Are we in a youth movement?

[nfoligno]

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.

[bradjock]

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.

 

I REALLY believe that Angelo does EVERYTHING with the "win-now" "win-later" mentality. For him, he went a little crazy bringing in Archuletta & Darwin Walker & franchising Briggs. You have to believe he thought we'd return to the Super Bowl. Obviously, that plan back-fired.

 

I think he'll continue to do what we've been doing. We're constantly red-shirting rookies, and most contracts are heavily front-loaded, so we can dump guys like Moose, Miller & Walker if they don't produce. Every year we're in a position to sign new players are resign our own.

 

If Angelo's learned anything, it's "Don't pay big money for older FA's." Tait turned out great, while Moose & Miller are busts.

 

So to answer your question:

a) I don't think we'll sign Faneca. Unless he comes fairly cheap for some reason.

I don't think we'll draft a QB in round 1. That would indicate rebuilding.

 

As long as we're able to be competitive year in and year out, we've got a chance to make it to the Super Bowl and maybe actually win one.

[Mongo3451]

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.

Agreed on age. Sure Miller is old, but it was his production + salary = cut. Walker was a no brainer after the play of Adams, the return of Dusty and the play of the Samoan guy whose name escapes me. Moose saves little dough, but the drops and lack of separation make him useless.

 

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

.

Not to worry, we simply have better options. This team is not done winning. If JA does something as drastic as a yuoth movement then he is a fool. I don't belive he is.

 

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.

I wouldn't mind drafting Flacco or Henne after a tackle prospect.

 

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.

The difference of 5 mil doesn't matter to me. I like the message. Produce or get out. Sure, we are better off cap wise, but the kick in the ass, the impending change and late season momentum should provide a spark going into the season. I don't think they are done with the house cleaning either.

 

Of course I've always been on the kool-Aid side of the fence

[BigDaddy]

I'm not sure it's a "youth movement". I think it's more a move to get better. The guys we launched, stunk last year. I too like the message, produce or you're gone. We may not be done yet.

[nfoligno]

Yea. I think the quality of the Trib writing has simply gone so downhill. I mean, the article really makes it out like we are in a new youth movement, yet I just do not see it that way. Tait is older. Has he been cut? No, because he didn't deserve it like the others. I thought it was also a failure on the Tribs part to focus more on the money and bonuses due, which had a big affect on the moves, as well as timing. We were approaching the time to give additional bonuses to the player, thus why they got their walking papers now, as opposed to players like Brown, Arch and RMJ.

 

I don't think we are in a youth movement either. I think it was a simple matter of getting rid of three players who sucked last year and were due a roster bonus in early March. The fact that the three players were all 30 or older had little to nothing to do w/ their release. Their play on the field combined w/ finances had everything to do w/ it.