GroupThink 3 - Kitty Hawk, 2022

[Buzzbee]

My thoughts on offense:

QB's tend to be one of the more overpriced positions in the game. RB's also tend to be a little pricey, if they are a star (NOTE: the draft has supplied a good number of good, cheap RB's the past 2 years). FB's and TE's tend to be a good value. O Line seems like it is priced about right or a shade toward the value side.

As a result, I'd like to see us move in the direction (which I think we are/have been) of assembling a very stout O Line, good FB's and TE's, and then going for lesser QB's, RB's and WR's. In my opinion, a good, strong, balanced O Line will elevate a mediocre QB and RB in to a good QB and RB. Likewise a good QB and RB into a very good QB and RB.

In regard to the WR's, I'd like us to consider an idea I've been toying with. If we can find a QB who is very good on short and medium routes, with good accuracy and timing, I'd like to couple him with receivers who are excellent at getting downfield. If I remember correctly, getting downfield to some degree equates to "yards after catch". I'm curious how a short, accurate passing game with receivers who can break it for extra yardage would work. It might allow us to find a "system" type QB and complementary recievers cheaper than all-around players.

Just throwing it out there for you guys to chew on.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Fritz
The offensive staff does not clamor for high profile top shelf players, but we do like to have depth. Huntley give us depth. We like to have our potential starters on the roster before they are needed, and Huntly gives us that as well.

I hope management reviews the gamelogs and realizes that the coaching staff makes good use of players, even ones in a reserve role.

This guy will improve the team and is very affordable. Lets afford him.

While the offensive staff and the front office have differed on matters of philosophy at times, it's hard to refute the overall success of the planning done by said staff.

If this is your guy, we'll go get him.

Our offer now on the table: 3yrs, $7.6m ($2.0m bonus)

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Fritz, what kind of financial investment do you think is reasonpable for the QB position in total?

If we pursued Francis as our #2, put him behind Sparks or one of the other $3-4m/yr guys you have pointed out, and had cheap guys as our #3 and #4... we'd have something like $7 million in that position.

If we pursued a veteran to be our #2 guy in addition to Sparks, then we'd be talking about $9-10m there.

Any input on how important the #2 QB job is... or do you defer to the greater will there? (We've obviously had to resort to our #2 QB at criticl times each season... so that might color our decision)

What I think works best for us is 4 QBs. #4 is a roster saver and can be anyone. This just keeps us from having to make a midseason pickup.

#3 should be a developing guy. By our draft standards he is probably a second day pick.

#2 and #1 should be close in talent. A little better than a backup but not what other teams would look at as a starter. Sparks and Hutchens are a good example of this.

Looking at the current salaries, I think we should be able to get by around 10 M.

Sparks: 4.2
Francis: 1.4
Freuler/Blair 2.7
Rookie .7

is a little under that figure.

Top 20 QB avg sal is 5 Mil. We are shooting under that.
Top 5 QB avg is 11 Mil. We are getting our whole QB staff for under that.

[Buzzbee]

In regard to DE - How does the draft class look? Are there any good prospects that might still be around when we pick?

If not, might we consider trying to trade up? I believe our rules allow this:

-No initiating trades, other than trades during the draft involving current year's picks only.

the QB position is one that will require some attention, and most likely some $'s. Numbers wise we seem to be in pretty good shape. There aren't a large number of contributing players that we will need to re-sign, and not a lot of holes to fill, QB, O Line and DE being the noted exceptions. As a result, would it be worthwhile to perhaps trade away some picks to move up in the draft?

Generally I think the AI asks for way to much when trading and I very rarely do it, but once again wanted to throw it out as food for thought.

[QuikSand]

albionmoonlight... what gives with our nickelback getting all these sacks? I notice that CB Perry, who has a pretty mediocre season in coverage, did manage to post a crazy 8.5 sacks in only 257 pass plays last season. The year before, we got sacks from guys like CB Luther Duran (4) - presumably from being used in the same role.

