Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;809010]All those guys you pictured were busts, no doubt about it. But, those teams didn't plan on loosing out to get on of those guys.
[/quote]

That's because NO ONE does that. They're professionals. Even the Bengals TRY to win. The Lions TRIED to win games in the season prior to getting Stafford. Anyone who thinks teams actually intentionally tank seasons for draft picks is living in la-la land.

There MAY be a rare case where teams will bench some starters at the end of the season for playoff positioning or simply not caring if they win because a spot is locked up and health of stars takes precedence, but in pro sports, I do not believe any team loses on purpose. The 1919 White Sox tried that and it did not end well.

However, these QBs I posted were targeted with high picks and teams invested and lost their futures by investing too much in a QB.

Notice there are a few Redskins QBs on there. Lets not make that mistake again. Our last two Super Bowl teams had some things in common...a SOLID O-line, WR corps, running game and a previously unproven, almost mediocre QB. With support around him, a QB can outplay his talent level. Mortgaging a team's future for 5+ years on a risky QB draft pick is not the road to success. It does work out occasionally, but there is not an Aaron Rodgers or Peyton Manning in every draft. There are however, many more of the guys I posted above in every draft. It's better to take lower-risk guys to make a QB better than taking a high-risk QB (even if it looks like the sure thing *cough Ryan Leaf*) and forcing him to carry more of the burden on his own because his supporting cast is less talented.

So even if we had the #1 pick in 2012, I'm not sure I'd want Andrew Luck to be taken. A left tackle would be a smarter choice, then move Trent Williams over to fill the RT hole.

It's worked well for the Jets. They've dug themselves out from decades of losing to become contenders with mainly 1st-round offensive line picks. A solid O-line will open up the running game, passing game...and success. The Hogs were proof of that. The Jets' current line is the modern version of the Hogs.



[quote=CultBrennan59;809035]type-o

lose[/quote]

In 2 separate posts? :cheeky-sm

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Monkeydad;809032][B]Loose out?[/B][/quote]

type-o

lose

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Monkeydad;809033]That's because NO ONE does that. They're professionals. Even the Bengals TRY to win. The Lions TRIED to win games in the season prior to getting Stafford. Anyone who thinks teams actually intentionally tank seasons for draft picks is living in la-la land.

There MAY be a rare case where teams will bench some starters at the end of the season for playoff positioning or simply not caring if they win because a spot is locked up and health of stars takes precedence, but in pro sports, I do not believe any team loses on purpose. The 1919 White Sox tried that and it did not end well.

However, these QBs I posted were targeted with high picks and teams invested and lost their futures by investing too much in a QB.[/quote]

You think you know, but you don't know. Teams won't go out and say they want to lose or tell there players that. And if they did they'd be fined and docked draft picks by Goodell. As a matter of fact, lets pay attention to the Dolphins Bills game later this and see what their records are, if they both have the same losing records, that could be the first game we see were both teams are like "No, you win"

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;809036]You think you know, but you don't know. [/quote]

We'll just have to believe what we want to and drop the subject then. I just do not buy that a pro team would tank on purpose. These guys are professionals with HUGE egos, even on a bad team, they want to win. You think the Lions players are happy that they're forever be known as the losers who went 0-16?

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

Luck is a very good college Qb. But all I keep hearing is the current crop of college Qb's is one of the best and deepest in a long time. Luck is not the only current QB in college ball that will do well in the NFL. We do not have to tank a season or trade away value to get one of these guys. Also, don't be lazy and identify the current 'most popular' college QB and get your panties in a bunch to get him. That mentality and desperation is how bad FO moves are made (see Atlanta 2010 draft trade and New Orleans trade to get Ricky Williams).
Don't be shocked if A. Luck ends up NOT being the best NFL QB in his draft class. Stranger things have happened (see Tom Brady).

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Monkeydad;809039]We'll just have to believe what we want to and drop the subject then. I just do not buy that a pro team would tank on purpose. These guys are professionals with HUGE egos, even on a bad team, they want to win. You think the Lions players are happy that they're forever be known as the losers who went 0-16?[/quote]

No but they got a good QB, who's beaten us trying skins twice now

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

...Does no one pay attention to why most of the quarterbacks who have been successful over the past three years have been successful?

Really. I'm asking honestly.

