Carolina DL - 2003

[magnus]

Let's jump ahead here. IMO getting the DL together is the big part of what we're doing on D because the linebackers should sort themselves out, the safeties should be the best unit on the team and the corners will suck regardless.

So with that in mind, and me recently looking up that Buckner is FA after 2002, I want to look at some of this real quick.
There's five things to consider coming out of the season: Rucker is a free agent, and possibly a priority to keep. Williams and Buckner will be FA also, as noted. These are, I believe, the biggest free agent situations we face.

And then there's Peppers' play, which should noticeably impact how much we pursue one of our ends, and possibly both.

The fifth, Gilbert's cut, is IMO a certainty as I believe his salary is $6.5 million and his prorated bonus should be manageable (as a function of his getting a pair of roster bonuses in the last two years rather than signing bonuses - the proration has dwindled over time without having been added to). So that's not really an issue IMO, but it's something that must be noted.


That leaves under contract:
Burton, 2 years at that point
Jenkins, 2
Peppers, 5-6

not a terribly deep nor talented trio. Jenkins, you figure, will be a starter at some point, and that still doesn't keep you from making another DT move, and preferably youth.

We'll have to put something into another end - I naturally prefer Rucker and hope that he can both have a good year this year and that we'll re-sign him to a respectable deal. If it's not him, then I imagine the idea will be, especially if Peppers has any trouble at left end, to get a left end and put Peppers right.
In the end, I don't think we lose anything there except for ties, experience and intangibles, as Rucker is probably as much bang for the buck as one will get.

Since we will have to put, or at least I feel we should, picks into WR and RT, it's not conceivable to think of two DL picks in the first four.

So my preference is FA with preference to resign, at DE, and draft at DT. What's some other good ways of going about this, and especially under a situation of Peppers moving right.

 

[Piper]

I still think we will have to buy a starting level DT next year. Jenkins and Burton won’t cut it. Hopefully we won’t be taking the top 5 pick that Joseph will cost. We will have to draft a DT somewhere, sure, but I’m not counting on taking the #3 DT over a corner like Weathersby, for example.

 

[Wp28]

reply...

So with that in mind, and me recently looking up that Buckner is FA after 2002, I want to look at some of this real quick. There's five things to consider coming out of the season: Rucker is a free agent, and possibly a priority to keep. Williams and Buckner will be FA also, as noted. These are, I believe, the biggest free agent situations we face.
This process needs to start now IMHO, Williams needs to be wrapped up for another 3 for depth while restructuring this year. Rucker I like but lets see what fruit the market bares, Strahan for example might be available and we have a connection with Fox, in all likelihood that’s not gonna happen But I would at least like to see it explored.


The fifth, Gilbert's cut, is IMO a certainty as I believe his salary is $6.5 million and his prorated bonus should be manageable (as a function of his getting a pair of roster bonuses in the last two years rather than signing bonuses - the proration has dwindled over time without having been added to). So that's not really an issue IMO, but it's something that must be noted.
Don’t we say this every year, actually his final year is only like 2.5m so its not inconceivable that they split 6.5 and next years 8.5 over the final three and keep him if needed, though I agree with you the ride is likely over after 2002.


That leaves under contract:
Burton, 2 years at that point
Jenkins, 2
Peppers, 5-6
I still see us adding something somewhere along the D-line before season’s start.

Since we will have to put, or at least I feel we should, picks into WR and RT, it's not conceivable to think of two DL picks in the first four.
That sentence just hurts my over tired head. (lol)

So my preference is FA with preference to resign, at DE, and draft at DT. What's some other good ways of going about this, and especially under a situation of Peppers moving right.
For me its restructure Williams and add two more years of reasonable terms, resign Rucker long term unless some freak deal with Strahan or the likes can be managed. Draft priority - DT, WR in 1 and 2. FA CB unless somebody steps up this year. And draft some D-line depth next year. I also fear FB is not going to be resolved this year.

 

[magnus]

>>I still think we will have to buy a starting level DT next year.

