|
|
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
[ 10]
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Defensewins 03-09-2006, 01:11 PM Hey let's not forget Issac Bruce.
Seriuosly though, the guy keeps himself in Darrel Green shape and lives a clean life style. We saw how long D. Green was able to play. If we can get him for a good price, he will want to come here and play for Gibbs and Saunders.
onlydarksets 03-09-2006, 01:12 PM Randle El is not the type of WR we need. I'm not sure about Givens - I don't know that I want the entire Patriots WR corp (personal reasons - I don't like the Pats). Bruce could take some pressure off of Moss, but he doesn't seem like a long term solution.
I think we're going to be OK at LB - not spectacular, but Marshall and Washington can hold it down, with role players filling in the last slot. DE would be great, but can we really get any of these guys? (I'm not familiar with Howard)
Law is too injury prone lately and probably will be looking for more $$ than we can afford for a backup. Archuleta would be a sweet addition, but I think our secondary will be most improved by increasing the pass rush.
So, I'm voting Bruce - he's a short term solution, granted.
That Guy 03-09-2006, 01:25 PM we have enough money for one big signing possibly... guys like bruce and dyson are on a second monetary tier compared to mathis or kampman. howard would be the cheap stopgap solution.
Elfsdad 03-09-2006, 01:26 PM I'm pimping for Nate Burleson again. He's young and he's proven that he can catch balls as a #2 receiver. Danny just needs to throw a reasonable amount of cash at him to see if the Vikings blink. I think they're more intent on keeping Koren Robinson, an unrestricted free agent.
"Jeff Zulgad, of the Star Tribune, reports the Minnesota Vikings placed the lowest tender offer on restricted free agent WR Nate Burleson. He was given a tender offer that is worth $712,000 and would result in the team getting a draft pick equal to the round in which Burleson was selected (third) if he goes elsewhere. Burleson's agent, Jack Scharf, did not seem discouraged by the Vikings' offer. "Negotiations will be ongoing to see if we can get a long-term deal for Nate," Scharf said. "More will come to light pending a ratification of the collective bargaining agreement." He is ranked fourth among the available free-agent receivers by Scout.com (http://scout.com/). Cleveland, San Diego and San Francisco are three teams with salary cap space that might be interested in Burleson.
Defensewins 03-09-2006, 01:26 PM Filling the hole at SS with a muti-dimensional player that has size/speed and is partucularly strong against the run will solidify our Defense more than any other position.
Our DE's are servicable and are strong against the run. We can get a cheap one dimensional pass rush DE to sub in on obvious pass situations, we do not need a star DE.
I still have bad memories of our SS Clark getting run over and embarrased badly by Bucs FB Alstot in the playoffs. There were 3 or 4 other instances in the regular season that Lott looked bad against the run. The #1 reponsibility the SS position has to be a strong agressive tackler, Lott at 5' 10" and 195 pounds is good in coverage but will not cut it as a run stopper. I also worry Archuleta, while he is a good tackler and agressive against the run, may also be too small. If we had another 6' 2" 225 pound hitter to compliment Taylor, teams would think twice about running the ball or throwing down the middle. Our D would be strong.
Look at how much Sean Taylor helped elevate our defense to top 3 status. Just like when others were screaming and upset when we did not get TE KWII this is another opportunity to solidify our Defense for years to come. Our corners are set, Safety would round it out.
That Guy 03-09-2006, 02:06 PM lott's been gone for over a year now ;)
#56fanatic 03-09-2006, 02:07 PM Can someone please explain why people are posting Javon Walker. I dont see his name as a free agent. Are you guys suggesting we trade for him?
I saw him on ESPN site as a FA.
#56fanatic 03-09-2006, 02:11 PM that hurts my eyes *cries*
were you opposed to brunell, springs and patten when we signed them?
Brunell = YES!!
Springs = Not really, he was 28,29. I did not like the length and signing bonus
Patten = not as old as Bruce, 32 is two years younger than 34 and it makes a difference in the NFL>
onlydarksets 03-09-2006, 02:12 PM Walker isn't listed on this list:
http://proxy.espn.go.com/nfl/fa?null
SmootSmack 03-09-2006, 02:18 PM Filling the hole at SS with a muti-dimensional player that has size/speed and is partucularly strong against the run will solidify our Defense more than any other position.
Our DE's are servicable and are strong against the run. We can get a cheap one dimensional pass rush DE to sub in on obvious pass situations, we do not need a star DE.
I still have bad memories of our SS Clark getting run over and embarrased badly by Bucs FB Alstot in the playoffs. There were 3 or 4 other instances in the regular season that Lott looked bad against the run. The #1 reponsibility the SS position has to be a strong agressive tackler, Lott at 5' 10" and 195 pounds is good in coverage but will not cut it as a run stopper. I also worry Archuleta, while he is a good tackler and agressive against the run, may also be too small. If we had another 6' 2" 225 pound hitter to compliment Taylor, teams would think twice about running the ball or throwing down the middle. Our D would be strong.
Look at how much Sean Taylor helped elevate our defense to top 3 status. Just like when others were screaming and upset when we did not get TE KWII this is another opportunity to solidify our Defense for years to come. Our corners are set, Safety would round it out.
I'd like a big safety like Tank Williams here. Marlon McCree is good too, but a bit undersized I think. A lot of people are talking about let's make sure we re-sign Ryan Clark, but I'm actually a bit more concerned we might lose Omar Stoutmire.
|