Upcoming Free Agents

[DrunkBomber]

I was searching for the list of upcoming free agents and figured I would post some of the interesting ones I found:

 

QBs: Garcia, Cassell, Orton, Grossman, Losman, Warner

 

RBs: Jacobs, Arrington, Buckhalter, Sproles, R. Williams

 

WRs: Evans (not sure is he still is), Houshmazoo, Engram, Gaffney, Henderson, Toomer

 

OL: Birk, Columbo, Goff, Gross, Tauscher, Kendall, McKiney, Tra Thomas

 

DL: Peppers (again, not sure), Haynesworth, Suggs, Tank

 

LBs: Barton, Dansby, Ray Lewis, Mike Peterson, Bartt Scott, Vilma, Farrior

 

DBs: Asomugha, Mike Brown, Dawkins, Gamble, Dawan Landry, Dunta Robinson, Sharper

 

Link

[Connorbear]

I was searching for the list of upcoming free agents and figured I would post some of the interesting ones I found:

 

QBs: Garcia, Cassell, Orton, Grossman, Losman, Warner

 

RBs: Jacobs, Arrington, Buckhalter, Sproles, R. Williams

 

WRs: Evans (not sure is he still is), Houshmazoo, Engram, Gaffney, Henderson, Toomer

 

OL: Birk, Columbo, Goff, Gross, Tauscher, Kendall, McKiney, Tra Thomas

 

DL: Peppers (again, not sure), Haynesworth, Suggs, Tank

 

LBs: Barton, Dansby, Ray Lewis, Mike Peterson, Bartt Scott, Vilma, Farrior

 

DBs: Asomugha, Mike Brown, Dawkins, Gamble, Dawan Landry, Dunta Robinson, Sharper

 

Link

Kyle signed a 1 yr extension in January of last yr. He is a FA after next yr.

 

TJ Housh would be my #1 priority. Then draft the best DE.

 

Peace

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Lee Evans got a 4 year, $40 million extension in week 6 or so. Peppers still is, however.

 

My dream would be to go after Asomugha, move Tillman to safety, sign Housh, then draft the best DE, but that would be like $20 million between Housh and Asomugha, so that won't happen.

 

In the end, I think we'll go after Housh, Seth McKinney (29 year old OG for Cleveland who will be a UFA and will be cheaper [hopefully]), then draft a DE (Everette Brown [FSU], Greg Hardy [Ole Miss], Tyson Jackson [LSU]) in the 1st and then a S (Myron Rolle [FSU], Patrick Chung [Oregon], Emanuel Cook [south Carolina]) in the 2nd.

 

In the end:

Sign Housh- 5 years, $52 million

Draft-

Trade 1st to Philly so they can move up for 2nd and 3rd.

2. Herman Johnson, OG, LSU

2. Robert Ayers, DE, Tennessee

3. Larry Beckwith, LB, LSU

3. Chris Clemons, S, Clemson

3 (C4B). Fili Moala, DE/DT, USC

4. Andrew Gardner, OT, Georgia Tech

5. Mohammad Massaquoi, WR, Georgia

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Would anyone else consider makinga run at Peppers? I'd like him if you could get him to play at his potential but the Bears have so much money tied up on the defensive side of the football that I doubt it makes sense. I expect the Bears to take an end in the first round.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Then again, if we do end up dropping greatly, like to 6 or 7 wins, that could get us the 10th-12th pick, which may be good enough for Taylor Mays, the FS from USC. He is a big hitter who runs a 4.35 40 at 6'3 and 230. While he doesn't make tons of plays, he has a knack for the BIG (and as a USC fan, I have the pleasure of watching him every week) hit which jaws tons of balls loose, and he is the best cover safety in the nation.

 

With the way JA tens to go BPA, if Mays was on the board for us, I could definitley see him falling in love with Taylor, and I would LOVE the pick.

[DrunkBomber]

Would anyone else consider makinga run at Peppers? I'd like him if you could get him to play at his potential but the Bears have so much money tied up on the defensive side of the football that I doubt it makes sense. I expect the Bears to take an end in the first round.

If he hasnt or doesnt resign he is exactly who they should gun for. We know it wont happen, but a guy can dream.

[nfoligno]

I don't see any chance for the following reasons:

 

One. Peppers is a premier player at a premier position. His play was down for one year, but back up w/ 9 sacks so far, and will most likely add a few more to that total over the next 6 games. He is going to hit a major jackpot, and I just don't see it, particularly w/ the amount we have already tied up on the DL.