What did the Jets, Falcons, Ravens, Rams have in common? Solid offensive lines, a strong running game and running back, and average to above average defenses that could save their quarterback's asses when they struggled. With the Bucs, Josh Freeman sat on the bench for a year while they got him that things. With Matthew Stafford they've surrounded him with top end talent on both sides of the ball, even though he's been injured.

You DON'T draft a quarterback until you're sure you can put him on the field and he can have success. Period. And if you ARE going to draft a quarterback to a bad football team then you had better hope and pray that he's above average because if he's not, you end up with a shellshocked quarterback for four or five years that's not worth crap.

I can't Andrew Luck. I really do. I will cry next season if we do get him. Because there is no way the kid can possibly live up to the impossible expectations fans and media have put on him, especially if we don't have the pieces around him to succeed.

But beyond that, if you think the Redskins are going to tank to get him, you're wrong. If you think The Redskins are going to go into the season with the same offensive line they had and pick up no one to at least improve them team, you're wrong. If you think Mike Shanahan is going to play anyone but the best quarterback on his roster, you're wrong. If you think the only way to get better is to lose, you're wrong.

You're wrong. That's the bottom line. And if you want to root for a team to lose, kindly know your role, shut your mouth, and pick another team to cheer for. Because the Redskins have enough pessimistic arm chair head coach/GM/QB's that piss and moan about things needing to get better while continually make the sort of assertions and suggestions that even a nub like Vinny Cerrato would go "wait a minute, really dude, you want to make that move?". Thank God most fans aren't general managers.

I want winners. I want people who want to win. I want fellow fans who want to win, and can quit friggin' crying when we win while also not dooming the whole team to losing as some sorta way to protect themselves from when they do lose.

I'm sick of hearing about the o-line. I'm sick of hearing about John Beck and the defense and how there's no way we can possibly improve. Eff that noise. Mike's going to do what he feels gives him the best chance to WIN. He WLL improve the offensive line, he won't put John Beck on the field unless he's sure he can win and the defense WILL be improved.

Christ...can we go back to talk about free agency now?

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

^ All those teams you mentioned haven't won super bowls to date, the Steelers, Packers, Patriots and Colts are all teams that have proven that you can have a Great or Awful OL, But an Amazing QB, that it doesn't matter. Also those teams have solid defenses, something we're going to eventually have again. We can win with the OLine we have if we have a smart QB who knows how/when to get rid of the ball.

The whole you feel bad for Luck thing because of the pressure he's facing, I wouldn't worry about. He knows what to say when the media faces him, just like manning. Lucks got something called balls.

Now if you want to improve our team in FA, specifically OLine, then go after Ryan Harris of the Broncos or Davin Joseph of the Bucs.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

The Steelers are the only team on that list that really have a "bad" offensive line in terms of pass protection, and they get away away with it because Ben is impossible to tackle. I don't care who the hell you are, for most quarterback's, you don't have at least a decent offensive line, then everything you do is going to be a lot harder, and if you don't know that then you're not paying attention.

The Jets and Falcons have both been to the playoffs. Last year the Bucs and Rams were knocking on the door. The Lions have said themselves up to make a run next year. There's a blueprint on how to do these things just based on the success of those teams.

Luck has balls...the guy has never stepped on an NFL field and already people want to crowned him the friggin' annointed one. He can't match the hype. Period.

And how can you say in one sentence "we can win now if we have a quarterback that knows how to get rid of the ball quickly" when the entire basis of your argument has been that if we start John Beck or Rex Grossman, both of whom get the ball out of their hands faster than McNabb did (which, coincidentally, made the offensive line look better than it was), there is no way we can win and will end up in a position to draft Luck? Because it's going to take either the 1st or 2nd pick in the draft to get him. If we're not in the top five to get him, we have no chance. Hell, if we're not in the top three there's no chance.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

^You cannot sit here and tell me that the Colts OLine is good without manning.
Luck is more mature than half the players in the NFL. He's not a guy that's going to be in nightclubs or knocking up girls left and right. Beck hasn't played in years, so how can you say he gets the ball out quicker than McNabb. Theres a reason McNabbs been starting longer than both of them combined. Worst case, Luck is Matt Schaub, best case he's better than Manning. I think you're the one talking out of more than two holes.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

