Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by TitanJeff, Mar 4, 2010.
I've stated time and time again what I think we *should* do in a general term. I even wrote a massive post on it after the Patriots game (around that time at least) I am not willing to say "get this free agent" because I am not all that familiar with so many of the free agents out there (such as Dansby).
As for your questions:
Defense - Needs major DE and CB starting help. I don't think Cromartie could have helped.
Superbowl Contender - No, unless we get a playmaker at DE (such as Jevon his rookie year).
Lineup - I am fine with most, Harper is gone but we need DE help (perhaps Charles Grant) and I liked the Witherspoon signing.
I'm not doubting his skills or his career.
Has Welker won a Superbowl? He wasn't a big naming free agent by the way. He was a no one.
Colts won a Superbowl with a Kicker...
Eagles didn't win a superbowl.
Steelers signed Farrior, was he a big name?
Cowboys has repeatedly choked
These teams are no more successful then we have been (except the Colts).
The Titans were in the process of trying to work out something with Haynesworth while he was franchised which, as we all know, was going to be big.
They also knew if they didn't extend Roos, Stewart and Finnegan, they'd cost much more and the Titans risked losing one or more.
They'd just signed Jake Scott.
Also, in 2008, Harper was just in his second season with the team. He was still playing fairly well and was costing the Titans over $4 mil against the cap. No way do you make him a backup at that point.
So, what I'm saying here is that a lot of factors are at play here.
Agree. I thought about the Harper thing, and that's just something else that goes into the thought process of signing a free agent.
I know Samuel was franchise tagged by the Pats the year we brought Harper in. It was a reasonable expectation that the Pats would release him the following year.
If we had an inclination towards wanting to sign him, we could've not signed Harper and had a worse CB for 2006. Probably sign some one-year vet on the cheap, or try a rookie with playing time.
Now, that screws with the 2006 season somewhat, so I don't know if you want to wait a year and gamble to try to sign a high dollar free agent. But I hope the front office at least considers likely future free agents in their decision making.
All of those teams have been to superbowl since we have (except the Cowboys), and that is more successful than just making the playoffs.
Welker went to a superbowl. Kearse was in a Superbowl with the Eagles.
We've never signed a bargain free agent that's been as impactful for the Titans as Farrior has been for the Steelers.
They shop better than we do.
You were sure quick to take all his credit and give it Greg Williams.
I do agree Williams scheme was important for Sharper's success.
If you think any safety would've duplicated Sharper's performance, you are nuts. Greg Williams scheme puts him in position, but Sharper makes it work. You couldn't just plug a different safety in his spot and expect the same results. And not every safety has leaderships skills like Sharper.
Oh, and Sharper is recovering from arthroscopic knee surgery and will turn 35 this season. I think that's why he is unsigned. He wants more money than anyone is willing to pay right now. But it sounds like the Jets may make a bid for him.
And I have to say... Revis, Cromartie, Sharper... that's an impressive trio in the secondary.
And I would like to add that I hope we don't sign Charles Grant, unless very cheap. He's an underachiever.
Alright I'm back as I'm in between jobs. You can't be serious to suggest we have been as successful as the Steelers and Patriots. Multiple SB wins compared to our recent playoff record? And the Eagles have faired better in the playoffs including '03 than we have. Eagles have been in 4 playoffs to our 3; Eagles have 6 playoff victories to our 1; Eagles have played in 3 conference championships to our none and have been to one SB to our none. So I consider their record of playoff wins, division and conference championships as more successful than our own.
I agree that Dallas has not been more successful during that period, but they have the same number of playoff appearances with one less playoff win. They do however, have a history of multiple SB wins.
And the Patriots sure overpaid for the trade for that "no one" Welker. A 2nd and a 7th rounder and a 5 year 18.1 million contract with 5.5 million guaranteed. Whew- that was another stupid deal for an overvalued player by a stupid unsuccessful organization like the Patriots. By the way- he was signed on March 5, 2007. Early in the period.
Too bad for the Patriots that was such a bad signing.
Ahh I completely retarded that message. I also forgot the Steelers won a Superbowl. Regardless I wouldn't consider any of those guys massive signings.
Anyway, going to the playoffs and losing is no more useful then going 4 - 12. I don't count success as anything but a Superbowl.