 

Two. Does he fit our system. Sure, it is easy to say, "Who cares", but so long as Lovie is in charge, I think we have to assume players we add are ones who fit the scheme. Peppers is a 285lb DE who is very strong against the run, and great v the pass. I believe both Wale and Brown weigh in at 260lbs. Just doesn't seem like Peppers fits the classic cover 2 mold.

 

Three. Combining both points, I think it would take a great amount to bring him here. Our D is looking awful, and our scheme is unlikely to entice him to come here. So it isn't like we are going to get a discount, and likely would not be able to add him unless we offered significantly more than other teams who (a) may offer a better fit and/or ( look closer to a SB run.

 

Four. He will be 29 before the end of the season. While that is not old, you have to assume it is going to be a long term contract he signs. What sort of player will he be in 3, 4 or 5 years?

 

I think we have money to spend on offense, as we have far less tied up there, but I just can not see our spending massive on defense when we already have so much tied up on that side of the field.

 

If he hasnt or doesnt resign he is exactly who they should gun for. We know it wont happen, but a guy can dream.

[balta1701-A]

Is 2010 still looking to be uncapped?

[madlithuanian]

Yeah...but it's really too early to make any assumptions. There will be lots of legal battles I'm sure...

 

Is 2010 still looking to be uncapped?

[jason]

For what it's worth...my dream

 

Before Draft

1) Sign two Offensive Linemen in FA

1a) Sign Warner to a two or three year deal

1b) Move Orton to the bench

2) Fire Babich

 

Draft

3) Draft an OT in the first (Michael Oher, Andre Smith, Eugene Monroe, - in that order)

4) If Duke Robinson is there near the end of the first, trade back into the first and get him.

5) Fill other positions as needed (in the following order)

5a) DB

5b) DE

5c) QB (One every single year for development purposes)

5d) S

5e) WR

[BearSox]

So sign to OLinemen and then draft two with our first two picks in the draft? Also, sign a 40 year old QB coming off of what is very possibly a MVP season in an offense that Grossman could put up good numbers in... Yeah, that makes sense. It's not like we only have one major need and an unlimited amount of cap space.

[jason]

So sign to OLinemen and then draft two with our first two picks in the draft? Also, sign a 40 year old QB coming off of what is very possibly a MVP season in an offense that Grossman could put up good numbers in... Yeah, that makes sense. It's not like we only have one major need and an unlimited amount of cap space.

 

Well, it makes sense when you really think about it.

 

Warner is immobile and needs protection.

This OL now would put him in the infirmary.

This OL now is not good.

This passing game now is not good.

This running game now is not good.

 

The OL is where all of the problems reside, or at least where attention needs to be focused on offense. Until the Bears can protect the QB, the WRs and TEs cannot be properly evaluated because the pass plays don't get time to develop, and the offensive playbook doesn't get expanded. Also, the run blocking has been atrocious.

 

I know it's not realistic, I'm just sick of never having an offense that scares the other team. I'd love to have an offense that could bust for 30-35 at any time. With that line, Orton and the skill players the Bears currently have would be studly. Hell, I'd say that with that OL, Warner would easily go for 4000 yards and 30 TDs, easily. And Forte would approach 1500 yards, if not surpass it.

 

The window on this defense appears to have closed; it's time for another approach. And since Lovie isn't going anywhere, the Bears need to be able to score a lot of points to make up for his garbage ass offense.

[nfoligno]

Few comments.

 

You and I disagree often enough, but one area we have always agreed on is the OL. Few around here would be on board w/ the idea of signing two OL and drafting another in the 1st. I however would be thrilled. I will simply never understand the lack of importance we put on the OL during the offseason. Sure, we spent a 1st on OL this year, but ignored OL otherwise in FA and the draft, and we had more than one OL hole.

 

If you take a step back and look at our OL, how many would be viewed as long term? About the only player currently on the OL I think I would put into that category is Williams, and he is totally unproven to date. St. Clair is a bandaid, and little more, not to mention the fact that he is a FA after this season. Beekman has done an okay job, but is not good enough, IMHO. He could become our center, but again, that is a total unknown. Kreutz has been sliding for years. While I like his leadership, I am not sure I would consider him long term. Garza, IMHO, is simply not very good and has avoided greater levels of criticism only due to the total inept play of other OL. Tait has been on the decline, and I have seen little to make me think that direction will change.