Can you help 'splain what's going on with our defensive scheme? Is the "nickelback" role so heavily used in pass rushing that we really ought to be putting someone a little beefier back there?

[albionmoonlight]

3-4 discussion:

I think this may be the year to try out the 3-4. I wanted to do it coming in. I have been happy, however, with the 4-3, and part of me does not want to make a major change in a "make or break" year.

Still, since we are paying a lot of attention to the defense, it may be good to see how much a 3-4 changes what we have done from the 4-3.

If there are no good DEs in the draft or FA, then there are no good DEs. If we go to the 3-4, then we can use one of our DTs from last year as a DE. The other DE can be one of our OLBs. We still need someone, however, to replace Martin. That someone can be a MLB or an OLB (or even a DT), but we need at least one other body on the front seven.

If I am remembering right, I can see a 3-4 lineup like this

SLB: Mills
WILB: Shon
SILB: Daniels
WLB: [New guy] or Middleton

DE: Littlejohn
DT: Peters
DE: Middleton or [New guy]

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
There aren't a large number of contributing players that we will need to re-sign, and not a lot of holes to fill, QB, O Line and DE being the noted exceptions. As a result, would it be worthwhile to perhaps trade away some picks to move up in the draft?

Let's see... we could probably move from #31 to around pick #12 or #15 by giving away the meat of our draft-- our 2nd and 3rd round picks, I'm guessing, perhaps another minor pick in there.

I agree with the earlier assessment - there are four top-grade DEs in the draft. Perhaps if we get past pick 10 or 12 or so, we can consider making an offer of this nature. But I wouldn't want to trade up in advance to pick #12 or so, only to find that we don't get any of our guys there.

I'm confident that we coudl get a playable guy at #31 at DE... probably not a star, but a guy we coudl suit up and use there for a few years, perhaps in rotation with more talented guys from the OLB group.

There are also at least a couple guys at LB who might be able to switch over and formally switch over to DE... that might be a backdoor way to fill the position a little more easily, but it involves some risk, too.

[Fritz]

on QBs: I don't value star-talent nearly as much as depth. A pair of guys like Sparks/Hutchens is better than a stud and a dud combo.

We could go with #1 Sparks and the #2 Francis. I think if we bring Francis in #3 this season we can talk him into resigning with a chance to compete for #1 at the end of the year. I know that is a bit speculative, but I think it is a solid philosophy in this case.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally posted by QuikSand
albionmoonlight... what gives with our nickelback getting all these sacks? I notice that CB Perry, who has a pretty mediocre season in coverage, did manage to post a crazy 8.5 sacks in only 257 pass plays last season. The year before, we got sacks from guys like CB Luther Duran (4) - presumably from being used in the same role.

Can you help 'splain what's going on with our defensive scheme? Is the "nickelback" role so heavily used in pass rushing that we really ought to be putting someone a little beefier back there?

I don't know, honestly.

I have the sack percentages weighted very heavy toward the LBs. The only member of the secondary who is slated to get more than a de minimis amount of sacks is SS (~10%).

We played a lot more nickel last year. Perhaps the nickel defense replaces the WLB with the nickleback and then gives the nickelback the WLB's sack percentage (~70%).

One way to check that theory would be to look at the plays each player played last year. If this theory is correct, Shon should have less plays per game than Mills or Daniels.

Another theory is that I have the "blitz multiple" box set to 65 (50=normal). I assumed that the multiple blitz would stick to the percentages that I listed on the screen. However, perhaps FOF uses the nickleback when it pulls the second blitzer.

Those are the two things that occur to me off the top of my head.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
If this is your guy, we'll go get him.

Thank you.

While we respect the thoughtful approach to salary management, we also appricate that the front office is flexible in accomdating the field staff.

While we have your attention, can the water cooler in the training room be replaced with one that has a hot water tap? The TE coach is a big fan of herbal tea.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
3-4 discussion:

If I am remembering right, I can see a 3-4 lineup like this

SLB: Mills
WILB: Shon
SILB: Daniels
WLB: [New guy] or Middleton

DE: Littlejohn
DT: Peters
DE: Middleton or [New guy]

Okay, this presumes that we successfully re-sign both LB Mills and Shon. I'm not opposing this, just pointing out that we don't have all the eggs in ouur basket yet for this.

