Sen. John Blutarsky

Well the point was to get Briggs. I don't see Chicago giving us Briggs, a #1 AND a high #2 in exchange for only the #12 pick. I honestly don't see us dealing Willis anyway - I think we're posturing.

Or they are concerned that LT is rapidly approaching the wall given the obscene number of touches he has had over the past 3 seasons. I posted about this before the year re: Shaun Alexander and LT. I was right with Alexander and wrong with LT. When backs have more than 400 touches over a period of a couple years they tend to flame out in a pretty spectacular way - or at least have SIGNIFICANT declines in production. My examples would be Eddie George, Shaun Alexander, Thurman Thomas (look at his YPC drop way way off), and Rodney Hampton. There are obviously exceptions but San Diego may be wise to hang onto Turner and see what this year portends for Mr. Tomlinson. Plus they have to be thinking Super Bowl as well, why would they deal an nice insurance policy for anything less than a stable of draft picks at this point?

So...given Cedric Benson's "production" and injury history does anyone believe that the Super Bowl runners-up are looking to feature Benson? I dunno. They have to think they are close to a Super Bowl. Given that they are in the NFC they can go back next year. This is a thought. How about Willis and a 2 or 3 to add to the high 2 they got from the Jets for Mr. Briggs? They get Willis in a contract year, they have 2 pretty high #2 picks that they can use or package up with their late #1 to move up.

Another OL guy that can play two positions, works for me. If he beats out Pennington and Butler fine, if he beats out Preston or Reyes fine, if not he's a solid 3rd tackle who has experience lining up at TE in jumbo packages. I'm just not feeling the "spend huge dollars on guards vibe" Minnesota tried that and Hutchinson was pretty disappointing, not nearly as good as his massive cap number. We need bodies with Gandy unrestricted and Villarrial gone. We were looing to upgrade already so at minimum we need to replace the two we already lost, if you want to supplant people that's even more people to sign. We only have so many draft picks. Even if we DO sign someone like Dielman or Stienbach we need a backup for him.

Yeah, that's what I meant Got anything pithy and poignant for point #2 re: a guy like Ngata being around every year or are you going to pass on that?

To use an example that's a little more current. Last season we gave up a #3 pick to move up 15 spots into the end of round one (apart from the #1 pick for #2 pick swap - we're talking extra picks) To move from 8 to 15 would have dropped us back seven spots. It cost us a three to move up 15 spots but somewhere we'd have gotten an extra two AND four (which is a day 2 pick BTW) to drop back 7? At best we'd have gotten an extra mid level three and like a 6, but no way were we going to get a 2 and 4 to drop back 7 spots in the same year it only cost a three to move up 15.

That's not the way I read it. I read it to say that a team CAN amortize the bonus money not that they MUST amortize the bonus money. It's usually in the team's interest to spread out the money as much as possible to avoid having it count against your cap all in one year so this type of strategy may not have been used before. In this case, i haven't seen anything that says a team MUST amortize, only that they can, up to a max of 6 years. In addition, neither of us have the contrcat language in front of us, we don't know if it's a "Signing bonus" per se or a "roster bonus" or some ridiculous likely to be earned incentive. Even if all "bonus" money HAS to be spread out (even though I don't think it does) there's nothing stopping a team from putting an incentive in the deal that says, you'll earn 8 million dollars for making 1 tackle this year. That would be a "Likely to earn incentive" which does count against the cap but only in the year in which it occurs.

Whether you like it or not there are two facts re: Ngata. First, he doesn't fit the defense we play - love it or hate it that's fact. Second, there's a Haloti Ngata (6'4" 337 lbs) every year, this year his name is Alan Branch (6'6" 330lbs). Will you be pissed if we have a shot at both and take Okoye who is 6' 2" and around 300 lbs because he fits our defense better? If you wouldn't be pissed with that why not? What's the difference between passing on Ngata for a player who fits our plan better in Whitner and passing on someone who is similar to Ngata because the other guy (Okoye) fits our plan better?

#1. Kelsay didn't get "huge" money. He got what's about right for the market given the inflation of NFL salaries and the cap. The fact that he got most of it up front makes it look skewed. #2. We played with two rookie safeties basically all season and yet were not repeatedly torched for long touchdown passes or 70 yard TD runs. That doesn't happen. Nobody plays two rookies back there. Thus - I conclude that if both Simpson and Whitner don't improve even a little bit ever again we will at least have gotten two good starting safeties. It's more likely that they will, in fact, be better this season since most players improve (at least a little)with league experience. #3. Just because Mel Kiper and John Clayton say someone will be available at spot #15 doesn't mean they will be. According to them McCargo should have been available for the Giants - he wasn't and they got stuck with a guy they didn't really want out of need. Just because we move down to #15 and collect another second day pick (who's success rate is minute to begin with) doesn't preclude anothe team from choosing him or moving up in front of us to select that player once he becomes a "value" pick at #14. This whole slotting thing is asinine.

