Donnie Edwards

The Chargers still have Michael Turner, so they probably wouldn't be interested in Shelton. Also, considering the amount of players we already have under contract for next year, I'm not sure we'd really miss that third rounder. I guess I'd do it.

 

It's actually a cheap contract for who he is. It's the 3rd rounder I hate to lose.

I know the salary is like $3.3 this year and $4 and change next - what's the cap hit for any bonuses?

I'm asking b/c I'm wondering about the sensibility of losing spoon, giving up a 3rd, and paying alot for an old player. Spoon got just over $5 mill per year, Edwards is about at $4mill per for the 2 we'd have him, plus the bonus $$ cost, plus a 3rd - ( and they want a second )

Plus - won't Edwards want an extension? And what's with the bad back?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15328983.htm

He's been a great fucking player, though.

 

Edwards is alot:

2006 3550000.00
2007 4825000.00

That's over $4.15 mill per before bonus $$.

I have GOT to think that something is wrong with Morgan for these guys to pull the trigger on this. It's so entirely out of character.

 

He's never been hurt much and puts up rediculous stats. If we get him it is to make a SB run this year. He'll be gone next year. I'm not ready to give up on Shelton yet. He needs some carries.

 

I dont think the bonus money counts against the team on the recieving end, it would only count against the Chargers.

 

It is true that Edwards is not asked to be a pass rusher and, in fact, is among the league's best linebackers in coverage. But the fact that he is not a game-changing linebacker in the vein of Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher, or Dan Morgan, yet has continually asked for more money while being among the league's highest-paid inside linebackers, is what has apparently rankled Smith.

Ok, my shameless Morgan plug above aside, from what I have read about Edwards his tackle numbers are inflated with downfield tackles, he's not a good pass rusher, but is an excellent cover linebacker. He has made the Pro Bowl only once, and that was as an alternate. He seems to me to be a decent linebacker who is aging and wants the big payday. The type of player we should avoid, you know, the ones who put up "numbers" in there prime years and then get some sucker team to pay them again for past achievements. Now, if going after Edwards is all about being able to actually cover a TE, then bring his ass in!

 

this is true. Only the salary counts against us, which isn't a ridiculous salary - and if we wanted, we could do a renegotiation like we did with Jake, add a year or two, and spread that money out. Problem is, you'll probably not do it for less than the $5 mil per year he's due in 07.

i'm against it, if it's a possibility. He's a very good player - better than any linebacker we have, with Morgan being close. The thing is, we can make the plays against the run already, and unless Morgan's done forever, there's no real concern that we'll be undertalented. Even if he is done, Edwards is a WLB. It'd help us get some veteran ability back on the field, and it would allow us to use a run-downs type guy like Seward and/or Draft at MLB, but it'd still be a very extreme reaction, Morgan or not.

And it'd be a temporary solution, piling money onto a team that's going to have cap issues soon, and taking away a vital first day pick that would otherwise serve a valuable, cheap depth position in 07-08 and hopefully fill a need after that.


Trashman - I don't see edwards doing a lot against the TE. He'd improve coverage, but that's something we could remedy with Adams or Anderson if we needed (or would be there anyway if Diggs was out). And it'd be away from the TE. We do need to get our coverage tighter, definitely. We have and will probably continue to have some issues there early on. A good amount of it seems to be a mental issue, which is correctable. Just mistakes.

But with our corners, we're going to get picked on some, underneath. . IMO, Witherspoon was a very good pass defender in general (with a couple mistakes in there, sure). He had more plays on the ball than any other linebacker last year, I believe. And we still got picked on, not just because Short is slower and relatively unflexible. We got picked on all over under zones, because under zones aren't infalliable. They're the easier picking.

Edwards is that same type guy, and the same contain type tackler. I believe I read where Edwards had more tackles in the passing game than anyone else in the league last year. He's obviously a fine coverage guy. And I don't believe the $3 mil difference and a 3rd is going to make us that much better. I have no doubts that our nickel coverage will be tough, completely challenging to anyone who tries to test it. We're stout, top to bottom, all seven guys. That our run-oriented defense will give up 5 pass yards on 2nd and 8? Always been a situation. Don't think it ever won't be, and don't think that people won't cry about how awful Trgo is that we let a few WCO teams dink a few first downs on us before we shut them down. And having a better coverage guy at WLB isn't going to stop that.

 

Dude, seriously, don't go down this route. My initial reaction was to light you up (I even came up with a few funny lines), but I'm going to cut you some slack and give you a chance to get out of this yourself. You don't know about Donnie Edwards, so do you think it is appropriate to pass off your opinion as informed? You also have a very obvious and very large bias toward Dan Morgan, so your opinion about any linebacker who might overshadow him is going to be extremely suspect. And for the record, I don't care what any article says, we all know that Dan Morgan is a slightly above average linebacker even when healthy. He doesn't fill holes, he's terrible in coverage, and he doesn't cause turnovers. He's solid, but nothing more, and pretending otherwise will only get you in trouble again.

Donnie Edwards is a playmaker. If you can, try to catch one of the Chargers yearbooks from the last couple of seasons on NFL Network or one of the ESPN channels. I supported him for Defensive MVP several times precisely because he was always around the ball and always making plays, especially when San Diego needed them. He'd make interceptions, cause fumbles, break up a key pass, or stone a guy just short of a first down. He is in that Derrick Books/Ray Lewis tier, he's just never gotten the hype. I'm 100% fine with anyone who has the opinion that we shouldn't go after him because of the draft pick or even the salary, but I'm not going to put up with anyone ignorantly minimizing his abilities because they're in love with another man.


meat:
klgeorge is correct about all the bonus being paid by the prior team, and none of that would count against our cap either. That also means that we could cut or restructure him prior to the 2007 season with no penalty. Regarding the contract, I've seen conflicting reports. Some of the older sources include the 2007 salary, while some of the newer ones do not. I wonder if that year wasn't made into an option year or something.

 

I certainly don't pretend to be knowledgeable on Edwards, just looked up some background when his name came up and did not see anything that got me real excited. Hey, at least I did a little background research before forming an opinion........admittedly not "informed".

Yes, My name is Trashman and I have a Dan Morgan bias.

I simply did not initially see anything about Edwards that made me feel he would be a great fit and make a significant difference with our defense. Does not mean he won't, just looking for some support to that notion. I will look for the Chargers Yearbook you suggested. Can you tell me why KC let him go? Was it just dollars, and if so what was it about Edwards that made KC uncomfortable paying him? Thanks,

ps.....funny slams are good with me, I have thick skin.

 

It wasn't money, because he signed a pretty reasonable contract with San Diego (5 year $18 mil, although that looked like more back then). KC just has a long history of making bad personnel decisions on defense, and the belief was that Edwards was too light, and that they needed to get bigger since they didn't have the front four to occupy blockers and hold the point of attack. Whether there is a strong correlation or not, Edwards' departure coincided with KC's complete defensive collapse (going from 23rd in points, 22nd in yards for '01 to 28th/32nd for '02).

As for the fit, he's basically the ideal WLB, especially if you have a front four that doesn't require him to take on blockers. Think of him as Derrick Brooks, since they're the same age and play very similarly. Would you trade a third and take on $3.5 mil in salary for Derrick Brooks?


Oh, and if he ends up in New Orleans, that will suck but it's not the end of the world. He'd dramatically improve their horrid linebacking situation, but they still don't have run stoppers up front and he isn't going to make their defense above average by himself.