freddyg12
03-12-2009, 10:52 AM
Gotta go with Daniels, he's the only potential starter on the list.
I like PD a lot, but I disagree. I went w/Kendall. there are injury questions w/Daniels & Randy Thomas, we don't know how their recovery from injuries will impact their play. Kendall could be a better option at RG than Thomas, he had a solid 08.
GTripp0012
03-12-2009, 11:01 AM
Pete Kendall is my answer. What a difference it would make for us if Kendall was our first lineman off the bench at either LG or C. It would allow Rinehart to refine his skills at one position (RG), giving him a greater chance at developing into a replacement for Thomas. It would allow us to keep Jansen as a RT (either as a backup or a starter). And it would give us more unit leadership for a unit where the only certainty is that it will be getting a lot younger really fast.
BigHairedAristocrat
03-12-2009, 01:15 PM
Can Kendall even play center? I like Kendall and think he would do a fine job, but considering the age of our starting offensive line, id rather have most of our backups be young guys. Geisinger got abused at LT, but id like to give him a shot to be a backup C/G. There are some interesting OL prospects on our practice squad too. If we can resign kendall and not garauntee him anything, then fine - let him compete in camp with younger guys for a backup spot. If he vastly outperforms the young guys, then he's got a job. But if theres a younger guy even 80% as competent as Kendall, then i'd favor going with the younger guy. Our Practice squad was raided by other teams last year - we cant afford to let that keep happening. we've got to keep our promising, younger guys and if it means letting a slightly better veteran go to ensure the young guy doesnt get snatched off the practice squad, then thats the best long-term decision.
Yes, Kendall has played center in the NFL
53Fan
03-12-2009, 03:31 PM
I voted for Daniels but the argument for Kendall is a very sound one. I almost voted for him and now I'm starting to think he would be the best choice. Hopefully we can sign them both.
The Goat
03-12-2009, 04:15 PM
I voted for Daniels... if healthy he's a bad-ass run stopper, which explains why Denver and Tenn are interested in him. Hopefully the docs and training staff have a good handle on his recovery and how healthy he can be for us this year.
... I feel like if we address RT the way we should then Kendell is unnecessary. Jansen really shouldn't be a backup at tackle any longer.
CRedskinsRule
03-12-2009, 04:30 PM
Has anybody heard any more information about this?
53Fan
03-12-2009, 07:17 PM
Has anybody heard any more information about this?
I have'nt heard anything since this came out. It's been eerily quiet.
Trample the Elderly
03-12-2009, 08:12 PM
If we can get Daniels and Wynn in a package deal that cost the same amount as Daniels old contract then I say go for it. They can buy us time until our draft pick is up to speed and then you can cut them in the future without a loss and knowing that you've got someone waiting there. Right now with Evans and Taylor gone we need people. Will Buzbee be able to fill that hole? Will Jackson. If they can prove that in camp then no don't sign them. If they can't, well we've got a two for.
mrreddman
03-12-2009, 08:16 PM
KENDALL hands down. He's a great backup and he would allow us more flexibility in the draft and the rest of free agency. We would then only really need a RT on offense, where, as of now we still need 2 lineman. Of course we still would need a DE and SLB. Hopefully we can trade down in the draft and address the remaining 3 needs with our first 3 picks. Even though im still down for signing Crowell and drafting a LB in the 3rd. I like Daniels too but his injury factor makes me pick Kendall. I dont want Wynn if he played for FREE! He brings NOTHING to this team . Hence...the Giants cut him and signed TWO lineman to an already stacked DL. And who the heck is Epstein? Does he come with Horseshack and Boom Boom Washington too?