Biggest need 3-4 END?

[alvinnf]

Honestly I don't think Guyton is the future. We saw that this year. A good rotational player but not an every down player. He just can't handle the run all that well. We need someone else at the position long-term with Guyton as backup - McClain, Dansby, Johnson, any of those will do. I don't want to be gashed on the ground like we were last season.

EDIT: mayoclinic just said it better than I could

Not to hi-jack, but I think Guyton in the 43 would be perfect. Last year during Mayo's absence he played very well. I also love the idea of drafting someone whom can fit into the 43 at weakside or reduced side end. Now I disagree with Mayo about Dunlap. Pierre-Paul would however make complete sense. He's got good length and he's not quite as bulky as Dunlap. See the problem is with Warren playing in the 43 you'd have to make a choice. Kick him inside or play him on the strong side in an "under" 43. Also, you would still have your elite nose and you would be transitioning your new end to play the joker later in the 34. It's less of a gamble. In your sub packages you would have great flexibility to pick which LB comes off, based on opponents strength. A 34 end for this draft is risky, FA would be the way to go. But, Mayos idea of adding a 43 DE is the best solution when you look at our roster.

 

[Taxed in Maine]

This is one of the problems with our front-7 right now. We don't have the personnel to play either 3-4 or 4-3 right now. BB is a 3-4 coach. That is what he wants to play the majority of the time. But in recent years there have been 4-3 players that he thought could play in a 3-4. The last thing they need is more 4-3 players.

I also disagree about Dunlap. We don't need a 275lb 4-3 DE trying to play out of position. Unless he tips the scales at 295 at the combine, he's not even on my board.

Same with drafting yet another NT to move one out of position to play DE. No thanks. With Wilfork almost guaranteed to be franchised, and only 6-7 spots for DL they don't need 4 NT.

I am also much higher on Odrick than others, and if he becomes another 'Warren', this would be one very good DL.

You draft 3-4 players to play in a 3-4. Period. I don't care how much talent the guy has, if he doesn't fit the plan than he shouldn't even be on the board.

Not to hi-jack, but I think Guyton in the 43 would be perfect. Last year during Mayo's absence he played very well. I also love the idea of drafting someone whom can fit into the 43 at weakside or reduced side end. Now I disagree with Mayo about Dunlap. Pierre-Paul would however make complete sense. He's got good length and he's not quite as bulky as Dunlap. See the problem is with Warren playing in the 43 you'd have to make a choice. Kick him inside or play him on the strong side in an "under" 43. Also, you would still have your elite nose and you would be transitioning your new end to play the joker later in the 34. It's less of a gamble. In your sub packages you would have great flexibility to pick which LB comes off, based on opponents strength. A 34 end for this draft is risky, FA would be the way to go. But, Mayos idea of adding a 43 DE is the best solution when you look at our roster.

 

[mgteich]

There really is something to be said for having at least three 3-4 DE's on the squad.

 

[mayoclinic]

There really is something to be said for having at least three 3-4 DE's on the squad.

When have we had that? Who are you counting as a 3-4 DE?

Presumably Warren counts. Do Wright and Green? That would make 3 last year, and if Green leaves we only need a rookie (not necessarily a top pick) to meet your quota.

If you don't count Wright and Green as true 3-4 DE's, then when have we actually had 3? Seymour and Warren make 2. Do you count Marquise Hill, who never really got any playing time?

 

[Ochmed Jones]

When have we had that? Who are you counting as a 3-4 DE?

Presumably Warren counts. Do Wright and Green? That would make 3 last year, and if Green leaves we only need a rookie (not necessarily a top pick) to meet your quota.

If you don't count Wright and Green as true 3-4 DE's, then when have we actually had 3? Seymour and Warren make 2. Do you count Marquise Hill, who never really got any playing time?

Warren and Odrick and Oghobasse would give us 3 DE's for the 3-4.

However I think Warren and Wright count as 3-4 DE types. However Wright is not a FT player.

 

[mayoclinic]

Warren and Odrick and Oghobasse would give us 3 DE's for the 3-4.

However I think Warren and Wright count as 3-4 DE types. However Wright is not a FT player.

