Muhammad's Salary this year and next

Once again

I feel the need to point out that on draft day we still calculated Dyson to challenge Moose and or Smith for the starting nod, and drafted Young to potentially replace Moose down the road. Thats not my thoughts but what I was hearing at draft time.

Dyson/Moose/Smith/Proehl active would certainly better then what we are running now.

also wish all the Nelson bashing would follow up with a reply to the "defining draft value" thread.

 

Re: Once again

I think I might be the only one that actually replied.

Maybe he'll do like Jenkins and make the pro bowl next year.

 

We have to do something, though. You can't expect scraps to be the savior, and we've heard the "we can't do it without talent" excuses for over a year and a half.

I think we all "heard" the obvious, WP. That doesn't make it the solution. Marcus Robinson added would also make us "better". That doesn't make it good enough, nor enough to gamble on both old, stupid, and injured players and hope that by luck most of them stick.

Jenkins did start, however. He started from the get go and while he lost the job and fell back into the rotation, he was doing more than just the kick return team.

That thread was in fact very hard to read. Most of the comments are vague. No offense but I found myself coming to no conclusions at the end of it other than to note which ones were starters, which ones were contributing. Value is a set situation that matters at draft time, after that point it's the player, not the value, which is why value itself is an important problem with this team.

 

Point was "define value" a dollar is a dollar on draft day, but the value is defined by the equity down the road in my mind.

 

>>Point was "define value" a dollar is a dollar on draft day, but the value is defined by the equity down the road in my mind.

Value = impact, potential, and immediate ability to contribute. As well as need, current or future.
Bruce Nelson had none of those. He's not an impact (overbearingly good at a skill) player, he doesn't have the potential to grow in size or strength to a necessary degree, he can't contribute immediately. The need? We have four better guards, so the team thinks, or else there would be no need to keep Reyes. In the future? Possibly. Two FAs and one likely cut in the future mean that Nelson will undoubtedly be in the future plans, but I don't believe that will be the case except for the idea that they already have him.

 

No.. but the plan certainly would have been differn't had we known Dyson wasn't going to be available. likely we would have drafted a receiver higher in that case and we wouldn't be having this recurring conversation, now we have to play the cards we've been dealt. and re-shuffle the deck This spring. Its part of the growing progress..

 

I disagree. We dealt ourselves these cards. It wasn't a priority, it was just something to fill and dismiss. There weren't tons of plentiful options, but there were options, and that includes the draft. We bypassed offensive tackle in FA to wait for the draft, we "filled" WR so we wouldn't need to take one.

 

We didn't have a crystal ball. But we certainly saw, or should have seen, the calculated risk involved.

Dyson got a "prove to me" deal. One year.

Its also very presumptous to divine that even a healthy Dyson, or healthy enough, would be any kind of improvement. He was given no starting spot. His own production has been marginal, particuarly compared to the unstoppable force that is Drew Bennett.

 

...

Carruth, Morgan, Weinke - Good Value?

 

If we do cut Moose that would mean that the only Receivers that would be under contract as of right now to start next season would be Ricky Proehl, Carl Hankton and Eugene Baker.

Thats with:

Smitty being a RFA.
I believe Dyson's deal was one year
and cutting Moose.

Thats not even a good foundation for a team that from what I understand is already way over the cap next year (I remember reading that could be way off though)