Donnie Edwards

Yes!

 

The Chargers and Saints have broken off talks, from what I gather.

 

Sants were offering a 4.


Would I give a 3 for a 33 year old LB for this team? No, most likely not. Would I if I were the Saints? Yeah. They have cap room, very little dynamic playmaking in the back 7, and can afford to have a guy make a ton of money in years 11-14 of his career.

Us, we just got a lot younger on purpose. Most of our FAs this time were in that 4-6 year playing range, for a reason.
I'd rather see the young(er) guys play. While I wouldn't want to start 3 guys with no experience, and really want a lot of stability at LB (I"d hate to see Davis be the only guy starting 16 games), I don't think we should tie a first day pick (and likely the $5 mil a year salary that we'd have to negotiate with him, since it's really kinda awful to pay a guy we traded for $3.3 million and then let him walk) into a guy who has a shelf life. And in the end we've stopped the run with less than we have now.



I certainly wouldn't cry if we did it. We could use him, and he's better than what we have at WLB. But if we could live without Witherspoon, we can live without Edwards, too.

 

agreed

I would have a hard time believing that there is any chance at all of us trading a 3rd (or even 4th) for Edwards. He'd be too pricey and too damn old, and they have already invested in day one pick Anderson as the probable WLB of the future.
Edwards would only be a one year fix at the position and we already have our ‘06 vet Band Aid . . . two of them in the form of Adams and then Diggs when he is healthy enough to contribute.

Edwards will not be coming here . . . let him suffer in NO

 

As mentioned, he's the same age and at roughly the same ability level as Derrick Brooks.

 

And I doubt that our staff will risk the cap implications of having to sign him to some silly ass contract dreamed up by his desperate agent to have a guy as a one year starter when they have Anderson on the cheap waiting in the wings and a couple of dirt cheap alternatives. Weren’t you one of the guys boasting our depth at LB? Why do you all of the sudden think our staff will justify giving up a future pick for a one year fix? I could understand if he was the equivalent player as an O-lineman . . . That seems like a much larger area of concern to me

 

Because a third round pick is not exorbitant, and Edwards would be significantly better than any linebacker we've had in recent years. I'm not saying that decision is necessarily the right one, but I think you're dismissing it out of hand largely because you're ignorant of just how good he is. Forget magnus' outlandish talk of a $5 million a year extension. There is no information at all suggesting that Edwards would want that much, and it is far beyond likely that we would ever pay it. The question is whether or not a third round pick is worth renting a player roughly equivalent to Derrick Brooks. We have Anderson for the future, but Edwards would give this 2006 team that seems primed for a Super Bowl run, one more giant weapon to use against our competition.

 

Agreed. Pricy and old are independently allright. The pair together make absolutely no sense here whatsoever. We'll spend, but older players here are either tenured or roleplayers, and therefore cheap. Sure, we got Keyshawn, and that's a big exception.

He wouldn't be a one year fix. He'd be good for a few years - arbitrarily, let's suggest four. He'd help. But we're not in the dire need that this suggests - you don't panic and give an 11 year veteran tons of money and give people picks to be able to do it.

 

Collin, I know he’s a good fast ball hawk who can blanket just about any TE and most backs but he is not the player that Brooks is at the LOS, not close. AnyWho, if our guys were going to trade at this date “for a Super Bowl run” I would think that they would spend the pick and the cash for a Walter Jones not a Derrick Brooks

 

good sentiment but I don't see the need. I would love to see a little veteran depth, but our starting five looks decent. Mathis is their guy and he's going to take some learning time, which includes the mistakes we saw this week. In the end



I don't believe $5 million is "outlandish." I know that tempers are at a theoretical maximum and that hissies are loaded and ready to be thrown, but he signed for $4 million four years ago. And he's been a Pro Bowl alternate since, as well as having accomplished more since. On the contrary of 'there's no reason he'd ask for more', there's been absolutely no suggestion he'd even consider taking less for any reason at all. As a matter of fact, it seems as this is over contract issues.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/chargers/20060825-9999-1s25edwards.html



It's not just a matter of whether we'd trade for Edwards - and let's stop talking about Derrick Brooks. Brooks has absolutely nothing to do with this. It really does matter how much money he'd take, and what he'll cost. Saying he'll take less and suggesting it's not in the equation, is campaigning, not reasoning. Age, money, draft pick, team philosophy, all of that does matter. It doesn't get assumed out of the equation. It's not just "would you give a 3rd for Derrick Brooks?"

It's "would you give a 3rd for Donnie Edwards, an 11th year linebacker, and pay him near-premium LB prices, on a team that already stops the run very well and has excellent depth that's shown ability with the first team?"




Plus, we're honestly assuming that we're that interested. One guy suggests contact, on a story that's gone nowhere if it's true, that also just happens to be "us bidding against a division rival" if it really is true, and not just SD and/or agent Tom Condon trying to create demand elsewhere to bring up the price for trading Edwards.