Certainly you aren't suggesting that we should have 3 full time 3-4 DE's? Where would be play them all at once?

Even if Green leaves, we have 2 solid DE's in Warren and Wright. I project Wright to be a starter next year. Bring in one developmental 3-4 DE and we're ok.

 

[BradyManny]

Kaczur didn't play up to his contract Mayo? Springs didn't either? You're usually fair as an evaluator, this time whichever diet you're on seems to be lacking some minerals or something. You have an argument for Morris and Taylor only because they were injured and command significant salaries - do you intend to make the same claim for Welker next offseason?

Put me in the camp that can see any of the guys Mayo listed getting cut/traded. That's not saying they should be or will be. But it's about value over replacement. Kaczur's a good example. Is the difference between him to Levoir worth 2+ milli? Probably not. Should we just keep him anyway b/c we can afford to? Probably. But I wouldn't be shocked to see him moved, either.

Same goes for Light actually. We have a surplus of talent at the tackle position - we have the flexibility to a) use that surplus to go find a draft pick or player elsewhere via trade; b) cut them & save money or c) simply just play with that surplus and that depth. I would just do C), personally, but the options are there.

 

[mayoclinic]

Yes, all players will get looked at, but I see no reason to undo the depth Belichick created in 2009 and create roster holes at the same time. How are we possibly better off replacing Kaczur, Springs, Taylor and Morris?

If the choice is between paying $3.3M for a guy who is going to be a nickel or dime CB vs. using that money to bring in an external FA who might make a difference, or resign one of our core FAs, then we could conceivably be better off replacing Springs.

If the FO decides it's time to go with "fresh legs" at running back and bring in someone young with low mileage who can run hard, then we could conceivably be better of replacing Taylor and/or Morris.

If the FO decides that Kaczur is a 3rd or 4th OT and that we can trade him for something and replace him for much less cost while using the money elsewhere then yes, we could conceivably be better off replacing him.

Again, I'm not saying we should do any or all of those things, and I'm certainly not suggesting that we just cut people to create more holes that we have to fill. But those 4 guys take almost $11M in cap space, and there's no way we got that kind of money's worth of value from them in 2009.

Assuring depth is a wonderful thing. That doesn't mean you have to stay committed to that plan if things change. $3.5M for Kaczur as a starting RT was good business. $3.5M for him if he's a career backup is not cost effective. $3.3M for Springs as a 2 year starter at CB is a good deal. $3.3M for Springs as a dime or 5th CB is not a good deal.

There's a finite number of roster spots. We're only going to carry 4 OTs. We already have Light, Vollmer, Kaczur and LeVoir. I count 4. That leaves no room for a developmental RT. If you don't believe Kaczur will be more than a career backup (I don't) then I'd rather save the money and bring in someone fresh to develop who could turn into a quality starter. Jared Veldheer or Chris Marinelli would be a much cheaper 4th OT than Kaczur, and within a year or so might be a much better player.

Similarly, we're probably only going to carry 5 CBs. Butler and Bodden are givens if we re-sign them. Wilhite and Wheatley have their issues, but Springs is much more expensive, is 35, and isn't obviously much better right now. Kyle Arrington really gave a boost to our special teams. Who's going to go? One of those options saves a boatload of money, the other don't. I think that could be a factor.

Hard decisions. There will be a lot of those this offseason.

 

[BradyManny]

Hard decisions. There will be a lot of those this offseason.

The hardest decision might just be how to approach the offseason philosophically.

I'm hoping Kraft sees falling out of the top 8 as a unique opportunity to snatch up free agents that the other elite teams cannot have.

Unfortunately, I worry that the CBA uncertainity might cause him to be cautious and he may have to put business ahead of the team. The team's roster is not strong enough for cautiousness. Kraft has always been committed to putting the best team he can out there on the field. We are fortunate that we have an owner who associates his quality of product with the quality of the team. Some owners just look at the bottom line and do what is best for business. Kraft does not. And I hope that continues. Of all offseasons, this will be the one where he has to open the pocketbook and be aggressive.