We do have a backup plan, though - as young LBs Rapp, Boyd, and Mitchell (assuming we re-sign him) are all ready to contribute. They may not be as stroing against the run as Mills, but each guys is multi-talented, and can contribute anywhere along the LB/DE axis.


And back to my question from this duscussion last year... do we have a sense what we gain or lose by switching to the 3-4 as envisioned above, and by stickinng with the 4-3 as we have it, using ouur two DTs as DTs, and taking out fourth LB and using him at DE? Again, I don't have much sense of this... but your inclusion of a LB in the DE mix even with the 3-4 alignment seems to beg the question.

[Buzzbee]

Are their any quality DT's in the FA market? Since we are considering shifting a DT to DE are there any DT's that might make good candidates for picking up a backdoor DE on the cheap?

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
We played a lot more nickel last year. Perhaps the nickel defense replaces the WLB with the nickleback and then gives the nickelback the WLB's sack percentage (~70%).

This is my theory, too. Interesting, though - I have never seen so many sacks from a DB without there being a conscious design behind it.

[QuikSand]

Anyone have any thoughts about WR Walt Pritchett? He's had a few good years during his long career (including one pro-bowl season), and can still contribute. He's only looking for about $2.6m a year - pretty cheap overall. I don't reckon we'd find lots of competition for his services.

Anyone interested?

[QuikSand]

The Kitty Hawk front office is pleased to announced that we have re-signed LB Otis Mitchell to a two year deal, which will keep him on the team through next season. As we face uncertainty with out defensive front seven, we're pleased to have a primising young player committed to being part of our clun moving forward. We expect Mitchell will get opportunities to contribute this year and beyond.

[albionmoonlight]

I'd need to look at the file, but if we have youth ready to fill the roles of Shon and Mills, I can work with that.

I don't really know what difference the game engine will make with the 3-4 instead of the 4-3.

One thing we can do from it is blitz from more directions--it is a bit more flexible that way.

Otherwise, I don't know if it will make a practical difference at all. Perhaps changing would be a way for us to learn a bit more about the game.

The good thing is that--depending on what falls to us--we don't really have to make that choice until before the first game of the season.

Also--I would love to trade up and snag a top 4 DE in the middle teens of the draft. However, if we are expecting economic sanctions again next year, then we may be looking for our 2nd and 3rd round picks from this year to contribute. We don't want to end up like the Saints after the Ricky Williams deal and have no depth.

When you run the draft, I would like you to stop it after the 3rd of the 4 gets picked. Depending on where the draft is at that point will dictate, to me, whether we should trade up or not.

[QuikSand]

Back to nickelback... I wonder if perhaps the best guy for the job there is S Orlando McNair? We've seen both guys on coverage - and the stats speak for themselves, McNair can get the job done. If we are going to continue using the nickel package frequently, McNair gives us every bit of the coverage skills that we have in Perry, but he is 20 pounds heavier and a far superior run enforcer.

Sommething to think about... last year we struggled to find a way to get McNair onto the field. I'll defer to our DC, but this seems like a possibility to me.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
When you run the draft, I would like you to stop it after the 3rd of the 4 gets picked. Depending on where the draft is at that point will dictate, to me, whether we should trade up or not.

Good plan. Will do.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
And back to my question from this duscussion last year... do we have a sense what we gain or lose by switching to the 3-4 as envisioned above, and by stickinng with the 4-3 as we have it, using ouur two DTs as DTs, and taking out fourth LB and using him at DE? Again, I don't have much sense of this... but your inclusion of a LB in the DE mix even with the 3-4 alignment seems to beg the question.