 

I would love to add a veteran OL to line up next to Williams, who will be basically a rookie next year. I would love to add another OL in FA to compete w/ either Tait or Garza. As for the draft, I would love to add another OL early. Whether OG or OT would depend on what that 2nd FA position was, but I would lean toward an OG in the draft, and OT in FA. RTs are easier and cheaper to add in FA, and looking at where we are likely to pick, you can usually grab one of the top OGs, where as you would more likely be looking at the 4th, 5th or whatever OT.

 

I do not agree on Warner though. Warner looks incredible in AZ, but a large part of that is due to the weapons he has. Even w/ a solid OL, I am not sure he would look nearly so good w/ Hester/Davis/Booker/etc as his primary targets. Further, Warner has never been a QB to utilize the TE, which currently is our only legit weapon on offense.

 

I am not saying I would not consider adding a QB, but right now, I think OL and WR are priority over QB. You and I agree on the OL, but disagree on our WRs. I think our WRs are pretty bad. I know you disagree, but when I look at our WRs, I don't see a legit starter in the group, at least not for a team w/ decent options.

 

The other area we disagree on is defense. I disagree the window has closed. I am still of the opinion that our defensive woes have more to do w/ coaching/scheme than to talent. If it was just Urlacher, or just Vasher who showed a decline, fine. But every freaking one of our players, or close enough, have shown a decline. I simply find it too difficult to believe they all got old, slow or just plain bad, all at once. I think it far more logical to believe our talent is not the issue so much as the man running the talent.

 

Well, it makes sense when you really think about it.

 

Warner is immobile and needs protection.

This OL now would put him in the infirmary.

This OL now is not good.

This passing game now is not good.

This running game now is not good.

 

The OL is where all of the problems reside, or at least where attention needs to be focused on offense. Until the Bears can protect the QB, the WRs and TEs cannot be properly evaluated because the pass plays don't get time to develop, and the offensive playbook doesn't get expanded. Also, the run blocking has been atrocious.

 

I know it's not realistic, I'm just sick of never having an offense that scares the other team. I'd love to have an offense that could bust for 30-35 at any time. With that line, Orton and the skill players the Bears currently have would be studly. Hell, I'd say that with that OL, Warner would easily go for 4000 yards and 30 TDs, easily. And Forte would approach 1500 yards, if not surpass it.

 

The window on this defense appears to have closed; it's time for another approach. And since Lovie isn't going anywhere, the Bears need to be able to score a lot of points to make up for his garbage ass offense.

[BearSox]

While it would be great if we could invest so much into the OLine, we must remember we have other needs and only so much cap space.

 

Here's a realistic solution:

 

Metcalf gone, Tait cut, and Garza possibly kept as a backup at RG/C.

 

LT - Williams (we gotta just pray this works out)

LG - Beekman (he isn't the greatest, but he's good enough for a stopgap. Buenning could also compete for this job)

C - Kreutz (Yeah, he's declining but he's still the leader of the OLine and he's still decent)

RG - FA/Draftee (Either Goff or Duke here. Preferably Duke as he has a ton more upside and isn't on the wrong side of 30)

RT - St. Clair (We'd need to re-sigh him, but if he can play RT as good as he's been playing LT, we'd be in good shape. We could/should also draft a possible replacement in the mid-rounds)

 

This is a weak year for FA linemen, but the one FA lineman I would love to get though is Jahri Evans from New Orleans. He's a RFA though and it would depend on what type of tender the Saints give him. If it's only a 3rd round tender, the Bears should be all over him.

[nfoligno]

Do we have other needs. Of course. But I would argue the following:

 

One. We have, potentially, our franchise QB and RB in place. It simply does not make sense to have such pieces w/o protecting them.

 

Two. I would argue, as I have in the past, that building up your OL has a greater domino effect than upgrading most other positions. If you have a solid/stud OL, your QB, RB, and receivers all look significantly better. Further, you can begin to own the clock, and thus make your defense better.

 

Three. While the price of OL has gone up over the years, I would argue the price for OL (outside of LT) is still not as sick as w/ many other skill positions. I have heard talk of Boldin or Hous, for example. Sounds great, but I bet I can buy two upper tier OL for the same price, and I would further argue the two OL would provide a greater benefit.

 

No offense, but I hate your 2009 OL. I look at that OL, and the one thing that really jumps out to me is how bad life would be for Forte. Williams was considered a better pass protector than run blocker. Beekman has done little to open holes in the run game. Kreutz has lost too much. And St. Clair? I just don't view him as a very good run blocker either. This OL may not get Orton killed, though I would not call it a good pass protecting OL either, but I think the run game would suffer too much.