 

[mgteich]

We strongly disagree. And that is a good thing!
============================
You seem to believe that we would be able to replace the production of these four players for $11M and that apparently this is especially important since we are in such a cash crunch????????

We have a dozen holes, some of them substantial. We may even be in worse shape if negotiations don't go well with Wilfork and Mankins and even Brady.

You have set up a straw man. Perhaps you should have a poll. Would you rather re-sign Bodden and Faulk or keep Springs and Morris? Would you rather cut all four and extend Wilfork? In the end, these are NOT the choices that will be made.

OBVIOUSLY, if Belichick would cut anyone if he thinks that the player can be replaced by someone who would be expected to step right in and produce at the same level for less cost. After all, Galloway was expected to be at least as good as Gaffney at less cost (after Lewis was supposed to be that player). The reality is that Belichick knows what he has with these players, and that they are valuable to the team.
========================================
SPRINGS
You may be willing to count on Bodden as a re-sign and for him to play as well as he did this year, AND count on Wilhite and Butler, and count on none being injured and all three to be better than they were this year. I don't think that Belichick will take the same view. Springs did INDEED start this year for some games and was reasonably effective. He is doing EXACTLY what he was signed to do. I'm sure that you may have lots of support in your opinion. After all, we paid Springs over $5M for his play in 2009. What was Belichick thinking? Most thought that we greatly overpaid. I suppose you all think we should have re-signed O'Neal. After all, we had Bodden, Wilhite and Wheatley and were almost committed to acquiring a top corner in the draft.

KACZUR
YOU are the one who wants to dump Light and move Vollmer to LT. I understand that you would have absolutely have no problem finding a starting RG and a starting RT from the draft. Immediate starters are easy to find and we have so few other needs. Personally, I think Kaczur was signed because he has been a solid starter. The fact that Vollmer is better does NOT change that fact.

TAYLOR/MORRIS
Sure, let's CREATE a hole at running back instead of simply upgrading ONE running back, who most likely would be Green-Ellis.

If the choice is between paying $3.3M for a guy who is going to be a nickel or dime CB vs. using that money to bring in an external FA who might make a difference, or resign one of our core FAs, then we could conceivably be better off replacing Springs.

If the FO decides it's time to go with "fresh legs" at running back and bring in someone young with low mileage who can run hard, then we could conceivably be better of replacing Taylor and/or Morris.

If the FO decides that Kaczur is a 3rd or 4th OT and that we can trade him for something and replace him for much less cost while using the money elsewhere then yes, we could conceivably be better off replacing him.

Again, I'm not saying we should do any or all of those things, and I'm certainly not suggesting that we just cut people to create more holes that we have to fill. But those 4 guys take almost $11M in cap space, and there's no way we got that kind of money's worth of value from them in 2009.



Assuring depth is a wonderful thing. That doesn't mean you have to stay committed to that plan if things change. $3.5M for Kaczur as a starting RT was good business. $3.5M for him if he's a career backup is not cost effective. $3.3M for Springs as a 2 year starter at CB is a good deal. $3.3M for Springs as a dime or 5th CB is not a good deal.

There's a finite number of roster spots. We're only going to carry 4 OTs. We already have Light, Vollmer, Kaczur and LeVoir. I count 4. That leaves no room for a developmental RT. If you don't believe Kaczur will be more than a career backup (I don't) then I'd rather save the money and bring in someone fresh to develop who could turn into a quality starter. Jared Veldheer or Chris Marinelli would be a much cheaper 4th OT than Kaczur, and within a year or so might be a much better player.

Similarly, we're probably only going to carry 5 CBs. Butler and Bodden are givens if we re-sign them. Wilhite and Wheatley have their issues, but Springs is much more expensive, is 35, and isn't obviously much better right now. Kyle Arrington really gave a boost to our special teams. Who's going to go? One of those options saves a boatload of money, the other don't. I think that could be a factor.

Hard decisions. There will be a lot of those this offseason.

 

[mayoclinic]

We strongly disagree. And that is a good thing!

We agree most of the time, so a little disagreement is healthy. I agree we disagree.

You seem to believe that we would be able to replace the production of these four players for $11M and that apparently this is especially important since we are in such a cash crunch????????