Again, Welker was a trade. Vinatieri got paid a lot less than (and a shorter deal) the Titans gave Bironas. Kearse was a disaster (just ask any Eagles fan who still cusses him), Farrior was signed SEVEN years ago.
Successful teams don't make signing big contracts with free agents a habit.
We don't know what Cro may do yet. He may cost the Jet a second-round pick for only one year's service. We'll know soon enough. Bodden wanted Robinson money and went quickly back to the Pats when they didn't bite. He was paid $2.5 mil last season as the fifth-best CB according to the ESPN talking heads. He had nice season last year but far from what I would consider "first-tier". I'd been okay with him a Titan for a reasonable contract. With Odom's injury record, no way do the Titans pay what the Bengals did or should have. I'm guessing the Bengals are now second-guessing the decision as well. Rolle? Samari? That was a cap issue for the Titans. Antrel? We have a solid free safety already on the roster. Mason? Cap forced his release. Bart Scott? Tulloch is better with more upside. I'd rather pay him and I bet the Titans do. Porter? Five years - $32 mil. I guess we toss out David Thornton who was a FREE AGENT SIGNING himself. Faneca? Four-years, $32 mil. I'm okay with Amano and his five-year, $25 mil contract and using the extra money elsewhere (like begin reworking CJ's deal). Moss would never have come here. Berrian has been a huge disappointment and extremely overpaid.
I won't kid you in saying I wouldn't want one or two of those guys for the right kind of deal. But many of them were overpaid for their production or there simply wasn't a need on the Titans at the time.
I don't think teams bring in those kinds of players for a look anymore. Agents narrow it down now before free agency even begins. As for signing any top free agent over the past few years, I'd love to have a number of them. But I can totally understand why the Titans don't want to be strapped with the kinds of contracts they require.
I also understand that most teams run a system and not every player thrives in that system. We know that the Titans bid he highest for Stallworth but he felt he'd do better with a top QB.
Because there are numerous factors involved here. I think the Colts and Pats draft better and are better coached. Same with the Steelers.
I think most would say the Titans, top to bottom, are a better franchise than the three teams you mention. They've, at least, been in the playoffs which these teams haven't.
Bringing in more big-contract free agents doesn't mean the Titans start winning playoff games.
The mistake was taking him in the first place. Once you sign a guy like that to a five-year deal, it's insane to cut him after two and eat the cap hit.
I disagree because, with the exception of Haynesworth, the Titans have kept every player they've wanted to keep if the cap allowed. I struggle to think of ANY free agent they let go who thrived elsewhere. I think the Titans do a solid job evaluating talent once they are on the roster.
I'm not seeing it. I see the season after the cap purge with the signing if Givens, Thornton, Mawae and Hope. I see them spend money most every season doing what they can to improve the team. When they lost Bell, they brought in Scott. Though there is no way to replace Haynesworth, they did bring in Haye for depth. They lose a player and usually go out and get another. On the most part, the player they get is as good, if not better, than the one they lost (exception Haynesworth) AND they sign them for much less than the player they lost.
So he had a good season five years ago, four years at the time of his signing... Thanks for making my point.
Nobody is going to sign a DB simply because he gets good return yards when he gets the ball. Again, you missed the point. Sharper's career definitely seemed to be winding down. That was the point. If the Titans would have signed Sharper last offseason, not only would it have been a head scratcher considering Griffin's performance, but you would have thought of him as another guy as is obviously your opinion of Witherspoon and Hood. It would have been a one year deal for an aging veteran who hadn't done much in a while. Furthermore, he doesn't have a chance in hell at HOF unless he can play another three years or so at at least a somewhat high level.
I thought you said you were enlightened? Every general manager would love to be free to sign every player they want without limitations on funds. Cap or no cap, this team is limited. An owner is only going to spend so much on a roster. So signing players to big contracts likely does limit Reinfeldt's ability to sign other free agents.
What's really funny is that most teams that have given their general managers freedom to sign the "top-tier" free agents have come up with sub-standard results in the W-L columns. The Redskins, for example have lived in mediocrity. The Cowboys haven't been able to buy a Superbowl. Even the Patriots were unable to buy a Superbowl win when they tried. If you ask me, from some there seems to be an irrational train of thought that big name free agents equal Superbowl wins.
Separate names with a comma.