Thank you NLC1054, as a rookie redskins fan I need hope.
Plus, I really have the feeling the QB position in general is overrated.
I played and watched rugby for years, you could say number 9 and 10 are the quaterbacks of rugby. I know rugby and football are very different sports, no need to compare them. I'm aware in football you need perfection at every second while you can afford to drop a pass in a rugby game if your team badly wants to win.
Still my point is the atmosphere in football that make people wait for a QB like a christian waiting for Jesus Christ's comeback is absurd and leads to bold decisions. In rugby games you often see number 9 or 10 being benched at 10 minutes of the end of the game, to give an opportunity to a younger player to play, the starter will rest a bit and no one will make a big deal of it. Or during the week the younger player was the best at practice because the usual starter was tired so the younger will start this week. So the players bust their ass at practice because they want to be on the field and you don't have the situation of a player praying for his teammate to hurt himself so he'd a chance to play...

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

...The guy has never played in the NFL! And better than MANNING!? Really? Really dude? You sure you want to go there? Andrew Luck will be better than Manning, a surefire Hall of Fame quarterback which tons of passing records, MVP's, two Super Bowl appearances and one ring?

...You know what, eff it, I'm not going to sit here and argue with someone who's clearly deluded himself.

Back to free agency. Quarterbacks.

Here's my list of guys who I think have the best chance to come and compete to be a starter or at least backs ups;

Matt Moore
Drew Stanton
Tyler Thigpen
Matt Leinart

Fringy guys who could come in since Mike usually carries 4 quarterbacks into camp...

Nate Davis (if he's in shape)
Troy Smith
Tavaris Jackson
Kellen Clemens (not that I want him, but you know...depth and what not)

Guys who will connected to us even if we show no interest
Vince Young
Jamarcus Russell (Jason LaCanfora says this pretty much every time he mentions the Redskins QB situation)

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;809048]No but they got a good QB, who's beaten us trying skins twice now[/quote]

Irrelevant to the discussion if they "lost on purpose" to get him, which they did not.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=NLC1054;809058]...Does no one pay attention to why most of the quarterbacks who have been successful over the past three years have been successful?

Really. I'm asking honestly.

What did the Jets, Falcons, Ravens, Rams have in common? [B]Solid offensive lines, a strong running game and running back, and average to above average defenses that could save their quarterback's asses when they struggled. [/B]With the Bucs, Josh Freeman sat on the bench for a year while they got him that things. With Matthew Stafford they've surrounded him with top end talent on both sides of the ball, even though he's been injured.

You DON'T draft a quarterback until you're sure you can put him on the field and he can have success. Period. And if you ARE going to draft a quarterback to a bad football team then you had better hope and pray that he's above average because if he's not, you end up with a shellshocked quarterback for four or five years that's not worth crap.

I can't Andrew Luck. I really do. I will cry next season if we do get him. Because there is no way the kid can possibly live up to the impossible expectations fans and media have put on him, especially if we don't have the pieces around him to succeed.

But beyond that, if you think the Redskins are going to tank to get him, you're wrong. If you think The Redskins are going to go into the season with the same offensive line they had and pick up no one to at least improve them team, you're wrong. If you think Mike Shanahan is going to play anyone but the best quarterback on his roster, you're wrong. If you think the only way to get better is to lose, you're wrong.

You're wrong. That's the bottom line. And if you want to root for a team to lose, kindly know your role, shut your mouth, and pick another team to cheer for. Because the Redskins have enough pessimistic arm chair head coach/GM/QB's that piss and moan about things needing to get better while continually make the sort of assertions and suggestions that even a nub like Vinny Cerrato would go "wait a minute, really dude, you want to make that move?". Thank God most fans aren't general managers.

I want winners. I want people who want to win. I want fellow fans who want to win, and can quit friggin' crying when we win while also not dooming the whole team to losing as some sorta way to protect themselves from when they do lose.

I'm sick of hearing about the o-line. I'm sick of hearing about John Beck and the defense and how there's no way we can possibly improve. Eff that noise. Mike's going to do what he feels gives him the best chance to WIN. He WLL improve the offensive line, he won't put John Beck on the field unless he's sure he can win and the defense WILL be improved.

Christ...can we go back to talk about free agency now?[/quote]

Thank you!