Every time I discuss a hypothetical, you retort with some kind of "you seem to believe" response. To clarify:

1. I don't believe we are in a cash crunch. We have around $50M+ to spend this offseason, even without cutting in other areas. But I believe this team will always be cash-conscious.

2. I believe that the likely future production of these 4 players may not warrant the money being spent, and the team may decide to spend it elsewhere. I'm not personally saying whether I would do it, I'm not advocating it, I'm not predicting it will happen. I'm just saying I could see it being a possibility.

We have a dozen holes, some of them substantial. We may even be in worse shape if negotiations don't go well with Wilfork and Mankins and even Brady.

You have set up a straw man. Perhaps you should have a poll. Would you rather re-sign Bodden and Faulk or keep Springs and Morris? Would you rather cut all four and extend Wilfork? In the end, these are NOT the choices that will be made.

OBVIOUSLY, if Belichick would cut anyone if he thinks that the player can be replaced by someone who would be expected to step right in and produce at the same level for less cost. After all, Galloway was expected to be at least as good as Gaffney at less cost (after Lewis was supposed to be that player). The reality is that Belichick knows what he has with these players, and that they are valuable to the team.

Gaffney was a low cost player who was productive. Keeping him would have been the smart move. He was also much younger than Galloway. All of these geriatric signings last offseason (Galloway, Taylor, Springs) don't make sense right now when we're rebuilding for the long haul. These are not the missing pieces who will put us over the top. They are geriatric stopgaps, nothing more, nothing less.

SPRINGS
You may be willing to count on Bodden as a re-sign and for him to play as well as he did this year, AND count on Wilhite and Butler, and count on none being injured and all three to be better than they were this year. I don't think that Belichick will take the same view. Springs did INDEED start this year for some games and was reasonably effective. He is doing EXACTLY what he was signed to do. I'm sure that you may have lots of support in your opinion. After all, we paid Springs over $5M for his play in 2009. What was Belichick thinking? Most thought that we greatly overpaid. I suppose you all think we should have re-signed O'Neal. After all, we had Bodden, Wilhite and Wheatley and were almost committed to acquiring a top corner in the draft.

If we paid Springs over $5m for this year then we definitely overpaid. New Orleans signed Jabari Greer for not much more for last year (4 years at $24M), and they got a heck of a lot more production from Greer.

Again, resources (cash, cap room and roster spots) are not infinite. It's nice to have expensive insurance policies if things don't work out, but that's not realistic in today's NFL.

KACZUR
YOU are the one who wants to dump Light and move Vollmer to LT. I understand that you would have absolutely have no problem finding a starting RG and a starting RT from the draft. Immediate starters are easy to find and we have so few other needs. Personally, I think Kaczur was signed because he has been a solid starter. The fact that Vollmer is better does NOT change that fact.

Personally, I think Kaczur has been a solid turnstyle at RT. His inability to slow down Mathis cost us the Colts game and turned our season around. I love him for depth, as long as we don't have to actually play him. Then I get very nervous.

As I've said before, (1) I think Vollmer is the future at LT, and (2) I don't think Kaczur is adequate at RT. That leads me to 2 possible solutions:

1. Move Vollmer to LT and draft an RT to start. If Brian Bulaga slips to 22 this could be a definite solution, and yes, I would be willing to bet that a rookie Bulaga would be miles better than Kaczur at RT out of the gate. Rookies do start at RT. Philip Loadholt (drafted #54 in the 2nd round in 2009) started at RT for Minnesota this year and did quite well, for example. In that scenario I would likely try to trade one of Kaczur and Light, since $8M for 2 backup OT's is ridiculous. My guess is Light has much more trade value.

2. Keep Light for another year or two at LT and keep Vollmer at RT temporarily while drafting a developmental RT. I've suggested Jared Veldheer and Chris Marinelli as two prospects I like who should be available in the 3rd round or later. (I've also suggested that Vladimir Ducasse or Mike Iupati could potentially play RG and eventually move to RT, though that owuld create another hole.) If you do this, you have 5 OT's, which is likely too many to carry on the team. Who do you cut? The rookie you just drafted? No. Vollmer? Hell no. Light? Obviously not, if you go with this plan. So that leaves Kaczur or LeVoir. LeVoir is younger and cheaper, and it doesn't seem to me that Kaczur is markedly better.