That does suggest two things - one, that a defensive tackle better than Jenkins "should be" is available, and two, that we can and should afford him.

>>Jenkins and Burton won’t cut it.

Jenkins, Burton, and a rookie with unlimited potential would, in theory. Jenkins, Burton, and Michael Myers or Steve Martin? Nah. There's no point in even doing that. We've played patty-cake stop gap for 7 years at DT and we finally have one prospect. Let's clean up and do it right, IMO anyway.

>>Hopefully we won’t be taking the top 5 pick that Joseph will cost.

Tell the truth, I wouldn't mind a 5-7 pick at all. I'd prefer not to be one of the top two, but in all honesty having the pick that San Diego had at 5-11, especially considering Houston should pick ahead regardless, isn't disappointing. 5-11, 6-10 are reasonable targets but an upper limit. 7-9 isn't impossible, but I can't justify it.

>>We will have to draft a DT somewhere, sure, but I’m not counting on taking the #3 DT over a corner like Weathersby, for example.

That suggests we have a shot at Weathersby and he's the guy we want. Since there's no real alternative at CB, I tend not to want to sit on that egg this early. But if that's the way we go, that's the way we go.

Still, I don't get this third DT situation. A top 5 pick at DT - why would he not start over Burton? That makes no sense at all.

 

[magnus]

Re: reply...

Originally posted by Wp28

>>This process needs to start now IMHO,

Agree, that's why I'm stressed about it now.

>>Williams needs to be wrapped up for another 3 for depth

mmm...well...maybe. But that means possibly paying him better than he's been getting, and rewarding him for a year of playing poorly and complaining. While we must have depth, I don't know that in the end a Williams-Peppers duo is enough and I'm fairly sure that's a 50/50 chance if we're wrapping him up and letting Rucker chance the market.

>>Strahan for example might be available and we have a connection with Fox, in all likelihood that’s not gonna happen But I would at least like to see it explored.

Certainly, but he legitimately deserves $5-6 mil a year and won't be around for the last 3 years of his contract. I'd be willing to take a look at it, and just like Smith I'd support it damn near to the end if it happened, but I don't think it would bare fruit the way we'd want it to.

I think I'm just a little gunshy but the end result in the deal is that I want to build a a defensive line, not buy it. And like I've said above, Steve Martin ain't getting it. Brentson Buckner doesn't scratch my itch either, as a starter. He couldn't beat out Chester.


>>Don’t we say this every year, actually his final year is only like 2.5m so its not inconceivable that they split 6.5 and next years 8.5 over the final three and keep him if needed, though I agree with you the ride is likely over after 2002.

Old habits die hard. We're finally at a spot where we can cut him, though, and moving that $6.5 million may make that hard on us again - given that he's got three years. So it's possible to add a year, again, and push that $6.5 mil back again, making it harder for him to be cut in the future.

Between that fact and the idea

>>I still see us adding something somewhere along the D-line before season’s start.

We can hope, but a bird in hand's better than any number free to wander. I don't think we'll have the money.

>> I also fear FB is not going to be resolved this year.

Definitely possible. Not at all a given.
On the other hand, I like what I see of both Hoover and Johnson as far as getting the ball up field, and IMO you can put Foster or Smith in a situation where they slash and hit their holes and don't need a full time fullback. I think this H-Back thing can be successful.

 

[Wp28]

great replay as always Mags.

I think I'm just a little gunshy but the end result in the deal is that I want to build a a defensive line

Using Strahan for example would be doing just that indirectly. (and I'm not advocating an all out run for Strahan-it just makes good conversation) Strahan is one of Fox's guy's, Peppers is Fox's pick. and the 1st or 2nd. round DT pick next year would be Fox's. Thats three of four built by Fox.

honestly, if we ended up better then expected next year and had a legit shot at a SB run in '03 or '04 I would jump on Strahan.

Now I got myself thinking too far ahead.

 

[magnus]

great replay as always Mags.

if not I'll go off on a completely useless tirade about Todd Steussie.