/discussion

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;809068]^You cannot sit here and tell me that the Colts OLine is good without manning.
Luck is more mature than half the players in the NFL. He's not a guy that's going to be in nightclubs or knocking up girls left and right. Beck hasn't played in years, so how can you say he gets the ball out quicker than McNabb. Theres a reason McNabbs been starting longer than both of them combined. Worst case, Luck is Matt Schaub, best case he's better than Manning. I think you're the one talking out of more than two holes.[/quote]

Jake Locker was supposed to be like Andrew Luck. He stayed in college an extra season and his draft stock tumbled.

Luck might do the same. He'll be without his coach (Harbaugh) next season. This will be a great test to see what he's really made of.

I don't understand how people put so much value on a QB whose college career is not even complete.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=NLC1054;809071]...The guy has never played in the NFL! And better than MANNING!? Really? Really dude? You sure you want to go there? Andrew Luck will be better than Manning, a surefire Hall of Fame quarterback which tons of passing records, MVP's, two Super Bowl appearances and one ring?

...You know what, eff it, I'm not going to sit here and argue with someone who's clearly deluded himself.

Back to free agency. Quarterbacks.

Here's my list of guys who I think have the best chance to come and compete to be a starter or at least backs ups;

Matt Moore
Drew Stanton
Tyler Thigpen
Matt Leinart

Fringy guys who could come in since Mike usually carries 4 quarterbacks into camp...

Nate Davis (if he's in shape)
Troy Smith
Tavaris Jackson
Kellen Clemens (not that I want him, but you know...depth and what not)

Guys who will connected to us even if we show no interest
Vince Young
Jamarcus Russell (Jason LaCanfora says this pretty much every time he mentions the Redskins QB situation)[/quote]

Can you read? I said he could be better than manning. Meaning years down the road, not as soon as he steps in. And your list sucks. Matt Moore gives you 3-4 wins at best same with Thigpin. You think Leinart has a quick release or something like you seem to think about Beck? Gradkowski's the only mobile enough QB that would be ok in this offense. Your probably one of those Skin fans that actually believe the crap shanahan's feeding the media saying Becks the 'guy'. And you're calling me the idiot...

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

I propose that henceforth all arguments that we tank the season to get Luck should be ignored.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Monkeydad;809074]Jake Locker was supposed to be like Andrew Luck. He stayed in college an extra season and his draft stock tumbled.

Luck might do the same. He'll be without his coach (Harbaugh) next season. This will be a great test to see what he's really made of.

I don't understand how people put so much value on a QB whose college career is not even complete.[/quote]

I wasn't a Locker fan, even when I saw his 'great' junior year. I see your argument. I got a question for you. How much college football do you watch? Do you watch different conferences games like I do, or do you just watch little to no college football? I say this because if you watch a lot of college football you need to watch a lot of pac-10 football, specifically Stanford, like I did. Its a good conference to watch because the Pac-10 produces good NFL caliber players. Point being that Luck his freshman year started and performed great, his sophomore year he improved from his freshman year and was talked about the best player in the draft, I find it hard that next year he'll be worse than this year, he still has his OC, whom is now his head coach. So sure I guess we can see if there will be much of a difference in him this year, but I highly doubt he'll be worse.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Monkeydad;809074]
I don't understand how people put so much value on a QB whose college career is not even complete.[/quote]

Because everyone wants to be able to say "I told you so". It's why people who were perfectly fine with us drafting Jason Campbell in '05 are now complaining about not drafting Aaron Rodgers and that they knew it and "saw it all along".

Oh, I forgot Joe Flacco in that list of quarterbacks.

There's clearly a blueprint that's been working. It's a blueprint even Mike followed with Brian Griese and then with Jay Cutler in Denver, before he got canned.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

We may go after Stephen Bowen of the Cowboys and Stephen Tullouch of the Titans when FA starts according to PFT.com

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Monkeydad;809074]Jake Locker was supposed to be like Andrew Luck. He stayed in college an extra season and his draft stock tumbled.

Luck might do the same. He'll be without his coach (Harbaugh) next season. This will be a great test to see what he's really made of.