I assume your plan consists of something like keeping Kaczur and buying Brady body armor and a really good insurance policy. I prefer mine, thanks.

TAYLOR/MORRIS
Sure, let's CREATE a hole at running back instead of simply upgrading ONE running back, who most likely would be Green-Ellis.

I think it's very unlikely that both these guys get traded or cut, but one is quite possible. What hole at running back? We didn't get much productivity out of these guys in 2009 to replace in the first place. Plus, both are almost certain to be gone after 2010, so there will be a hole to replace sooner or later.

Fred Taylor turns 34 next week. He's ran for 269 yards on 63 carries last year, 559 yards on 143 carries the year before. How many 34 year old running backs are there in the NFL? (Answer: there will be 2 next year, and if we keep Taylor and resign Kevin Faulk we will have both of them. If fact, Taylor, Faulk and Morris will be 3 of the 4 oldest backs in the NFL, with Ahman Green being a month older than Morris.) He has almost 2500 carries and 11,000 yards under him, and a history of being injury prone even when he was young. Do you really believe we can count on him to be healthy and productive next season? You obviously don't have any actuarial training.

Morris had a career year in 2008, but has only carried over 100 times one other time in his career. He'll be 33 next year.

The odds say that we'll get around 160 carries and 500 yards and about 6 TDs combined from Morris and Taylor next year. Is that acceptable to you for $4M from our #2 and #3 RBs? I suspect we can get much better for that money, but if you're happy with that kind of price/performance - and then having to replace those guys in a year, anyway - then so be it. But I would argue that we could get better productivity from Reggie Bush, Willis McGeehee, Mike Bell, Jerious Norwood, or any number of guys who may be UFAs or may be cut by their teams in cost moves this offseason, all of whom are younger guys who we could build on for the future.

 

[BradyManny]

If Neal retires, leaving a hole at RG, does anyone think Kazcur could get consideration there? His play at RT the last two seasons has seen some inconsistencies, and with Vollmer & Levoir in the mix, he is replaceable at that position. He's worked out at guard in the past (before the 2008 season when Neal was injured) and was projected inside when he was coming out of college. Connolly is good depth, but I'm not sure he can replicate Neal's play and be a starter. Kazcur clearly has some talent, but seems to have problems with edge rushers. That wouldn't be as much an issue if he were kicked inside. And I'd still think he has the athleticism to do what we ask of guards in the run blocking game.

Just a thought.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Certainly you aren't suggesting that we should have 3 full time 3-4 DE's? Where would be play them all at once?

Even if Green leaves, we have 2 solid DE's in Warren and Wright. I project Wright to be a starter next year. Bring in one developmental 3-4 DE and we're ok.

No! But I am suggesting we should have three DE's on the roster and all three should be capable of starting. Plus another like Wright that is capable of being plugged in for relief duty.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

TAYLOR/MORRIS
Sure, let's CREATE a hole at running back instead of simply upgrading ONE running back, who most likely would be Green-Ellis.

Seems to me that Taylor should be the one to go. Morris and Green Ellis can contribute on ST.

 

[mayoclinic]

No! But I am suggesting we should have three DE's on the roster and all three should be capable of starting. Plus another like Wright that is capable of being plugged in for relief duty.

That would be quite reasonable. Do you think that has to be a high pick like Odrick, Jones or Wootten, or do you think that someone like Clifton Geathers, Brandon Deaderick or Doug Worthington is a possibility?

 

[Ochmed Jones]

That would be quite reasonable. Do you think that has to be a high pick like Odrick, Jones or Wootten, or do you think that someone like Clifton Geathers, Brandon Deaderick or Doug Worthington is a possibility?

I think it depends on what happens with Wilfork.

 

[Nonentity]

I think it's very unlikely that both these guys get traded or cut, but one is quite possible. What hole at running back? We didn't get much productivity out of these guys in 2009 to replace in the first place. Plus, both are almost certain to be gone after 2010, so there will be a hole to replace sooner or later.

