Mike Brown cut

[AZ54]

Payne has played in 16 games I can't help but wonder why so many are throwing this kid under the bus. We just never give players time to develop. Speaking of developing players. Keeping a roster spot for Mike Brown once again means yes we'll have a nice backup SS who can play 3 or 4 games for us but it won't allow us to develop another guy behind Payne if as you predict he never improves. We'll be in the same spot next year.

 

If I felt our D was at an elite level and Superbowl was a realistic goal I say stick with Brown. But this D is on the decline and if we stick with veterans like Brown who year after year are slower and play less games due to injury we'll never get out of the hole.

[nfoligno]

I understand the argument, but....

 

(a) If we had a more stable situation at FS, I might be more inclined to go w/ a developmental player at SS. But instability at both FS and SS positions is a bit much, even in the name of player development. I think you can afford to work on developing at player at one, but not both.

 

( You mention Payne has only played 16 games. Hey, I would throw out there Steltz has even less, but also seems to be nearly written off. But I think, more than just throwing out the number of games played, the trick is to look at the player development. Does the player seem to be learning, developing and progressing? Or does the player just look lost, or like they are not going to reach much higher? In both Payne and Steltz, you have a pair of mid 2nd day picks who I don't think ever had super high ceilings. I think some fans around here began to put lofty expectations on them, but never understood why. That doesn't mean I am ready to give up on either, but at the same time, I am not sure either are such prospects that you sacrifice the team for their development.

 

© I don't know what our D will look like next year, nor our chances of the SB, but I have never cared for the attitude that we don't need to retain a veteran because we are not in the running. Too many times a team (including us) was expected to be average or just plain bad, but turned out to be solid or better. In 2001, Angelo began jumping veterans to begin a rebuilding year, but the players had something to say about that as they went on to win 13. While most would agree we didn't do well enough, how many would have predicted 9 wins for us this year? We were the favorites to go to the SB the year we did? Point is, you just never know how well you are going to do, so I think you need to put the best team on the field you can.

 

(d) For the record, understand. I am not saying Brown should already have been re-signed. I just would rather we kept his name on the list, which may in fact be the case. I think few would question we are not set at S. If we go into next season w/ DM at FS and Payne/Stelz at SS, I think we are screwed. If we can not improve otherwise, I think Brown very much would benefit the team, and at that point, I could care less about Payne or Steltz development. They can work on their game in nickel, dime and other packages.

 

Payne has played in 16 games I can't help but wonder why so many are throwing this kid under the bus. We just never give players time to develop. Speaking of developing players. Keeping a roster spot for Mike Brown once again means yes we'll have a nice backup SS who can play 3 or 4 games for us but it won't allow us to develop another guy behind Payne if as you predict he never improves. We'll be in the same spot next year.

 

If I felt our D was at an elite level and Superbowl was a realistic goal I say stick with Brown. But this D is on the decline and if we stick with veterans like Brown who year after year are slower and play less games due to injury we'll never get out of the hole.

[Connorbear]

Payne played rb his first two yrs of college and then was converted to safety. I thought he actually looked good playing SS at the beginning of the yr. I have no issues with him as our starting SS next yr. FS is the issue - I pray it is not Manning.

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

I would be far more comfortable w/ Payne (or Steltz) as our SS next year if we had a better FS. The idea of both safety positions being a question mark is what scares the hell out of me.

 

Payne played rb his first two yrs of college and then was converted to safety. I thought he actually looked good playing SS at the beginning of the yr. I have no issues with him as our starting SS next yr. FS is the issue - I pray it is not Manning.

 

Peace