field, or improving the teams you have, then I just have to question how great of a job we are doing w/ the cap. For example, what exactly did we do last year to improve the team? While you think about that, consider how we dumped over $10m in cap on a joke of a DB (Hamilton) in a way to save 2008 cap space and add to our 2009 cap space. If we then in 2009 don't utilize our space, when do we? If all you ever do is eat money today in order to create more space tomorrow, but never truly utilize that space of tomorrow, I just question how well you are handling the cap. Anyone can stay under the cap. The true geniuses are those who actually improve their team and create good/great teams while also remaining under the cap. Second, what the hell w/ the "we only have to spend $111m comment? Why in the world would we not want to spend the full $127m? What is the benefit to the team if we don't spend? Are you telling me there is not a player(s) who we could add w/ that extra $16m that would improve the team? As for Plummer, all I have to say is what I said then. Thank God Angelo lost out on that one.

Despite what you say, Tait has to be included in the bit ticket additions though, regardless how acquired. Also, Wale should be included in the mix, as he was a very big ticket addition. That he came through a trade should not matter. So we added Moose, Tait and Wale, all of which were expensive additions. As for TB, Rice was a big name addition, but was he really top tier. I seem to recall Rice having to sign basically a one year deal w/ TB. As I recall, it was a long term deal, but had a prove it first year as the 2nd year had a massive payout, but he could have been cut cheap before that. As he proved himself, TB kept him, but the point still is that his deal was far from what you would consider an elite DE getting. In fact, I would argue Wale got a deal greater. The year TB signed Rice, he was coming off one of his worst seasons since entering the NFL w/ the lowest tackle and 2nd lowest sack totals. Very similar w/ Brad Johnson, who was coming off a bad year (2,500 yards, 11 TDs and 15 picks) w/ his 2nd team (TB was his 3rd team). He got a good overall deal, but not great, and was given an extension a couple years later. The point is, I think history shows TB was not quite as aggressive in FA as you make them out to be, and our adding Tait, Moose and Wale looks very similar. As for Pitt being the model, I would very much argue against that. Angelo is all about player retention, and he does this by extending players prior to their hitting FA. Pitt is very much different. Pitt loses tons of players because they simply have the "dime a dozen" mentality. That may be extreme, but they constantly lose players because (a) they don't want to pay market value once they hit FA and ( they are very stubborn about extending contracts early. But Pitt simply (a) drafts so well and ( has been so well coached they their losses are simply not felt nearly so much. Angelo has said many times TB is his model. I honestly am not even sure why such a debate. Not only has he pointed to TB as his model, but his actions support his words. Like TB, he builds through the draft and uses FA to add, not build w/.

I don't know that NE is the role model Angelo tries to copy. I think it is simply TB. Take a look at what TB did when Angelo was there. They built through the draft, adding some FAs here and there, but those they build through the draft and only used FA to add to the team, not build it. Further, I think TB more than NE made a much harder push to re-sign their own FAs. To me, TB is far more our model. We run the Tampa two defense, or a similar scheme. We base our team around defense first, special teams next and then offense, which I think also fits with how Angelo has tried to build this team. And Angelo builds the team through the draft, and player retention, w/ a smaller number of FA splashes. That may not be how TB does things today, but it is what TB did when Angelo was there under McKay, and was the system under which he learned.

Okay, so here is the question. Which is worse. Which is the lesser of evils. Wasted salary cap space or overpaying for FAs. Normally, I am not a big fan of overpaying for FAs, but I view this year as being different. In the past, we had plenty of our own to re-sign. That isn't the case today. In the past, we didn't seem to have nearly as much cap to work w/. This year we had anywhere from $30-34m, depending on what numbers you use. In the past, if you didn't love what you saw, you could use LTBEs and whatever other fun tricks the accountants use to eat cap today in order to epand it tomorrow, when pickings may be better. But w/ the potential of an uncapped year next year, that would end up simply as wasted 2009 cap space w/o any future benefit. Even w/ the above, I still do not love the idea of overpaying for FAs. However, what if we were to look at FAs and "overpay" them in 2009 while keeping the deal in the following years far more reasonable? For example, take Holt. I swear I have no idea what his market is right now, as I just do not know how other teams view him. So in response to this post, focus more on the general concept rather than purely the numbers. What if we signed Holt to a 5yr/$25m deal w/ $10m up front bonus? But the key is that bonus. Make the entire amount a roster bonus. That would eat up a chunk of our 2009 cap, but we have more than enough to do this. At the same time, he would then be on the books for basically $3m/yr (less if you tier the base salaries as most contracts do). And while I realize 5 years sounds high for an older player, by making the bonus a roster bonus, you have zero cap hit down the road if you do choose to cut him at some point, thus the deal can be as high as 5 years or as low as you want. Cut him after 2 or 3 years, and what is the negative effect here. I don't want to overspend on a FA if it means hurting our future. If we signed mediocre FAs to huge deals w/ regular signing bonuses, we would (a) still likely not use up all our cap space and ( feel that deal long term. However, if we overpay a FA by eating most of the deal this year, we then (a) better utilize our large amount of cap and ( prevent the deal from hurting us long term. To me, a move like this seems like a win-win deal.