There have usually been a flurry of signings by now (about 12 hours into FA) and there hasn't been much yet. I wonder if everyone is feeling the situation out to see what the market actually is. I think that there will be a few guys who hit big dollars (Clements - obviously) but there will be a number of low to mid range guys that don't see the money they are expecting. It has been well publicized that there's a huge amount of free money this year but there aren't many top talents to spend it on. i don't think teams will spend money just for the sake of spending it. We might see more people do the "cash to cap" thing because it preserves cap space for the following year. For example, Kelsay's cap number will be huge this year(like 8 or 9 million) but next year it drops back to his 1 million in base salary so we can go spend difference again next year as opposed to amortizing the bonus over the length of the deal which eats into cap space each season. There's no reason NOT to do the cash to cap if you truly aren't excited about the FAs who are out there. Why spread out the cap hit for a guy you aren't thrilled about? Eat it this year when you've got the space, if you part ways next year no big deal - you aren't eating the cap hit for aguy not on your team anymore. It opens up more trade options as well. If, after this year, Denney really goes nuts and asserts himself as the starter they can either have Kelsay continue to back up with a 1 million cap number or deal him to another team without having to accelarate his bonus amortization and get crushed in the cap just to get rid of him I really like this plan, it's the reverse of typical NFL accounting. Take the hit today and have cash tomorrow. If we keep doing this we should have a good amount of cap space every year (in ADDITION to any cap increases) to be able to keep the people we want and chase after other FAs as opposed to what we had before where we had to hope for big cap increases and make cuts just to get by from year to year.

Which is why I said either Crowell or Spikes. I think Crowell is more likely but Spikes is possible. Doesn't change the situation either way. Also, "Stud" Patrick Willis got straight up owned at the Senior Bowl so I'm not willing to refer to him in the same volume of literature as Brian Urlacher. Repeatedly walled off and knocked backwards, didn't make one impact defensive play the entire game. Admittedly he didn't play every down but if he were that obvious a "stud" at LB you'd expect him to come up with at least one play against other future rookies. I saw him doing what Fletcher does now, making tackles downfield, getting driven backward by RBs but running side to side well. I was underwhelmed at best.

Villarrial was fine his first year or two but he broke down physically (which is a big arguement against going long term with Fletcher), Gandy was miscast as a LT and he played much better at LG and I wouldn't be shocked to see him back there. Reyes I have no explanation for other than he was a RG who we asked to play LG and those positions are NOT interchangeable. I'd like to see Steinbach or Dielman in here if the price is right but I wouldn't break the bank for either of them. Same with Petitgout, nice player, not great, would have to switch sides.

Our new MLB is already on the team. Either Crowell or Spikes are moving inside and Ellison, or HIS replacement are staying outside. Cover 2 OLBs are generally cheaper and fall later in the draft than standard 4-3 or 3-4 LBs because they are small. Fast, but small. I think a problem with everyone who looks at our defense as being "gutted" is missing the point a bit. Yes there is enough cap space to re-sign guys but why spend 16 million on Clements and Fletcher if you already have Fletcher's replacement and Clements doesn't really fit what we do? BTW: "lockdown" corners are really overrated. Name one lockdown corner from this year's Super Bowl. How about last year's? Hell, the Bills went to Super Bowls with Kirby Jackson and JD Williams at corner. Now, you can't have a traffic cone out there but if you can get after the QB with a good D-line (which also BTW stops the run) you can get away with lesser CBs. Did Charles Woodson make Oakland's defense 10 million better? His skills are (or were before he got hurt) similar to Clements'.

Like I said, he had a good game in SB 27. The others, not so much.

Reed's helmet throwing hissy fit in SB 26 didn't help either so I'm not sure where you are coming from. Reed had a good game in SB 27 but we were down big for most of that game and were throwing alot. Kelly was good in 25, got hammered into the ground repeatedly in 26, was awful and then hurt in 27 and medicore in 28. Thomas was good in 25 and then totally invisible for the rest of them. All three of them contributed to at least one of the SB losses in a pretty significant way but I think that 25 is the only one you can point to and say these 2 or 3 plays killed us and Reed made (or didn't make) those plays. Maybe 28 but even that is debateable because the whole team folded up in the second half.

6' 3" 265lbs. Tight End or Rush 'backer in a 3-4

Right, but he's the guy who proclaims himself as all knowing. He's the guy who ridicules the picks of others and uses his "big board" as evidence of their apparent stupidity. Listen to him in April. He'll say something about "a guy I've had rated highly on my board" about 400 times. His definition of rated is written down. If he's mentioned his name in the past 9 months then he was rated and it doesn't matter if his first opinion put him at #5, if Mel's last report of brilliance rated at #30 you were a fool for selecting him at #5. I'd love ESPN to put together a montage of selections that Mel loved who bombed and vice versa. I know he loved Marcellus Wiley and Jamie Nails. How'd that work out?