 

IMHO, we need to be looking at replacing BOTH OGs. At RT, I would like to see us either add a young FA to compete w/ Tait, or draft a RT to take over in 2010. Tait may be declining, but we can probably get by for another year if we upgrade the RG position. I just feel our interior is bad. They do little to open holes, and struggle against the blitz. Beekman was drafted to eventually take over for Kreutz, and I think we need to look at him that way. He is good depth, but should not be starting. Ditto for Garza and the rest. I simply do not feel we have a starting grade OG on the roster, and that must change.

 

OL is not considered the sexy pick, but if we build up our OL, I truly believe other players could look far better.

 

While it would be great if we could invest so much into the OLine, we must remember we have other needs and only so much cap space.

 

Here's a realistic solution:

 

Metcalf gone, Tait cut, and Garza possibly kept as a backup at RG/C.

 

LT - Williams (we gotta just pray this works out)

LG - Beekman (he isn't the greatest, but he's good enough for a stopgap. Buenning could also compete for this job)

C - Kreutz (Yeah, he's declining but he's still the leader of the OLine and he's still decent)

RG - FA/Draftee (Either Goff or Duke here. Preferably Duke as he has a ton more upside and isn't on the wrong side of 30)

RT - St. Clair (We'd need to re-sigh him, but if he can play RT as good as he's been playing LT, we'd be in good shape. We could/should also draft a possible replacement in the mid-rounds)

 

This is a weak year for FA linemen, but the one FA lineman I would love to get though is Jahri Evans from New Orleans. He's a RFA though and it would depend on what type of tender the Saints give him. If it's only a 3rd round tender, the Bears should be all over him.

[madlithuanian]

I'm basically sold on your (and I think it was jason's too) idea of OL. I think all else being equal, I'm all for it.

 

The exception occurs if an incredible talent is available. If a Stafford/McCoy leave early and drop, a great WR falls, etc...

 

I don't want to pass on exceptional talent over position. The hope is that the exceptional talent is at the OL to take...

[nfoligno]

Not to speak for Jason, but I believe he would agree. Neither of us imply we HAVE to draft OL, no matter what. If you have your board, and the next OL player is 20 deep, while you are also looking at a DE who you had graded about 10 slots higher (extreme examples), then obviously you don't reach for the OT.

 

My philosophy is not need or BPA, at least not strictly. I go into the draft w/ my overall board. I also go into the draft w/ a list of needs tiered. So lets say I enter the draft with OL, DE and S (just an example) as my tier 1 needs, w/ OL graded highest. When it comes time to draft, the top player on my board is a RB, not even on my list. The next player is a CB, which is on my list, but a lower need tier. Then there is an OT. I grab him, passing over some potentially better players, but going w/ the top need at a close talent grade.

 

The bigger question comes when you have, for example, a DE who you graded high and fell to you, as well as an OT graded w/in the top couple best players available. I would still go OT, though that is not even absolute.

 

But the main point is, I think that so long as you have a broad enough list of needs, you can take the best player available who fills a need, rather than just grab the BPA, regardless of need.

 

I'm basically sold on your (and I think it was jason's too) idea of OL. I think all else being equal, I'm all for it.

 

The exception occurs if an incredible talent is available. If a Stafford/McCoy leave early and drop, a great WR falls, etc...

 

I don't want to pass on exceptional talent over position. The hope is that the exceptional talent is at the OL to take...

[madlithuanian]

I would tend to agree with that philosophy. I used to be more BAP oriented, but it's tempered a bit now.

 

It would seem we pretty much have a huge canvas to work with this next draft since we have so many needs!

 

Not to speak for Jason, but I believe he would agree. Neither of us imply we HAVE to draft OL, no matter what. If you have your board, and the next OL player is 20 deep, while you are also looking at a DE who you had graded about 10 slots higher (extreme examples), then obviously you don't reach for the OT.

 

My philosophy is not need or BPA, at least not strictly. I go into the draft w/ my overall board. I also go into the draft w/ a list of needs tiered. So lets say I enter the draft with OL, DE and S (just an example) as my tier 1 needs, w/ OL graded highest. When it comes time to draft, the top player on my board is a RB, not even on my list. The next player is a CB, which is on my list, but a lower need tier. Then there is an OT. I grab him, passing over some potentially better players, but going w/ the top need at a close talent grade.