Fred Taylor turns 34 next week. He's ran for 269 yards on 63 carries last year, 559 yards on 143 carries the year before. How many 34 year old running backs are there in the NFL? (Answer: there will be 2 next year, and if we keep Taylor and resign Kevin Faulk we will have both of them. If fact, Taylor, Faulk and Morris will be 3 of the 4 oldest backs in the NFL, with Ahman Green being a month older than Morris.) He has almost 2500 carries and 11,000 yards under him, and a history of being injury prone even when he was young. Do you really believe we can count on him to be healthy and productive next season? You obviously don't have any actuarial training.

Morris had a career year in 2008, but has only carried over 100 times one other time in his career. He'll be 33 next year.

The odds say that we'll get around 160 carries and 500 yards and about 6 TDs combined from Morris and Taylor next year. Is that acceptable to you for $4M from our #2 and #3 RBs? I suspect we can get much better for that money, but if you're happy with that kind of price/performance - and then having to replace those guys in a year, anyway - then so be it. But I would argue that we could get better productivity from Reggie Bush, Willis McGeehee, Mike Bell, Jerious Norwood, or any number of guys who may be UFAs or may be cut by their teams in cost moves this offseason, all of whom are younger guys who we could build on for the future.

If we draft a running back, I keep Taylor and get rid of Morris. To quote myself in another thread:

Fred Taylor is one to keep. Ignore his salary, it doesn't matter. He's still got the talent and he wants to be here. If we draft a new running back then they'll learn a huge amount from Taylor.

When we put Taylor in for Maroney he was much more consistent. In contrast, Morris did nothing of note.

If we make no running back moves then I keep both of them and again go with a line-up of Maroney/Taylor/Faulk/Morris. I'm still not willing to think about free-agency until the UFAs have been re-signed/released. Just too annoying to waste typing about.

 

[mayoclinic]

If Neal retires, leaving a hole at RG, does anyone think Kazcur could get consideration there? His play at RT the last two seasons has seen some inconsistencies, and with Vollmer & Levoir in the mix, he is replaceable at that position. He's worked out at guard in the past (before the 2008 season when Neal was injured) and was projected inside when he was coming out of college. Connolly is good depth, but I'm not sure he can replicate Neal's play and be a starter. Kazcur clearly has some talent, but seems to have problems with edge rushers. That wouldn't be as much an issue if he were kicked inside. And I'd still think he has the athleticism to do what we ask of guards in the run blocking game.

Just a thought.

Personally, I love the idea. I suggested getting a RT and moving Kaczur to RG a year ago, and most people pooh-poohed the idea. I know Ochmed has also been in favor of it. As you say, it solves the problem that Kaczur has with speed rushers, and I think he is certainly more talented and experienced than Connolly or Ohrnberger. It would take pressure off of a rookie to step in and start day 1, Kaczur would still be available to play RT if injuries put us in a bind, and if the experiment failed we'd essentially be no worse off than if we hadn't tried it.

Make it so.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, Loadholt was a fine starter. I recall the abuse I received when I even included him on a list of possible draftees. As I recall, almost no one wanted a player who was ONLY good enough to play RT.

However, I do NOT want to start this season with Vollmer at LT, a rookie at RT and Kaczur at RG. Some stability is good when the goal is protecting the franchise. I would much rather change only one position: RG. Vollmer would not be a real change at RT at this point.

We agree most of the time, so a little disagreement is healthy. I agree we disagree.



Every time I discuss a hypothetical, you retort with some kind of "you seem to believe" response. To clarify:

1. I don't believe we are in a cash crunch. We have around $50M+ to spend this offseason, even without cutting in other areas. But I believe this team will always be cash-conscious.

2. I believe that the likely future production of these 4 players may not warrant the money being spent, and the team may decide to spend it elsewhere. I'm not personally saying whether I would do it, I'm not advocating it, I'm not predicting it will happen. I'm just saying I could see it being a possibility.



Gaffney was a low cost player who was productive. Keeping him would have been the smart move. He was also much younger than Galloway. All of these geriatric signings last offseason (Galloway, Taylor, Springs) don't make sense right now when we're rebuilding for the long haul. These are not the missing pieces who will put us over the top. They are geriatric stopgaps, nothing more, nothing less.