There have now been approximately 35,407 players at the #12 spot on kiper's board. That way he can produce a printed work in April saying that a player fell exactly where he slotted them months earlier, despite the fact that he's also rated roughly every other player on this side of Uzbekistan somewhere nearby on his borard at some point.

It is true that Spikes hasn't played MLB, but he WAS an ILB in a 3-4 scheme while with Cincinnati. I think it's pretty likely that either Spikes or Crowell move inside this season. Crowell has played inside in the past as well. That would let them keep Spike Crowell and Ellison on the field together. I'm not discounting the possibility that we draft a LB either, that definetly possible.

I'd make that deal in a hot second and then start talking to Danny Snyder about a Nate for Portis swap.

That's the mind set we have to avoid. There's nothing wrong with saving a little cap space from year to year. If we don't spend it all in the off season we can extend Evans or Losman or McGahee during the year and absorb the hit this season and preserve more of our cap space for next season. Don't spend money just because you can, it has to mean something. Steinbach has played the left side, we really need someone who's played the right side more. Yes, it is different.

Because we've been getting good ones who want to be paid like great ones after 4 years and other teams overpay for them. I'd tag and trade Nate. We have the cap space to play chicken this year. A past deterrent to tag and trade was the players actually signing the tender, we didn't have the space to accomodate that easily. If he signs it this year thats fine, we get another year out of him w/o having to pay the huge signing bonus and we still have the flexibility to deal with him the following year. If not we move him for a player or a pick either this year or next. There's nothing wrong with stockpiling an extra #1 next year either. Just a thought, the Redskins just gave Ladell Betts a big extension...maybe they'd part with Portis ina deal for Clements. Kind of the Champ Bailey deal in reverse.

I'm not suggesting Whitfield himself, only a similar type of player. An older, lower priced veteran who can step in and play a little if needed. Someone who won't command big dollars because they probably can't start a whole season but could come in for 3-6 weeks and not get us killed. Whitfield was just my example of how other teams have used players like that.

We won't be spending big dollars at LB, we have our three starters on the roster right now. Ellison earned a look at OLB and he fits the system perfectly. Crowell is going to play and so is TKO. The question is where. Does Crowell go back inside or does TKO? We'll see how that plays out but we aren't switching to a 3-4 so we don't need another big money LB, especially at OLB (we DEFINETLY have 3 of those already). Adalius Thomas is a terrible fit for us, he needs to go to Pittsburgh and be the next Joey Porter/Kevin Greene/Greg Lloyd. If we find a bigger, quick MLB we might go after that but I really see one of our existing players shifting inside and then drafting an LB on day 1. Any FAs we get will be relatively unknown and inexpensive. As for OL, I'm comfortable with our tackles, I'd like veteran depth there. Bob Whitfield really bailed the Giants out when Petigout got hurt and players like him are relatively inexpensive insurance. I am EXTREMELY leery of spending big money on a FA guard. Guards are very system dependent, probably as system dependent as LBs. We need to find a guard who can do what we ask our guards to do from a team that has similar blocking calls. just because a guy is a beast for one team doesn't mean that translates well. Do we want a zone blocker or a man blocker, a pulling guard or a big guy, a run blocker or pass blocker? All important considerations. Quite frankly I don't think Eric Steinbach is the messiah we all want him to be, Palmer got a lot of pressure up the middle this year and their runnign game was pretty inconsistent. he's a nice player, no doubt, but I don't think that's the place to spend 5 million. Gandy is fine at LG, we had few problems on that side once he was there and he and Peters seemed to work well off one another. RG was a bigger issue. I'm not sold on Preston as a guard at all and I'd like to have a veteran next to Pennington. If there's a top guard available on day one of the draft I say we go there. Leonard Davis isn't the answer to any question I have. He's huge but he's soft, he's doesn't abuse anyone and get get pushed around, that's not much different than what we have now. If he was any good at all why would AZ who has NO line to speak of let him walk? I'd like a #2 WR, someone tall who has great hands. If they could clone Ed McCaffrey I'd want him. Drew Bennett is close but I think he's more expensive than we're willing to go for a #2. The draft isn't likely to get us any immediate help, very very few rookie WRs do much of anything. We actually have quite alot of competition at WR right now. Price, Reed and Parrish are all competing for time so any new faces will have to fight with them, and likely bring some ST to the table to supplant either Andre Davis or Sam Aiken. Charles Rogers won't happen, Mike Williams isn't likely. Is DJ Hackett available?

On the plus side, the Jets game is last, not until Monday night. By then you'll know what you want to have happen because the Denver Cincinatti game will already be over. If Denver wins go Miami, if Cincy wins go Miami anyway but it isn't as big a deal. There are outs either way, there are more if Denver and Miami win though.