Suggs Or Dansby???

[joeshmo]

Are you referring to the Steelers where 9 of their defensive starters have been with the team for at least 6 years and total 68 years of experience just with Pittsburgh? Their LBs that they turnover all the time? Farrior 7 years, Harrison 6 years, Foote 7 years.

The Cards are in the SuperBowl in no small part because they have the same situation. Veteran players who have been in Arizona for several years.

If we had a LB who had been with the Cards for 3-4 years or a first day draft pick with a year or two with the team who could step in for Dansby things would be different but we don't.

You win in the NFL by winning the turnover battle. The Cards have been turning over players too often for too long. They finally stopped and they started winning. Not a good idea to start doing it again.

How much are they paying those 9 starters. They wouldnt pay to keep Dansby no matter what, no matter if they had a guy to replace him or not. They are confident enough in the other players, the scheme, and their scouts to handle replacing him.

And how much are they paying those LB's? All were backups before they became starters or were willing to not break the bank. Once those guys leave for big money once they have started for 2-3 years they will plug in the guy who was backing them up for the last 2-3 years. They drafted Timmons and Woodley to start right away, although Timmons wasnt good enough to start.

Plus who said Turnover means how long you have been with the team. We are talking about starters and "turnover versus pay scale".

Harrison has only started for 2 years,
Farrior has never asked for a big contract, who is on a 5 years 18 mil contract,
Foote has never asked for a big contract either, who is only making 5 years 13 mil.
Woodley is a first year starter on a small contract.

You think they will pay any of those guys 20+ mill gauranteed to stay. Or do you think they will try to find someone else, wether they are on the team or not.

They havent given out a 20+ mill gauranteed contract yet, yet some people think we will give out two of them in one offseason?

 

[joeshmo]

The Steelers draft linebackers, but they rarely see the field extensively their first year or so and already have established and talented starters. By the time they do start they know the system in and out. Which is why the "plug and play" works for them. We have nowhere near that depth or talent to pull that off, so for the time being we have to pay.

Disagree. 4-3 LB or 3-4 ILB is the easiest position to plug and play in the draft. They start and start well every year. Its the easiest plug and play position in the draft.

Did the Steelers do IT in the time being. Would they ever do "it" in the time being. The answer is no to both of them and that is how the team wants to emulate. It isnt a matter of what I want them to do, becuase I would sign both, its a matter of what the Cards say they will do and paying two players 20+ mill in gauranteed money is not what they will do, its not even debatable.

 

[joeshmo]

All things equal, you take the pass rusher. Unfortunately, I don't believe that there is a way to guarantee that we get Suggs. So, the question for me is, do we not try and resign Dansby before he hits the open market, and instead bank of the fact that we can outbid the league for Suggs. Keep in mind that this includes the team that he just said should keep it's core of linebackers in the Ravens.

If I am an organization, I can't take this risk. If we want Suggs, we are going to have to pay both him and Dansby because we can't risk losing out on both. The only option that prevents this is in tagging Dansby again, which he won't like.

I think thats a given.

We have exclusive negotaiting rights with Dansby for a month, so yes you should negotiate with him first. Then once March rolls around talk to both. Never put your eggs in one basket.

 

[Duckjake]

How much are they paying those 9 starters. They wouldnt pay to keep Dansby no matter what, no matter if they had a guy to replace him or not. They are confident enough in the other players, the scheme, and their scouts to handle replacing him.

And how much are they paying those LB's? All were backups before they became starters or were willing to not break the bank. Once those guys leave for big money once they have started for 2-3 years they will plug in the guy who was backing them up for the last 2-3 years. They drafted Timmons and Woodley to start right away, although Timmons wasnt good enough to start.

Plus who said Turnover means how long you have been with the team. We are talking about starters and "turnover versus pay scale".

Harrison has only started for 2 years,
Farrior has never asked for a big contract, who is on a 5 years 18 mil contract,
Foote has never asked for a big contract either, who is only making 5 years 13 mil.
Woodley is a first year starter on a small contract.

You think they will pay any of those guys 20+ mill gauranteed to stay. Or do you think they will try to find someone else, wether they are on the team or not.

They havent given out a 20+ mill gauranteed contract yet, yet some people think we will give out two of them in one offseason?

Apparently they haven't had to find too many someone else's they have just been able to get guys to play for less money. It helps when you almost never draft in the top 10 because you can afford to draft for the future as your first day guys won't get enormous rookie contracts.

Its one thing to say that a team won't pay $20 million each for two linebackers quite another to say you can just plug and play in the NFL.

Running the ball and stopping the run don't win championships in the NFL, veteran players win championships. Having 16 starters with 5 or more seasons in the NFL is a big reason the Cards are playing tomorrow.

Having the youngest team in the NFL and trying to plug and play 7 guys on offense was a big reason the Cards were 4-12 and finished dead last in the NFL in points scored and points allowed in 2003.

 

[Diamondback Jay]

Just playing for a contract? His career low in tackles was 60, in his rookie year and he's had 80 or more every season he's been a pro. If that's just playing for a contract, please let him continuing to "slack to get by" like that for the rest of his career.

Also, I disagree about Suggs being better in pass coverage and against the run. It's not a big gap between the two, but I like Dansby better in that area.

Also, Joe age isn't what determines one's upside. I don't think we've seen Dansby reach his yet.

 

[imaCafan]

C'mon, guys. Can't we have both????????

 

[Diamondback Jay]

C'mon, guys. Can't we have both????????

AND manage to re-sign Warner, the draft picks and the other free agents/ pending free agents they have on the roster? Not likely.

 

[ThunderCard]

AND manage to re-sign Warner, the draft picks and the other free agents/ pending free agents they have on the roster? Not likely.

Why?? We have 44 million. We could add another 9.5 million by cutting EDGE and Chike. Depending on the Superbowl I might want Edge to stick around, but adding Suggs and droping Chike for +5 million is a franchise changing move on D that we need.