I don't understand how people put so much value on a QB whose college career is not even complete.[/quote]

Exactly. He could also blow out a knee or shoulder that could set him back a year or two.
One of the biggest mistakes people make is they see a college player like Luck on tape do incredible things and think it will automatically transfer to the NFL. Yesterday I watched a very informative episode of ESPN's 'College Football Live' and they did a very good segment on the top college QB's. Besides being amazed at the quantity and quality of the top college Qb's, there are many. What really was eye opening was the highlights of these top Qb's and seeing them run over players that will never be good enough to play in the NFL. Especially Luck's highlights against some really undersized and lacking in ability PAC 10 players. The bottom of the PAc 10 is not very talented.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Lotus;809079]I propose that henceforth all arguments that we tank the season to get Luck should be ignored.[/quote]

I second the motion.

Does anything that if we can't resign Santana Moss, then we'll probably end up going after Jacoby Jones? He knows the system, and while he hasn't been consistent, it'd still be good to have someone who's been there before and has some veteran experience. Technically this is around the time when most wide receivers come into their own.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Defensewins;809046]Luck is a very good college Qb. But all I keep hearing is the current crop of college Qb's is one of the best and deepest in a long time. Luck is not the only current QB in college ball that will do well in the NFL. We do not have to tank a season or trade away value to get one of these guys. Also, don't be lazy and identify the current 'most popular' college QB and get your panties in a bunch to get him. That mentality and desperation is how bad FO moves are made (see Atlanta 2010 draft trade and New Orleans trade to get Ricky Williams).
Don't be shocked if A. Luck ends up NOT being the best NFL QB in his draft class. Stranger things have happened (see Tom Brady).[/quote]

They always say that every year. Then half the guys they have pegged in that class go back and suddenly the strongest class becomes the weakest class ever.

Barkley one of the QB's that is a huge bump to the projected classes strength is very loyal to USC. Instead of transferring after the Bush scandal he stayed and helped coach Kiffin recruit guys to the school with 2012 in mind, the year USC becomes bowl eligible again. I seriously doubt he would leave right before they became bowl eligible for the 2012 season.

Landry Jones unless he wins a national championship could also be tempted to stay. He'll most likely lean on Bradford for advice who will probably advise him to stay. Not to mention the rookie wage scale will lessen the appeal to players that may decide to come out early, unless of course they have a family support.

So suddenly a class with 3 top 10 QB's becomes a class with one top 10 QB and a bunch of guys you've probably never heard of before this year (read: the Kaepernicks and the Gabberts). And even if Jones declares he'll be sprayed with the dreaded "S" word. SPREAD QB.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Defensewins;809084]Exactly. He could also blow out a knee or shoulder that could set him back a year or two.
One of the biggest mistakes people make is they see a college player like Luck on tape do incredible things and think it will automatically transfer to the NFL. Yesterday I watched a very informative episode of ESPN's 'College Football Live' and they did a very good segment on the top college QB's. Besides being amazed at the quantity and quality of the top college Qb's, there are many. What really was eye opening was the highlights of these top Qb's and seeing them run over players that will never be good enough to play in the NFL. Especially Luck's highlights against some really undersized and lacking in ability PAC 10 players. The bottom of the PAc 10 is not very talented.[/quote]

Lockers potential was almost always based on his physical gifts and intangibles. Not his production. Keep in mind Luck completed 70% of his passes in a pro style offense. He will probably be one of the 10 best running QB's in the league as well.

The year before fine, the production wasn't all that different from Lockers. However when Gerhart left and Luck was given control of the offense he shined. His numbers are extremely impressive and combined with his physical attributes and intangibles theres little doubt why he's the highest rated player to come along in about 10 years.

You're dreaming if you can envision a scenario where Luck isn't the top pick next year.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

Suggesting we move this Andrew Luck stuff to another thread and let this one be about free agency.

[url=http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/42747-2011-2012-college-football-player-thread.html]Right this way, folks.[/url]

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=NLC1054;809093]Suggesting we move this Andrew Luck stuff to another thread and let this one be about free agency.

[url=http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/42747-2011-2012-college-football-player-thread.html]Right this way, folks.[/url][/quote]

Thank you!

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;809082]We may go after Stephen Bowen of the Cowboys and Stephen Tullouch of the Titans when FA starts according to PFT.com[/quote]

Who and Who? :D

We'd be better off with who we have now, McNabb and Beck.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

Anyways, my prediction for our first move:

Aubrayo Franklin

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Lotus;809079]I propose that henceforth all arguments that we tank the season to get Luck should be ignored.[/quote]

Agreed.