My answer to that is...what happens if you convert a LB to a DE? I'm guessing that they lose some green and probably most of their red. I believe playing a LB as a DE probably has a similar effect. Yes, we haven't been bitten by using the LB as a DE, or have we? What are Middleton's numbers? And when Shon played?

Also, it seems like we had one game where our opponent beat us with long gains to the outside. I'm not saying that a LB as a DE won't or can't work. I'm just not sold on the fact that it has worked.

In my opinion having a "regular" DE as opposed to a converted LB has a better chance for success, even if the DE is a little lower in the skill categories. Just my impression, based on not a lot.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
My answer to that is...what happens if you convert a LB to a DE? I'm guessing that they lose some green and probably most of their red. I believe playing a LB as a DE probably has a similar effect.

I don't believe there is much evidence to this effect.

I've played plenty of FOF, and have had great successes using players out of their listed positions -- most notably RBs playing WR, and C playing G or T, but also LB playing DE, S playing LB, and so forth.

Yes, the game"punishes" players when they try to switch positions, but whatever penalty exists when a player plays out of position, it doesn't seem to be very noticeable.

And that's my main question ... if we can use that 4th LB as a DE anyway, then what's the point of switching to the 3-4? There may not be an answer to that, except for the marginal issues that alb has already brought up.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I don't believe there is much evidence to this effect.

Easy way to check if you are not opposed to it. Fire up the game and convert all of our LB's to DE's. Note the results. Of course this would mean exiting without saving. It should give us a reasonable answer to our question.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I don't believe there is much evidence to this effect.

I've played plenty of FOF, and have had great successes using players out of their listed positions -- most notably RBs playing WR, and C playing G or T, but also LB playing DE, S playing LB, and so forth.

Yes, the game"punishes" players when they try to switch positions, but whatever penalty exists when a player plays out of position, it doesn't seem to be very noticeable.

And that's my main question ... if we can use that 4th LB as a DE anyway, then what's the point of switching to the 3-4? There may not be an answer to that, except for the marginal issues that alb has already brought up.

And as FOF is concerned, there may not be much difference. I am probably thinking too much in a "real world" sense. If you are deep at LB and weak on the D line, a switch to 3-4 is a little easier to swallow. You do have a valid point that if we are playing a LB as a DE, what difference does it make.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
Easy way to check if you are not opposed to it. Fire up the game and convert all of our LB's to DE's. Note the results. Of course this would mean exiting without saving. It should give us a reasonable answer to our question.

No, no, no. Sorry, I'm not being clear.

I'm well aware that if you actually switch a LB to DE, he suffers a hit in ratings. Our guys, as it turns out, are too small to even try.

I'm just saying that putting an OLB like Middleton in to play DE like we did last year tends to yield pretty acceptable results (like it did last year). I don't think these guys play as if they had the "penalized" ratings - I think they generally play as though they were in the right position all along. If there's a "penalty" being applied, it's not as severe as what we frequently see if you actually switch them.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Anyone have any thoughts about WR Walt Pritchett? He's had a few good years during his long career (including one pro-bowl season), and can still contribute. He's only looking for about $2.6m a year - pretty cheap overall. I don't reckon we'd find lots of competition for his services.

Anyone interested?

did you notcie he is still recoving from an ACL?

Song/Sanderson/Carr makes for a good lineup. 2 rooks to round out the squad will be fine unless we find a real steal.

SE Everett Thomas is more of of the type I would look for if we were going to bring a guy in.

He has good hands on 3rd down and would be a possesion type. He can also return a punt.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
No, no, no. Sorry, I'm not being clear.

I'm well aware that if you actually switch a LB to DE, he suffers a hit in ratings. Our guys, as it turns out, are too small to even try.

I'm just saying that putting an OLB like Middleton in to play DE like we did last year tends to yield pretty acceptable results (like it did last year). I don't think these guys play as if they had the "penalized" ratings - I think they generally play as though they were in the right position all along. If there's a "penalty" being applied, it's not as severe as what we frequently see if you actually switch them.

