Don't really want back our aged FA's

chris98251 · Feb 8, 2016

We cut them for a reason, salary and or injury history, if we had a chance to get say Maxwell back at a cheaper salary I would say yes based on his age, but the ship has sailed on guys like Unger, Clemons, Bryant etc as far as being real contributors for a long haul and the future. We have guys that are not household names, we can go after second tier guys and coach them up, after all we go after guys that are not even offensive lineman and coach them up.

We simply need to tweek the formula for evaluation and put smarter and more attuned players in slots maybe instead of one size fits all positions on our line, it's great for depth but I think a couple rovers versus a whole position group may suit or needs better going forward.

sutz · Feb 8, 2016

chris98251":3cy0bga3 said:
We cut them for a reason, salary and or injury history, if we had a chance to get say Maxwell back at a cheaper salary I would say yes based on his age, but the ship has sailed on guys like Unger, Clemons, Bryant etc as far as being real contributors for a long haul and the future. We have guys that are not household names, we can go after second tier guys and coach them up, after all we go after guys that are not even offensive lineman and coach them up.

We simply need to tweek the formula for evaluation and put smarter and more attuned players in slots maybe instead of one size fits all positions on our line, it's great for depth but I think a couple rovers versus a whole position group may suit or needs better going forward.

I agree in principle, but I'm not against bringing in a couple of "old" guys as 1-2 year stopgaps as draftees learn the system and the league. Of course, we have guys on the lower end of the roster who might fit your profile as "learning the system" types that might be ready to step up. With the possible exception of guys like Beast Mode, Harvin, and Graham I don't think we have been bringing in FAs with the 'long haul' in mind. Harvin was a big bust, Graham remains to be seen, and I think Lynch worked out pretty well.

Just because we sign someone for 3-4 years, doesn't mean we intend for them to be major contributors for that time period.

BobcatHawk · Feb 10, 2016

sutz":tdxs8dnf said:
I agree in principle, but I'm not against bringing in a couple of "old" guys as 1-2 year stopgaps as draftees learn the system and the league. Of course, we have guys on the lower end of the roster who might fit your profile as "learning the system" types that might be ready to step up. With the possible exception of guys like Beast Mode, Harvin, and Graham I don't think we have been bringing in FAs with the 'long haul' in mind. Harvin was a big bust, Graham remains to be seen, and I think Lynch worked out pretty well.

Just because we sign someone for 3-4 years, doesn't mean we intend for them to be major contributors for that time period.

Lynch came here as a result of a trade, but that just bolsters your argument.

DavidSeven · Feb 10, 2016

chris98251":2qvo0mzb said:
We cut them for a reason

I think this argument is probably persuasive for some position groups, but not especially for OL.

We have let go of players (plural) who have gone to have great seasons with other teams. In their place, we have started players (plural) who are borderline NFL caliber. People loved to scapegoat our OL in years' past (unfairly IMO), but the drop off in quality has been steep and obvious over the last year.

The evidence suggests that there is an evaluation issue on this unit. I don't know what it is, but we can't seem to scout college players. More troubling, we can't seem to scout our own players. We got guys starting one week and then on the street the next.The easiest fix is to go with what actually works, whether that be retreads or other proven FAs.

That said, Unger won't be available. He's the Saints' second best linemen. Also, he's 29. The same age as Jimmy Graham.

SomersetHawk · Feb 10, 2016

I could go for Unger on the cheap if he became available, but Browner? No thanks, he was already on the decline when we let him go. And converting him to a safety is a nice idea and all, but I don't think it's realistic.

chris98251 · Feb 10, 2016

DavidSeven":3hp5c5zw said:
chris98251":3hp5c5zw said:

We cut them for a reason

Click to expand...

I think this argument is probably persuasive for some position groups, but not especially for OL.

We have let go of players (plural) who have gone to have great seasons with other teams. In their place, we have started players (plural) who are borderline NFL caliber. People loved to scapegoat our OL in years' past (unfairly IMO), but the drop off in quality has been steep and obvious over the last year.

The evidence suggests that there is an evaluation issue on this unit. I don't know what it is, but we can't seem to scout college players. More troubling, we can't seem to scout our own players. We got guys starting one week and then on the street the next.The easiest fix is to go with what actually works, whether that be retreads or other proven FAs.

That said, Unger won't be available. He's the Saints' second best linemen. Also, he's 29. The same age as Jimmy Graham.

It's what we ask them to do, in a more traditional offense many of our players can excel, we ask them to rotate all over and zone block, many of our players move on to an offense that uses them in a situation that works to their skill set.

It's also why I think where ever Cable and or Gibbs went QB protection was abysmal, running game was always very respectable, I think that enigma will continue as long as we use the zone blocking scheme.

It gets QB's hurt and killed, all the QB's Oakland went thru, Elway got beat up with it, then Jake Plumber, we seen how our QB's if not mobile fare also.

Don't really want back our aged FA's

chris98251

Well-known member

sutz

Well-known member

BobcatHawk

Member

DavidSeven

New member

SomersetHawk

New member

chris98251

Well-known member

Similar threads

Latest posts