>>Using Strahan for example would be doing just that indirectly. (and I'm not advocating an all out run for Strahan-it just makes good conversation) Strahan is one of Fox's guy's, Peppers is Fox's pick. and the 1st or 2nd. round DT pick next year would be Fox's. Thats three of four built by Fox.

True enough, and two gamebreaking DE would allow us to be more specialized at DT. If we could get it done.

>>honestly, if we ended up better then expected next year and had a legit shot at a SB run in '03 or '04 I would jump on Strahan.

Deja Vu. But at least Strahan doesn't have knee problems.
But seriously, if we could get Strahan on a reasonable plan for his wants, and he could stay happy here, an 8-8 season with Weinke being hot and us having a good run game? That leaves us with CB or WR at the first pick and a DT in the third (assume RT in FA as well, in that case).

Ahh, to dream irrationally. God knows, some of my thoughts will stick one day.

 

[Piper]

>>Jenkins, Burton, and a rookie with unlimited potential would

Depends. Right now, I don't see a DT crop similar to the past two years. That may change, and I do want a DT in the first 3 rounds, but I can’t get myself locked into starting that player in what looks to be a relatively weak crop at a position where players get taken before they should.

Regardless, that starting level FA, be he a Myers caliber, or a Sam Adams, should not preclude us from taking the player we want. That FA is likely to be a stop gap, true, but the stop gaps in Chicago haven’t hurt. I’m saying let’s hedge our bets a bit. Particuarly if we are somewhere between 7 and 13. If we were talking about last years class and being able to land Wendall Bryant at 12, sure, but that’s not the norm.

 

[magnus]

>>Depends. Right now, I don't see a DT crop similar to the past two years.

Far greater than DE next year, but no, not as good as last year. Then again, we don't need the top five to be among the top 15, just have two worth being top ten and being playmakers. Joseph is a playmaker, and as long as Kennedy doesn't go Triplett, he should be there as well. Dockett, some feel he's a tackle, but that's sorta Jason Peter-ish - I'd rather put him at end. Morehead, depending on who you talk to, could go either way - he's listed at end but at his size, some put a premier value on him as a tackle the way that Damione Lewis was.

Then you go into wildcards like Vince Wilfork, underclassman from Miami who, much like most of the DT tandems of the last two years, has the ability to be as dominant or more dominant than Joseph.

Well, at least I've talked myself off the ledge from the idea that we'd have to put DT at highest priority, which I'd worked myself into today after thinking we could get by in the first two rounds earlier. I still think that by 3, there's no reason. Why? To have another

>>Regardless, that starting level FA, be he a Myers caliber, or a Sam Adams, should not preclude us from taking the player we want. That FA is likely to be a stop gap, true, but the stop gaps in Chicago haven’t hurt.

The chances of getting one player of that level at DT at anywhere near the deals they got is a straight up pipe dream. That and they are both the two gap variety, one dimensional player that we could use - but wouldn't be the multi-dimensional guy who'd get the job done right.

But if we want to go for that look,


>> If we were talking about last years class and being able to land Wendall Bryant at 12, sure, but that’s not the norm.

certainly, yes. But what are the chances we go 7-9 realistically? The possibility for a quick start is there, but there are too many unknowns. We're not supposed to settle for the 5th best DT out there just because that's how things are done. I still put DT above CB right now. I also put depth at the position better, giving a greater chance someone will emerge.


I have some "hope" Woolfolk will step up and be a top ten overall rated, though.

I just don't want to see us overpay for a DT, and I'd like the other starter to be in place ASAP. I find that to be a big priority on D.

 

[meatpile]

I'd like to keep Rucker. Would it be unreasonable to try to get a new contract this year?

I imagine Strahan to be out of our reach.

What's the ramification of cutting Gilblet after June 1, 2003? What about before? Please be specific, if you can.

Corner might be a big issue next year in FA and draft. We don't know yet. This just wasn't mentioned on your draft needs section, Magnus. Let's hope it won't be an issue.

Milem could be a wild card - but I don't think that changes the purpose of this discussion.