Then have we checked to see if there are any good FA LB's that might play in the DE slot? A good run stopper and pass rusher with negligible cover skills?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
And as FOF is concerned, there may not be much difference. I am probably thinking too much in a "real world" sense. If you are deep at LB and weak on the D line, a switch to 3-4 is a little easier to swallow. You do have a valid point that if we are playing a LB as a DE, what difference does it make.

DEs don't drop into coverage.

[Fritz]

all -

If you are looking to get McNair into the game, why not play him at WLB?

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Fritz

While we have your attention, can the water cooler in the training room be replaced with one that has a hot water tap? The TE coach is a big fan of herbal tea.

So is the Assistant Scout (when not drinking Tequila).

BTW - it doesn't look like there are that many good OLB's out there, and I would think if they're too old a position change probably would do more harm than good.

What do we want with our top pick, anyway? If we think we can get a 2nd level DE outside of the first round and have no other huge needs, maybe we swap it for a couple of lower level picks, save a little money, and roll the dice with DE/OLB draftees.

[Buzzbee]

And if LB's can play out of position at DE with little dropoff in performance, it seems like we shouldn't even bother with DE's. We should simply draft LB's and play them at DE. It gives us depth at OLB, ILB, and DE. This is especially true if DE's tend to be more expensive than LB's.

[cuervo72]

Hmm...I wonder if SLB Derek Covington could make a switch - 6-2, 264 out of Rice. Aquarius, Well liked by fans. PR Strength of 98 and 71 as a hitter. Or just keep him at LB

[cuervo72]

Dola - Rice must have had a good defense, because RDT Harold Emerson - 96 PRS, 6-2 306 - and DE Leonard Valdes also caught my eye....

[dixieflatline]

Switching to the 3-4 probably should be back on the table again, I suppose. Nominally, we could move DT Peters or DT Littlejohn to the DE position, and then we could start four LBs behind them. That would give us only one DE spot to worry about, either by way of free agents or by rookie additions.

I think this is a really good idea. In the 3-4 the DL is mostly responsible for stuffing the run which Peters and Littlejohn both do well. This also gets 4 athletic linebackers on the field to blitz or cover.

On the other side of the coin by playing an OLB at DE like last year you were still getting 4 linebackers on the field and the sack totals showed that was a good thing.

I think the current roster is a bit more suited to the 3-4 but it is hard to change a good thing and the defense played very well last year. I think it has the potential to play better this year though if aligned in the 3-4.

If that move does happen I would recommend putting the DT on the strong side of the formation(left in FOF I think) and the true DE on the weak side as more of a pass rushing position.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by dixieflatline

If that move does happen I would recommend putting the DT on the strong side of the formation(left in FOF I think) and the true DE on the weak side as more of a pass rushing position.

Or you could look for situational matchups, depending on what the opponent's offensive strengths are. They may run more to the right, or have a particularly weak pass blocking tackle on one side, etc.

[dixieflatline]

Fritz,

When Sparks was playing last year what adjustments did you make to the gameplan to get Rubble and Wylie on the field? Both players were very effective last year and Wylie is only going to get better. Without the 2TE set I think it is going to be hard to use both(either?) of them effectively.

Like Quicksand's affinity for McNair I really like Wylie. Maybe I am the only one but he was the first pick last year and played well and I think he needs to be on the field.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by dixieflatline
When Sparks was playing last year what adjustments did you make to the gameplan to get Rubble and Wylie on the field? Both players were very effective last year and Wylie is only going to get better. Without the 2TE set I think it is going to be hard to use both(either?) of them effectively.

Hutchens was the QB for almost all of the season, and we were in a 61% running mode much of it. This means fair use of 2TE. While Kolowski and Diana are the Starters, Wylie and Wayne and Rubble were in on the 2 TE set. Rubble sees action as the pass back as well.

Not sure how I will do it this season with Sparks as the starter. Rubble and Wylie can expect to see a lot play time.

Originally posted by dixieflatline
Like Quicksand's affinity for McNair I really like Wylie. Maybe I am the only one but he was the first pick last year and played well and I think he needs to be on the field.

