Yasinskas on "the plan"

Agree.
If it starts in the trenches, fine. I love it. But how many games last year did we have a dominating rush? I think the rough number for our top six DL in total contract value is $130 million. Roughly.
And how many sacks in the Super Bowl?

You've gotta have balance. Just like you can't run the whole time, because you need your RB to be healthy in January.

 

I am a big fan of building in the trenches first. We have that now, atleast on defense. I do not think we need a great secondary to win a championship but we do need a decent one. Right now we have a hole that opponents will exploit.

I am tired of holding my breath everytime I see the other team pick up all of our rushers.

 

Agree, thelt.

Still - lots of time left. If we fielded this team, I'd be pretty pessimistic. Right now, I'm going to beckon the euphoria of the Halcyon days of January, which might also trigger a much needed bowel movement.

 

Paul Yasinskas- "should I spit or swallow?"

To say that there is a plan when all you see is replacing starters with cheaper alternatives of lesser talent is sheer lunacy on the VOR level. Cheaper isn't always better, most times it's a step backwards. The team is making moves soley based on cost and not talent. In the long run it's a recipe for disaster. Don't even take our FAs into account here. The one guy who was a must sign, Smith, we already had leverage on. I don't see any one screaming we overpaid for him either.

The team ended the season knowing they were looking at upgrading one CB position and possibly dealing with Donnalley's retirement. That's two holes. They allowed two more starters to walk creating two more. Now they've cut Steussie creating a 5th. Meadows is both younger and cheaper, but is he an upgrade? Hard to say. All we have to go on is that he's been benched in Indy at two positions. Hardly a ringing endorsement. Nelson over Donnalley? In the long run maybe a wash. All we know at this point is that Nelson has strength issues, hopefully they've been solved with a year in the weight room. We'll find out soon enough. Tylski and Brzezinski over James? Purely a choice of talent losing out to cost. Didn't the Yas say something about developing our own talent in the article? The team is setting the bar on how much they think a guy is worth without taking either the market now or in the future (should they have to upgrade the replacement) into account. This has tended to create holes unnecessarily. It also has an effect on who'll look at us in FA from here on out also. The upper tier guys are going to not even look at us and the scrubs will be ringing the phones of the hook for a chance to start along with a few extra bucks. You can't depend on a guy taking a cheaper contract simply just to be here like Armstead did. We've spent too much time and money gathering backups instead of looking for starters. You have to overpay guys to get/keep them. That's the nature of the beast, the rule and not the exception if you want them. You can however limit where you spend the money. You prioritize your needs and so far it looks as if we haven't.

This leaves us with the draft to look for better replacements. That's a crap shoot at best. You can't count on guys that are better options being there when it's your pick. Other teams have similar needs and will in all likelyhood grab the guy you want prior to it being your shot to get him. This will make it more likely we'll reach on a guy simply out of need. Guess what? That means you'll over pay based on value for the guy. Isn't that counter to "the plan"? You can't count on June 1 cuts either. There's no guarantee a guy at your position of need will be out there then and we'll be in a position to sign them either.

 

>>The team is making moves soley based on cost and not talent.

I think that's a big issue.

Just like assigning specific needs to specific draft picks, you can easily screw yourself by saying "we're going to spend X on cornerback, and not a penny more."

For one, it's a terrible negotiating tactic. You must give up a little bit to get a little bit. Doesn't mean you give up the world, but you start somewhere and you go from there.

As well, you can attract any number of players for four years, seven million dollars. Not all of them are going to be worth that if they agree to that. A glass of wine still placates the wino as much as it does a partygoer. Having a $200 whore budget might not get you a $250 whore, but a $50 whore would fill the need for $200, yes?

 

But we have 53 whores we need to buy and only 10,600 to spend on them all. We already know we have spent $250, $300, even $500 on some of them, so somebody is getting some cheap skanks. You just have to figure out who.

PS - I like talking about whore better than meat's bowel movements.

 

irrelevant. We were talking about setting prices, not fitting under the cap.
But from those suggestions, you're saying that we should take a $50 whore for $200, knowing there's a lack of talent there?

It's not the secondary's fault the line's so expensive. That was part of the "plan".

 

My take on it is that it is all about "key" players. James, Grant, Howard, Stuessie, Cousins were not considered "key" players. Vincent was not considered a guy who would be "key" if we signed him. We basically are willing to spend money on guys like our DL, Steve Smith etc.

My only problem is that we need to find a corner good enough to be considered a "key" player.

 

It's your analogy.

No, I am not saying that we should take the $50 whore for $200, Alex.

I am saying that we have a finite whore budget, and some of it has already been spent. We have to have 53 whores, and we have to figure out what value that we put on each whore. Then go out and get the best whore we can at that price.

 

>>It's your analogy.

That you tried to turn around for your benefit. "well we've spent this on the line so now we only can afford sub-par talent at corner."