If we paid Springs over $5m for this year then we definitely overpaid. New Orleans signed Jabari Greer for not much more for last year (4 years at $24M), and they got a heck of a lot more production from Greer.

Again, resources (cash, cap room and roster spots) are not infinite. It's nice to have expensive insurance policies if things don't work out, but that's not realistic in today's NFL.



Personally, I think Kaczur has been a solid turnstyle at RT. His inability to slow down Mathis cost us the Colts game and turned our season around. I love him for depth, as long as we don't have to actually play him. Then I get very nervous.

As I've said before, (1) I think Vollmer is the future at LT, and (2) I don't think Kaczur is adequate at RT. That leads me to 2 possible solutions:

1. Move Vollmer to LT and draft an RT to start. If Brian Bulaga slips to 22 this could be a definite solution, and yes, I would be willing to bet that a rookie Bulaga would be miles better than Kaczur at RT out of the gate. Rookies do start at RT. Philip Loadholt (drafted #54 in the 2nd round in 2009) started at RT for Minnesota this year and did quite well, for example. In that scenario I would likely try to trade one of Kaczur and Light, since $8M for 2 backup OT's is ridiculous. My guess is Light has much more trade value.

2. Keep Light for another year or two at LT and keep Vollmer at RT temporarily while drafting a developmental RT. I've suggested Jared Veldheer and Chris Marinelli as two prospects I like who should be available in the 3rd round or later. (I've also suggested that Vladimir Ducasse or Mike Iupati could potentially play RG and eventually move to RT, though that owuld create another hole.) If you do this, you have 5 OT's, which is likely too many to carry on the team. Who do you cut? The rookie you just drafted? No. Vollmer? Hell no. Light? Obviously not, if you go with this plan. So that leaves Kaczur or LeVoir. LeVoir is younger and cheaper, and it doesn't seem to me that Kaczur is markedly better.

I assume your plan consists of something like keeping Kaczur and buying Brady body armor and a really good insurance policy. I prefer mine, thanks.



I think it's very unlikely that both these guys get traded or cut, but one is quite possible. What hole at running back? We didn't get much productivity out of these guys in 2009 to replace in the first place. Plus, both are almost certain to be gone after 2010, so there will be a hole to replace sooner or later.

Fred Taylor turns 34 next week. He's ran for 269 yards on 63 carries last year, 559 yards on 143 carries the year before. How many 34 year old running backs are there in the NFL? (Answer: there will be 2 next year, and if we keep Taylor and resign Kevin Faulk we will have both of them. If fact, Taylor, Faulk and Morris will be 3 of the 4 oldest backs in the NFL, with Ahman Green being a month older than Morris.) He has almost 2500 carries and 11,000 yards under him, and a history of being injury prone even when he was young. Do you really believe we can count on him to be healthy and productive next season? You obviously don't have any actuarial training.

Morris had a career year in 2008, but has only carried over 100 times one other time in his career. He'll be 33 next year.

The odds say that we'll get around 160 carries and 500 yards and about 6 TDs combined from Morris and Taylor next year. Is that acceptable to you for $4M from our #2 and #3 RBs? I suspect we can get much better for that money, but if you're happy with that kind of price/performance - and then having to replace those guys in a year, anyway - then so be it. But I would argue that we could get better productivity from Reggie Bush, Willis McGeehee, Mike Bell, Jerious Norwood, or any number of guys who may be UFAs or may be cut by their teams in cost moves this offseason, all of whom are younger guys who we could build on for the future.

 

[mayoclinic]

Yes, Loadholt was a fine starter. I recall the abuse I received when I even included him on a list of possible draftees. As I recall, almost no one wanted a player who was ONLY good enough to play RT.

However, I do NOT want to start this season with Vollmer at LT, a rookie at RT and Kaczur at RG. Some stability is good when the goal is protecting the franchise. I would much rather change only one position: RG. Vollmer would not be a real change at RT at this point.

If Kaczur moves to starting RG, then I have absolutely no problem with his salary being commensurate with his role, BTW.