In my solo games I pay a great deal of attention to the FB, TE, and S. These guys often drop in the draft and become my core. If our RB situation were not so stong, you can be sure that Rubble would be rushing the ball about 120-150 times for about 600 yards.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Fritz
did you notcie he is still recoving from an ACL?

Yes, I did notice WR Pritchett's injury. It was part of what initially attracted me to him, though the short duration lessend that attraction. I was trying to be "on the level" in pointing him out, despite the fact that my true motivations are more sinister.

I'm having trouble finding a free agent who will satisfy my principal objective... but will keep looking. Maybe WR Deion Shepherd might be a better option? He has been pretty productive in recent years (averages 1,000 yards a season the last four years), and is only looking for around $2.4/yr. I'm not absolutely certain, but I think he might be a good addition in the original vein.

On furtyer review, maybe the best guy to target would be WR Lionel Booker. He had a breakout season with Ypsilanti last season after being their 3rd receiver for years - be busted out with 1,300 yards receiving and an invitation to the all pro team. A 7th year player right in his prime, he's only seeking about $2.5m/yr... not very steep at all.

This could be the guy for the job.

[QuikSand]

Fritz, I searched in vain for your discussion of QB formation knowledge from last season... but i recall you lamenting that SParks had lost command of a certain 2TE formation.

On his current list of 14, I see: Pro TE Pairs, Weak TE Pairs, Strong TE pairs, and Goal-Line 3TE.

Are any of these the formation that you would have been seeking to use much?

[QuikSand]

Here is some thinking about how we might occupy the remaining amount of cap space that we have available. We’ve got 22 spots, less 7 for the expected draft is 15—and $51 million to spend on those spots. Let’s see how much we have occupied so far:

We expect to get our three positional leaders—TE Diana, FB Kowalski, and T Johns. I’ll plug in $12 million for those three, though it certainly could end up being more. That bumps us down to $39m left for 12 spots.

I’m sensing from the DC that we’d like to re-sign at least one of our veteran LBs, Shon or Mills. For now, I’ll plug in one slot at $3.5 million for one of these guys, whomever we end up getting. So, $35.5M/11 spots.

We’ve had some discussions about OL, and I have offers in for two new players there—C Drake and T Huntley. Those two cost us $3.7m this year, bringing us down to about $32M/9 spots. Add in a new deal for G Hausrman, our current starter at LG, and we're down to about 30M/8 spots.

We’ve also discussed QB, and seem to have a plan here, too. We’ll pursue QBs Sparks and Francis, which should probably occupy around $6.2m… so we will knock our remaining cap space down to $24M/6 spots.

That, as nearly as I can tell, is what we have basically agreed to do. That leaves us without a single quality defensive end on the team, though we have discussed the possibility of using one or more OLB in that role. I’m just thinking that this can help refine our discussions… this might be more money on hand that we’re thinking we have available.

There might well be enough money on hand to invest in a big time player at a need position.

[QuikSand]

Something that might be reasonable to consider and still within our rules might be a one year offer to a free agent DE. I'm pretty impressed with Manning, and there are a few others who might make sense. Perhaps we could consider a sizable one year deal to one of them (around $5m salary and $5m bonus, for instance) as a strategy to make a needed improvement for this season, without adding to our potential problems for next year?

Just a thought. DE Sinclair is certainly a possibility as well, and at $4-5m/yr is much more affordable.

[QuikSand]

DT Brian Levine is a pretty cheap DT (asking only $1.35m/yr) who has some deceent pass-rushing skills. Might be a guy we coudl use in a DE rotation, and who couuld help in the DT spot against the pass, too.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I'm having trouble finding a free agent who will satisfy my principal objective... but will keep looking.

What is your objective? an old guy on a short sweetheart deal that will usurp Diana as the leader?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Fritz, I searched in vain for your discussion of QB formation knowledge from last season... but i recall you lamenting that SParks had lost command of a certain 2TE formation.

