Do you think we trade some players for picks?

[mayoclinic]

DW is at least correct in that Sanders trade value is at it's highest after he was reinstated to settle down and coordinate the secondary - where he misses the mark is his blind bias, ignoring what that says about Sanders greater value to a young secondary in 2010. I can't even begin to think of what error he is possibly crediting to Sanders in the 2006 AFCCG, but his insistence that one of the best tacklers on the team is one of the worst is part of my problem with his commentary.

Sanders has on occasion taken the wrong angle and not had the speed to compensate, missing a key tackle. So has Meriweather and every other member of the secondary. Overall, as you say, Sanders is a very solid and reliable tackler.

 

[DW Toys]

Sanders has on occasion taken the wrong angle and not had the speed to compensate, missing a key tackle. So has Meriweather and every other member of the secondary. Overall, as you say, Sanders is a very solid and reliable tackler.

All the Safeties had their bad times this year. We have four. They are all young. McGowan plays more ST than the others except Chung. If someone offers us a third or forth for Sanders, would you trade him? I see your point on Rolle and yes I would take him.

I respect what you Cousins are saying and you especially Mayo because you think things through on your comments, but look at the tape of the Adai TD in the O6 Championship game. That was an NFL player who was afraid. All he had to do was fall down and Adai would have tripped over him. It was gutless! Sorry guys....no sale.
Maybe that tainted the fact that he doesn't tackle for me and the speed part is correct...He has none.

My opinion is I think we could replace him with a choice and save some CAP (pending). Most importantly, a roster spot is valuable and we have actually six Safeties if we count Slater
DW Toys

 

[furley]

Yes, if you don't believe you can resign this player to a longterm deal.

Vince Wilford (franchise?)


Yes, if these players are deemed expendable or unlikely to resign. In some cases, you probably would want to upgrade their position anyways.

Randy Moss
Laurence Maroney
Matt Light
Adalius Thomas
Shawn Springs (retire?)
Fred Taylor
Sammy Morris
BenJarvus Ellis-Green
Nick Kaczur
James Sanders
Terrence Wheatley
Shawn Crable

 

[mayoclinic]

My opinion is I think we could replace him with a choice and save some CAP (pending). Most importantly, a roster spot is valuable and we have actually six Safeties if we count Slater
DW Toys

Sure we could replace him with a choice and save some CAP room, and probably get a better player in the long run. Take Chad Jones from LSU, for example. But don't expect him to make a contribution equal to Sanders in 2010, when it's more important to solidify a young secondary than to acquire new talent. And that's one less high draft pick to be used on another area of need when we already have a very solid safety foursome.

Right now we have 4 safeties. Brad Lockett is a FA. And if you really want to count on Slater to play safety for us, then we're in deep trouble.

The enemy of good is better. Upgrading the safety position just is not a priority right now, and would only get in the way of addressing other priorities.

 

[MaineMan]

Here's the thing for me with McGowan. It's the same knock that was on him in Chicago, IIRC (and the reason they let him walk). He's got really great run defense instincts and is an aggressive and solid tackler, but he's not only poor in coverage (never really understanding where he's supposed to be), he blows up the communication among the other guys, making coverage worse when he's on the field.

Sanders, OTOH, is not great at any one thing, but he's a reasonably solid backstop in both run and pass defense, a decent tackler (better than Meriweather), knows where he's supposed to be and does a good job of keeping the rest of the secondary on the same page (and the correct page).

If we're going to lose a safety, I'd lose McGowan first. Meriweather and Sanders are at least adequate. Chung may develop and replace Sanders as the nominal starter in 2010, but I still want to keep Sanders solid base in the #3 spot. For the #4 spot, in place of McGowan, Lockett seems a decent in-house prospect and we should try to pick up another later in this draft (or afterward) - maybe a taller, physical corner who's a tad slow (for a CB), but a good tackler and at his best when he can keep everything in front of him.

 

[mgteich]

I presume you mean "the better (or best) is the enemy of the good." as it is usually translated into England.
========================
The Best is the Enemy of Good means that close is sometimes good enough, and exact is far too costly.
=====================
I agree that we shouldn't keep looking for the best or perfect players at positions where we have good solid players.

Sure we could replace him with a choice and save some CAP room, and probably get a better player in the long run. Take Chad Jones from LSU, for example. But don't expect him to make a contribution equal to Sanders in 2010, when it's more important to solidify a young secondary than to acquire new talent. And that's one less high draft pick to be used on another area of need when we already have a very solid safety foursome.

Right now we have 4 safeties. Brad Lockett is a FA. And if you really want to count on Slater to play safety for us, then we're in deep trouble.

The enemy of good is better. Upgrading the safety position just is not a priority right now, and would only get in the way of addressing other priorities.