 

The bigger question comes when you have, for example, a DE who you graded high and fell to you, as well as an OT graded w/in the top couple best players available. I would still go OT, though that is not even absolute.

 

But the main point is, I think that so long as you have a broad enough list of needs, you can take the best player available who fills a need, rather than just grab the BPA, regardless of need.

[jason]

The other area we disagree on is defense. I disagree the window has closed. I am still of the opinion that our defensive woes have more to do w/ coaching/scheme than to talent. If it was just Urlacher, or just Vasher who showed a decline, fine. But every freaking one of our players, or close enough, have shown a decline. I simply find it too difficult to believe they all got old, slow or just plain bad, all at once. I think it far more logical to believe our talent is not the issue so much as the man running the talent.

 

Just for clarification...

 

We don't disagree, and I think the D has the talent to still do very well, but I am including Zombie Smith into the picture. In THIS scheme, the window has closed on this set of players. New scheme? Jim Johnson? I think the Bears are back in as one of the top 5 Defenses in the NFL.

[jason]

While it would be great if we could invest so much into the OLine, we must remember we have other needs and only so much cap space.

 

Here's a realistic solution:

 

Metcalf gone, Tait cut, and Garza possibly kept as a backup at RG/C.

 

LT - Williams (we gotta just pray this works out)

LG - Beekman (he isn't the greatest, but he's good enough for a stopgap. Buenning could also compete for this job)

C - Kreutz (Yeah, he's declining but he's still the leader of the OLine and he's still decent)

RG - FA/Draftee (Either Goff or Duke here. Preferably Duke as he has a ton more upside and isn't on the wrong side of 30)

RT - St. Clair (We'd need to re-sigh him, but if he can play RT as good as he's been playing LT, we'd be in good shape. We could/should also draft a possible replacement in the mid-rounds)

 

This is a weak year for FA linemen, but the one FA lineman I would love to get though is Jahri Evans from New Orleans. He's a RFA though and it would depend on what type of tender the Saints give him. If it's only a 3rd round tender, the Bears should be all over him.

 

To me that wouldn't be sufficient.

Essentially you are improving one position on the line, when, realistically, maybe 4 of the positions need to be addressed. The only one I'm ignoring for now is Williams (and I am crossing my fingers on that one).

 

As for a weak class, I don't know for sure. However, I do know that there are four or five bonafide studs coming out, which is why I would love to see a trade up to get another of the guys - perhaps one that slips into the late first/early second.

[jason]

Not to speak for Jason, but I believe he would agree. Neither of us imply we HAVE to draft OL, no matter what. If you have your board, and the next OL player is 20 deep, while you are also looking at a DE who you had graded about 10 slots higher (extreme examples), then obviously you don't reach for the OT.

 

My philosophy is not need or BPA, at least not strictly. I go into the draft w/ my overall board. I also go into the draft w/ a list of needs tiered. So lets say I enter the draft with OL, DE and S (just an example) as my tier 1 needs, w/ OL graded highest. When it comes time to draft, the top player on my board is a RB, not even on my list. The next player is a CB, which is on my list, but a lower need tier. Then there is an OT. I grab him, passing over some potentially better players, but going w/ the top need at a close talent grade.

 

The bigger question comes when you have, for example, a DE who you graded high and fell to you, as well as an OT graded w/in the top couple best players available. I would still go OT, though that is not even absolute.

 

But the main point is, I think that so long as you have a broad enough list of needs, you can take the best player available who fills a need, rather than just grab the BPA, regardless of need.

 

That's pretty much my philosophy as well.

Position > BPA > Position

 

1. Address the position if all things are equal. You need a OL more than LB, and both are available, and both are ranked the same = draft OL

2. You need an OL more than a LB, but the seven teams in front of you drafted OL and left you with a non-viable OLineman who is really ranked as a late 2nd rounder = draft LB

3. You need an OL more than a LB, and both are drafted relatively heavily, but a player like a TE drops to you, as long as there is not a disparity of 3 or 4 rounds in talent evaluation = draft OL (if there is that disparity = look for the next need to see if the disparity is palatable)

 

What I know is this: Football is won in the trenches. The Bears' OL is not good. The Bears' offense is not good. I believe the offensive failures to be primarily a result of a poor OL, and not the other way around. My signature is my philosophy, and I believe that Emmitt Smith was barely above average, but had a knack for staying healthy. But when he was paired with the best OL in football history, he turned into a stud. The same could hold true for the Bears players...if the OL wasn't garbage.