Read on PFT that Cincy could be putting Levi Jones on the block, and this is not the first time I have heard this. What i have yet to really understand is, why? He was their 1st round pick and I thought has proven to be a very good OT for them. Why would they be shopping him?

Sorry, but SC was never more than backup quality. He started every game, but was also the worst LT in the league based on sacks given up, which is even worse when you consider Turner limited Orton to 3 step drops. Based on our offer, and our letting him walk so easily, it appears Angelo view SC as nothing more than a backup (which is what he is) and let him walk, I am totally fine w/ that, so long as we upgrade in the draft. Sorry, but the status quo was simply not good enough, and he was part of the status quo. 2009 OL looks to be upgraded at LT (Williams) and LG (Omiyale). Now we need to foucs on RT and RG, which hopefully comes through the draft.

Why do you say that? All that had to happen was a phone call from his agent to Angelo. Not like SC had to fly back to Chicago for a sit down. At this point, despite so many assuming SC would replace Tait, it seems more like Angelo only viewed SC as depth, and he was looking for more.

I am shocked we would consider, much less be high on, Johnson. I love the idea in general, but we have always stressed athleticism and thought less of the "maulers". I love the idea of adding legit maulers, but I wonder how high we really are on him

I have never really backed Angelo, yet I don't have a problem w/ this move. In fact, I am thrilled about it. St. Clair was simply not good. He looked decent enough for us, but that is relative when looking at the rest of the OL. I like the idea of moving on, and rather than just signing the same hacks, we have allowed SC to walk and cut dead weight in Metcalf. We have little on our depth chart at the moment, but I will hold off on blasting Angelo until after the draft. In my eyes, this makes OL as absolute top need going into the draft, which is fine by me. I always feared that if we re-signed SC, we would lower OL on our need list, and be content w/ mediocrity. Now we are in a very likely position of going after an absolute upgrade. Maybe it is a risk, as we could still miss on OL in the top of the draft, but I am willing to take that risk. We need upgrades. That status quo is not enough, and SC was part of the status quo.

I'd counter your argument with this: Good players are going to be successful no matter where you play them. Heck, Urlacher would have been the greatest safety the NFL has ever seen. And he'll make the hall of fame as a linebacker. Disagree. You mention Urlacher, but remember, he was originally played at SLB, where frankly he stunk. You can say he would have developed and dominated, but the aspects of his game which have always been questioned are aspects of the SLB position that would be exposed. How great would Urlacher have ever been at SLB w/ his questionable ability to shed blocks? I don't think it is accurate to say a good player will be succesful no matter where you play them (w/in reason). Imagine you have a stud SS, and yet have a young SS who also looks great, and thus you move your stud to FS. Does that mean he will be succesful? Just because he could play inside the box, does that mean he can cover downfield? How did that work for Green, Harris, Payne and others. Also, you use Urlacher as an example, but is he a "good player". Urlacher is an all-pro player. It is more likely he would be successful at other positions, but simply stating "good" players are capable of making the transitions is another thing all together, IMHO. Zack Bowman: We didn't move Peanut to FS since we were too considered about injuries . . . so we're moving Bowman there? What REALLY scares the hell out of me is that this indicates we're not that concerned about upgrading the safety position. Yet, the only time our defense has been great under Lovie, is when Mike Brown was rolling. To me that's proof grabbing a top safety in the 2nd round of the draft is a priority. Agreed, and I would add this question. If our staff truly feel FS is Bowman's best fit, why did we not place him there last year? Why spend a year trying to teach him and develop him at CB if we thought his best fit was FS. To me, this move simply screams desparation. Idonije: The complaint should have been last season when we moved him to DT. The guy is ok at both positions, but good at neither. I'm just hoping that moving him back to DE will help our special teams. He'd be the #4 or #5 DE or DT either way, so what difference does it make? Agreed. For purposes of the initial argument, last years move inside fit much better. His move back to DE simply "rights the ship".