[quote=Monkeydad;809116]Anyways, my prediction for our first move:

Aubrayo Franklin[/quote]

Second move, Nnamdi. LOL.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Monkeydad;809116]Anyways, my prediction for our first move:

Aubrayo Franklin[/quote]

I totally agree. I think Barrett Ruud would be a nice pick up.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

Harvey Dahl
Tyson Clabo
Jermon Bushrod
Marshall Yanda
Charles Johnson

Samason Satele

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=SkinzWin;809164]I totally agree. I think Barrett Ruud would be a nice pick up.[/quote]

He'd be good. With McIntosh out, he'll provide some depth.

Orakpo and Kerrigan on the outside, Fletcher and a Ruud/Blades rotation inside...solid LB crew. Alexander, Riley and Wilson backing up. Rob Jackson if we can keep another LB. Henson likely not in the mix.

With Franklin at NT, our D is going to be solid on the line, at LB and in the secondary. Adding Nnamdi or a LB lie Ruud will give us one of the best defenses in the league...on paper. Hopefully year #2 in the 3-4 will go much smoother execution-wise. It usually does for teams making the transition.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

Signing Ruud would be passing over Riley, Henson, Blades maybe even Alexander (if he moves inside) without every seeing them play extended minutes they might be able to play.

A rebuilding team owes it to itself to find out wether their own developmental players can actually play.

Signing Ruud or any ILB precludes the team from finding about Riley, Henson, Blades and Alexander.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=30gut;809192]Signing Ruud would be passing over Riley, Henson, Blades maybe even Alexander (if he moves inside) without every seeing them play extended minutes they might be able to play.

A rebuilding team owes it to itself to find out wether their own developmental players can actually play.

Signing Ruud or any ILB precludes the team from finding about Riley, Henson, Blades and Alexander.[/quote]

You can never have too many LBs in the 3-4 I think and it is not like Ruud is an old player (28 yrs old). The only thing is that I'd rather bring in a ILB with 3-4 experience.

BTW, if Posluzsny is available, I'd take him in a heartbeat.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

Definitely Puz...but as I said before, the Bills would be absolutely stupid to let him walk. I think he'll stay on the Bills.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=30gut;809192]Signing Ruud would be passing over Riley, Henson, Blades maybe even Alexander (if he moves inside) without every seeing them play extended minutes they might be able to play.

A rebuilding team owes it to itself to find out wether their own developmental players can actually play.

Signing Ruud or any ILB precludes the team from finding about Riley, Henson, Blades and Alexander.[/quote]

I totally disagree. Shanny is known for playing the best player on the team. If Ruud is better, he is going to play. If Henson, Riley, etc are better, then they will play. I don't think you can have too much competition here. It's not like the old days when a veteran gets signed and will play good bad or ugly.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Monkeydad;809196]Definitely Puz...but as I said before, the Bills would be absolutely stupid to let him walk. I think he'll stay on the Bills.[/quote]

Well the Bills are in a bit of disarray right now, so it wouldn't surprise me. He is their best player, but who knows.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Ruhskins;809194]You can never have too many LBs in the 3-4 I think and it is not like Ruud is an old player (28 yrs old). [B]The only thing is that I'd rather bring in a ILB with 3-4 experience.[/B] BTW, if Posluzsny is available, I'd take him in a heartbeat.[/quote]

Kevin Burnett is a nice 3-4 ILB who should be available in FA. He had 95 tackles with SD last season. He is also 28 years old.

I agree with those who like the idea of signing Marshall Yanda. He has proven that he can play both G and T well. He will turn 27 on 9/15/2011.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=SkinzWin;809199]I totally disagree. Shanny is known for playing the best player on the team. If Ruud is better, he is going to play. If Henson, Riley, etc are better, then they will play. I don't think you can have too much competition here. It's not like the old days when a veteran gets signed and will play good bad or ugly.[/quote]If you sign Ruud and it turns out that Henson,Riley are better then what was the point?

I believe you should give your own players a chance to play before you bring someone in ahead of them.

If Riley, Henson, prove they can't handle it then you look for another player at their position.

Re: Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011
 

[quote=Ruhskins;809201]Well the Bills are in a bit of disarray right now, so it wouldn't surprise me. He is their best player, but who knows.[/quote]

They're always in disarray.