- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 30,865
- Reaction score
- 29,555
That makes no sense.
Especially since Reed is a FS....
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.That makes no sense.
That makes no sense.
Maybe it doesn't make sense to you. I just don't see the need for two free safety's. McCourty plays Free Safety and we draft or sign a strong safety for reasonable money. How does that not make sense?
I think people take 'only interested in ___ if he comes for the min' a bit too far.
So if Reed said "I'll play for you for 1 year 3 million' you'd pass? How about 1 year, 1.5m?
I get passing on 2 years, 10 million. I'm borderline on that -- I'd do it if it can be turned into a 1 year / 5 million contract by cutting him if he plays poorly.
But if it were 1 year 3 mil, or 2/6 I'd be super happy.
In my opinion a strong safety is over-rated on this team. The front seven is good enough at stopping the run but they all suck in coverage. Would be nice if our safety could occasional blitz the qb -- but I'm more interested in taking away the deep ball and making it more difficult for opponents on intermediate routes.
If they had a guy like Reed covering the deep ball, it would also be interesting to see if they could get more creative with McCourty -- having him and Talib swap coverages mid-play, etc to confuse the qb. Or if Travis develops into a competent safety, McCourty remains starting safety but becomes a CB on nickel packages.
I don't agree that this defense wouldn't be helped by having a starting combo or Reed/McCourty instead of Gregory/McCourty, but that's not what I was referring to. The notion of only taking Ed Reed for minimum money makes no sense.