Totally agree w/ the basic premise. Examples can be made for either side. You have the success stories, as well as the awful ones. But I agree w/ the general idea that moves should be made because there is a legit belief it is the role the player would do best in, rather than simply trying to force a move out of need. You mention Idonije. I have little issue moving him back to DE. The issue was the attempt to make him add 30lbs and play DT, which was based out of need. I know many are arguing the Bowman move is a good one, but I really just have to question it. If he was considered a better FS prospect than CB, then we didn't we look at him like that last year? I am not saying he can't or won't play well as a FS, but if the staff honestly felt he could be such a good FS, why wait until year 2 to look at him there. Why spend a year playing him as a CB? That is a year of wasted opportunity for him to practice, learn and develop at FS. To me, the move is far less about Bowman and far more about our depth chart. Heck, I believe even Angelo (or Lovie) said they were moving him because they felt it would offer him a better chance to make the roster due to depth at CB. Well, if he is the CB we thought when we drafted him, then he should have no problem earning a spot. Specific examples aside, I simply agree w/ the idea that position changes in general are not bad, but a move should be based more on simply what position a player is believed best at, rather than moving players around to try and fill needs. To me, that is like seeing a major reach in the draft. We need this position, thus we move this 2nd round prospect up on our boards to draft in the 1st, based purely out of need.

Az, I at least do get his point. He may use exteme examples, but I think the point he is using is that numerous players w/ perceived elite talent, but w/ character red flags, did turn into studs. I am not sure Mike Williams is a good example. Mike Williams was never considered the best at his position in the draft. I do not recall him ever being rated over Braylon Edwards. Further, he was never considered a lock top 5 pick, much less top 3. Further still, he only fell to the 10th spot. Point is, he didn't exactly fall much. I think the key w/ Smith is risk/reward. In the top 10, there is simply a ton of risk, but at 18, the risk (financial at least) is less, while the reward is still high.

If we are talking about Angelo would do, I agree he would be more likely to go after Britton than Smith, but that is Angelo. Especially after Angelo was burned by Benson, I have a hard time seeing him go after another player in the 1st w/ character issues.

W/ the understanding that I want to draft him if he is there, and I feel he is worth the risk at 18, I have to also say that his floor is FAR lower than Big Cat. The key red flag seems to be surrounding attitude/mental or committment. If he fails, it will not be due to talent, but due to these things. Think Cedric Benson if you want to know what his floor is like. No, I do not think he will be like Benson, but if we are going to face the risk, I think we should understand what it is. To me, Smith is a boom/bust player. I do not see a ton if middle ground. W/ his talent, I think he could be a dominant, pro bowl OT. However, if he needs to grow up and doesn't, then the floor could be out of the NFL all together.

If I believed that would happen, I would be all for adding SC prior to the draft, but I simply believe that if we add SC before the draft, we will not take an OT in round one. This is simply what I believe. I think Angelo simply does not value OL as much as other positions, and only takes OL high in the draft when his back is against the wall (2002/2008). Otherwise, he takes the "BPA" which in his evaluation, is never an OL. If we do not sign SC, my hope is Angelo feels pressured to once again draft an OT. If we have SC on the roster, and our other "big" FA signing was an OT/OG, I just do not see him going OL day one of the draft, much less round one.

LT for Buffalo, but at 340lbs, I have to believe he can play LT or RT. Buffalo is reportedly not even close in discussion of a new contract, which led to Peters holding out part of last year. Could be available through trade. (a) Can he play RT ( Would he accept the RT position © Is he worth the sort of money he is likely looking for, which is likely in the Gross ballpark (d) what would it take to get him.

But what do you base your opinion that he wasn't prepared on? What other than the numbers leads you to believe he wasn't or didn't prepare?

I don't know. Right now, I think you all are reading a bit much into this, at least w/ regard to Beunning. I think Beunning has become one of those depth chart fan favorites like Rideau. To me, this is like after we released Booker, if a fan was to say we did it to give Rideau more reps or a greater opportunity. Yea right. It would be one thing if Angelo were to have said, "We liked Metcalf, but w/ Beunning, we felt Metcalf's chances were slim and thus granted his request for release". However, I have yet to hear/read Angelo say jack about Beunning. After we signed Omiyale, when Angelo discussed the competition at OG he expected, I do not recall once reading/hearing Beunning's name. Until I hear Angelo or Lovie so much as mention the name Beunning, it is a bit hard to assume we are making moves in the offseason w/ him a key part of our plans. Beunning = Rideau. Fan favorites on the depth chart. Fans wonder why they don't get more opportunities. Yet despite what fans think, staff sure seems to think different.

As much as I want to add to our OL, at the same time, I want to upgrade, and I am not sure he is an upgrade. He was never considered good, but two years ago, everything clicked for Cle, including him, yet last year he was back to poor form. I want an upgrade, but I just do not see him as an upgrade, and would rather just sign SC. W/ that said, at this point, I am really hoping we pass on adding any OTs prior to the draft. I still just fear that if we add a FA OT, we will pass on OT in the draft, and I would rather Angelo feel adding an OT early is an absolute must.