[nfoligno]

This is absolutely one area we agree. I too believe that if you build up a solid/great OL, average players will look very good. On the other hand, I think it much harder to have a very good QB excel behind a weak OL, and ditto w/ RB. Even mediocre QBs can look good when behind great OL. However, even the great Manning has looked average when his OL struggles.

 

Like you, I simply believe you build through the trenches first. Look at Cle last year. Their OL was awesome, and you had a questionable QB (Anderson) and an over the hill RB (Lewis) look pro bowl. This year, their OL has struggled, and the result is Lewis looking his age and Anderson now being on the bench.

 

That's pretty much my philosophy as well.

Position > BPA > Position

 

1. Address the position if all things are equal. You need a OL more than LB, and both are available, and both are ranked the same = draft OL

2. You need an OL more than a LB, but the seven teams in front of you drafted OL and left you with a non-viable OLineman who is really ranked as a late 2nd rounder = draft LB

3. You need an OL more than a LB, and both are drafted relatively heavily, but a player like a TE drops to you, as long as there is not a disparity of 3 or 4 rounds in talent evaluation = draft OL (if there is that disparity = look for the next need to see if the disparity is palatable)

 

What I know is this: Football is won in the trenches. The Bears' OL is not good. The Bears' offense is not good. I believe the offensive failures to be primarily a result of a poor OL, and not the other way around. My signature is my philosophy, and I believe that Emmitt Smith was barely above average, but had a knack for staying healthy. But when he was paired with the best OL in football history, he turned into a stud. The same could hold true for the Bears players...if the OL wasn't garbage.

[nfoligno]

Understood. However, while I don't think Lovie will be sent packing, I do believe Babich is as good as gone. Lovie may still be in place, but Rivera proved a DC can be successful under Lovie. So I think the window is still open, but that is assuming we upgrade our DC.

 

Just for clarification...

 

We don't disagree, and I think the D has the talent to still do very well, but I am including Zombie Smith into the picture. In THIS scheme, the window has closed on this set of players. New scheme? Jim Johnson? I think the Bears are back in as one of the top 5 Defenses in the NFL.

[nfoligno]

Here's a question for you. If you or I were GM, we would go heavy OL, but we both know that is not Angelo's way. So lets just say, for argument sake, we are only going to add one stud OL, whether it be draft or FA. Assume for a moment, even if it is a rookie, he is a stud prospect. So the question is, if you can only add one player to the OL, what position would it be?

 

Part of me would love to say LT, as I have never been sold on Williams, but we just spent a 1st rounder there, so I have to simply hope he pans out. I can not see him playing RT or moving inside, thus I have to leave him at LT and pray. That leaves 4 positions.

 

Kreutz has slid a ton, and I think this is an area we need to consider, but if I have only one player to add, I'll keep Kreutz. That leaves 3 spots to consider.

 

Of those 3, I think OG is the biggest problem. Tait has been far from spectacular, but I think he is okay enough, and having moved to RT, could be acceptible for another year or two.

 

If I had only one spot to add a stud, it would be LG. Williams is going to be essentially a rookie next year. IMHO, we are doing him a dis-service lining him up next to Beekman, Metcalf, St. Clair, or anyone currently on our roster. If we could add a stud LG, I think it would have ripple effects on the OL as a whole. I think we could see a quicker development from Williams, and potentially have a very good left side. Further, I think if we added a stud LG, we could see a bit of resurgence from Kreutz. Finally, while we would have done nothing to improve the right side of our line, if we improved the left side enough, it could force defenses to focus on the left, thus making life easier for the rigth.

 

So if I could only add one stud, for me, it would be LG. Of course, that is why I so wanted Faneca, who I believe is looking very good for NY, but that option is gone. Still, I think this could be a position we (a) realistically look to address and ( would have the greatest impact.

 

To me that wouldn't be sufficient.

Essentially you are improving one position on the line, when, realistically, maybe 4 of the positions need to be addressed. The only one I'm ignoring for now is Williams (and I am crossing my fingers on that one).

 

As for a weak class, I don't know for sure. However, I do know that there are four or five bonafide studs coming out, which is why I would love to see a trade up to get another of the guys - perhaps one that slips into the late first/early second.

[madlithuanian]

Man, I still scratch my head on why this club didn't go after Faneca...

 

Henceforth why were are at where we're at...