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.
