Alan Faneca or Jacob Bell?

Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by GLinks, May 15, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PAtitansfan53

    PAtitansfan53 Kush & OJ

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,407
    I really want Faneca. A dominant G like him would make this team so much better.

    VY would have all day to throw and C-Hen and LW would have some nice running lanes behind big Alan. I mean it take our whole offense up a notch while helping our rookies like VY, Henry and our WR's. Bell is a bit above average I hope he imporves but I wouldn't mind giving him or Olsen up the can be easily replaced in FA our Draft but G's like Faneca aren't your everyday G.
    #11
  2. GLinks

    GLinks Second Gear

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,289
    What I find interesting about Faneca is he and his agent are not asking for top 5 money, simply more than the Steelers offer. I heard he wasn't offered a top 10 salary at the position. I think all 3 of the shows today mentioned Faneca as in the top 3 or 2. It would be good value to not have to pay him top 5 money.

    I believe Faneca would best replace Bell, but I'd just as soon have them all on the roster and make the cut elsewhere along the line. But I thought of sending Bell to Pittsburgh so he could get his little pay raise and be trapped on the roster of a team that notoriously underpays its top performers. Just a slightly malicious thought, I admit.
    #12
  3. RollTide

    RollTide All-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    20,290
    Soxcat and jeff..

    I'd keep Bell as well and drop Olsen.
    ---------------------------

    Yeah but olson is under contract until 2009 and we might lose bell next year anyway. Olson counts $4.1M against the cap which is about what he is worth but could also negatively effect his trade value to a cash strapped team(steelers). If someone wants olson i say trade him and then sign bell long term but can we do that?

    The feeling on the titans is that olson played well last year and along with stewart make a solid run blocking unit on the right side.

    Our most realistic scenario is to sign bell until at least 2009, then we are set at guard for a while until younger players come in to replace mawae and olson. Hopefully harris will be one of those.

    Also we can cut olson next year and save a lot most of his cap money if he doesn't play well and harris looks good.
    #13
  4. TitanJeff

    TitanJeff Kahuna Grande Staff

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,324
    I think Bell will be signed to a long-term deal this summer.
    #14
  5. Soxcat

    Soxcat Starter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,485
    Because it isn't really an option to cut or trade Olson and because Faneca is only two years younger than Olson we do have to consider that we could be real good on the OL in the near future but then in a short period of time be faced with losing (or losing ability because of age) both OGs and our C.

    Bell might be the best option if his contract demands are not outrageous because he is younger and possibly still improving. Having Olson signed until 2009 ties the Titans hands.
    #15
  6. PAtitansfan53

    PAtitansfan53 Kush & OJ

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,407
    IDC about the easier guy to sign I want the better player. Are you honestly going to pass up on a future HOF G for Jacob Bell. Faneca will put this team in the Playoffs IMO.

    Bell has leveled off he is not strong enough to be a good run blocker he has trouble holding his own against bigger and better DT's. He doesn't have the frame either to add weight and much more strength so who cares if hecan sign for more years and less because he is younger.

    Faneca is a frickin Pro Bowler and future HOF, Bell isn't any of those and never will be. Faneca is the #2 G in the league and doesn't even want top 10 money come onwe should jump all over this. a 3rd rounder and Bell maybe less would bring this guy in.
    #16
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.