On his current list of 14, I see: Pro TE Pairs, Weak TE Pairs, Strong TE pairs, and Goal-Line 3TE.

Are any of these the formation that you would have been seeking to use much?

It was his loss of I TE Pairs. No biggie I guess. He is certainly versitle enough.

No chance for one of those other QBs to round out the set is there? I would to like get Francis under contract, but not ask much from him this season.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by QuikSand
On further review, maybe the best guy to target would be WR Lionel Booker. He had a breakout season with Ypsilanti last season after being their 3rd receiver for years - be busted out with 1,300 yards receiving and an invitation to the all pro team. A 7th year player right in his prime, he's only seeking about $2.5m/yr... not very steep at all.

This could be the guy for the job.

Alas, further study of Booker have rendered him an inappropriate target on chemistry grounds. Oh, it was such a good plan, too.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Fritz
What is your objective? an old guy on a short sweetheart deal that will usurp Diana as the leader?

Yes.

[Buzzbee]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned him, but if Fritz is looking for some depth on the OL, we might want to take a look at RG Jerry Johnson. He is a 6 year veteran who has been used primarily as a backup. He looks like he has pretty good potential. He is only asking for about $2 mil a year for 2 years. Oh, and did I mention he would have an affinity with Leader Johns?

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Something that might be reasonable to consider and still within our rules might be a one year offer to a free agent DE. I'm pretty impressed with Manning, and there are a few others who might make sense. Perhaps we could consider a sizable one year deal to one of them (around $5m salary and $5m bonus, for instance) as a strategy to make a needed improvement for this season, without adding to our potential problems for next year?

Just a thought. DE Sinclair is certainly a possibility as well, and at $4-5m/yr is much more affordable.

A cheaper alternative at DE might be Brad Rosa. He is certainly not as good as Manning, but might be a good "budget" alternative. He would be chemistry neutral.

At SE Everett Thomas might also be a good fit. Primarily a backup in his first few years, he started 12 games last year. He caught 43 of 62 passes for 632 yards, and 6 TD's. He had only 4 drops. He's asking for a 3 year deal, a $2 mill bonus for a total of $8.1 million. I'll check on his chemistry. {EDIT: He is an Aries and chemistry neutral with Diana}

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Fritz
What is your objective? an old guy on a short sweetheart deal that will usurp Diana as the leader?

Speaking of this, I happened to sort the FA's by leadership, and noticed that there is a TE by the name of Al Aska. Not a spectacular player (though better than Diana)...but Al Aska? (he's a Leo...I haven't checked compatability).

edit: Leos are incompatible with Capricorns, which Sanderson is. So that would be out I guess. Damn.

[cuervo72]

Still on the matter of TE's, assuming we want to dump Diana....the second rated TE in the draft (30/60), Kelly Spears, is a Virgo with a very strong personality (90) and a leadership of 85. Other points that stand out are run blocking (35/94), 3rd down catching (81/94) and route running (34/71). No big-play receiving. Might make a good possession TE. Of course, I guess we don't need another one of those drafted too highly with Wylie, so nevermind

Another guy I saw who wanted a 1 year contract but had high leadership (78) was Rich Sweeney. No blocking skills, poor route running, but good courage, gets downfield and VG on third down. Capricorn.

[QuikSand]

While I have no problem with making moves trying to change the leadership roles, let's recall - especially with marginal players, the position leaders are basically starters for life. If we want to draft someone or otherwise pick up a young player with an eye on him becoming the leader - we need to make peace with the notion that he will keep getting contract offers from us, and will keep getting to start, period.

Right now, as frustrating as it might be to have Diana and Kowalski in leadership roles, be thankful that they are (1) relatively less important roles than they could be, and (2) pretty old players, who will eventually shed on their own.

I'd hate to see us get to focused on shedding a guy like Diana that we commit to ten more years with a marginal talent starting for us at split end, who would eventually start getting paid even more than our old crummy TE.

[Fritz]

Diana and Kowalski have done okay. no need to move them along. We don't ask much and they give what we ask.