Buddha Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Haven't seen this mentioned. Sam Adams will, with his $5 million base salary in 2003, most certainly be out of Oakland the day after their season ends. The Raiders were able to get him with a $2 million signing bonus and minimum base salary for 2002, so his price tag should be in the same range this time around. He'd be a guy we could nab early in free agency and that could fill in nicely as that "veteran anchor" in case Gardener goes down. He'd arguably be an upgrade over Wilkinson in the particular role he'd be asked to play, and would take DT off the priority list for the draft. Thoughts??? Opinions??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eparadox Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Yet, another excuse as to why we shouldn't draft a DL. Cmon, how many years have we been doing this as a franchise. The DL needs some new blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 How old is he? and how much$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 If you think we're one player away from the Superbowl, you pick him up (like Oakland did). If not, and we're not, you don't sign mercenaries to one-year deals. We need to build a team, not plug in the last remaining piece of the Superbowl puzzle. I'd rather see us spend that money on a younger DT or throw it towards an end like Vonnie Holliday or KGB of the Packers. Spending $2.5m on him for a year of his services is a waste, in my opinion. We could get a good young guard with years ahead of him for that money. Still, he's a good player and we do need help at DT. I wouldn't be broken-hearted, but I'm not in favor of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Good eye, but I don't see him as being any better than big fatty. He has played for more winners and wasn't he a first pick o the draft as well? I'd pass and get some young guys that Gardener can take on as his padawans............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins57 Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Why couldn't we put those numbers into a 3 year deal. I think he is 30 and 3 years would be ok. I say he is worth a shot. Then we could use our first round pick on a Pass rushing DE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 The fat tub of goo is turning 30 this year, so he's not too old, but he would never accept a 3-year-deal that paid him league minimum with a $2m SB. The only reason he took the Raiders deal is because he knew it was a one-year deal. We'd have to pay him more than $2.5m a year, and I'd rather see us sink that money into a younger guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Buddha -- funny, I was thinking about Sam Adams when I was proposing my rent-a-DL option for 2003. I didn't want to suggest him by name until it was clear we had the budget for him, though. Leaving Sam Adams aside (as an individual candidate), I do think there's a solid argument for renting DL players at this stage in the team's development. To me, the DL is the easiest position on a team for a good player to come in and have immediate production. It's not rocket science, though it does demand a top athlete. So you can rent DL players (good ones) while you focus your draft on the positions that demand grooming and development within a system -- for us, that would be OL, WR and safety. Then when you've built your well-groomed team, you take one more hit at the top of the draft with some top DL talent -- I'm thinking in the 2004 and 2005 drafts. Those top studs can come in and play immediately, if they are elite college talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 I generally agree, ASF, but I think if you look at the draft this year, we're more likely to find a good DE or DT at #13 than a WR. I'd hate to reach with that pick. If we trade down and grab a WR in the late first, fine, but I'd hate to see us get desperate and take a guy earlier than we should. If we're going to sit still and use the #13, we need to take the best guy on the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Originally posted by MRMADD I generally agree, ASF, but I think if you look at the draft this year, we're more likely to find a good DE or DT at #13 than a WR. I'd hate to reach with that pick. If we trade down and grab a WR in the late first, fine, but I'd hate to see us get desperate and take a guy earlier than we should. Well you won't get an argument from me. Unless Roy Williams (or Rogers, ha ha) is around at #13, I'd definitely trade down with our #1 pick. I'm not actually convinced we need to draft a WR at all. My whoring of various WRs lately is just a reaction to the apparent determination of the team to select a WR. I'd be happy if they skipped the WR, skipped the #13, and just concentrated on OL and safety. (This assumes good prior free-agent pickups at DL and WR.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 My other half is saying that would be a good move for the skins to pluck a player off of the 2003 SuperBowl champions. I on the other hand disagree Go for the young hungry untarnished kid signed to a multi year contract; no more names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Agreed. Right now we should start a massive Internet smear-campaign targeting Charlie Rogers for his little pedophilia problem -- maybe that would help him slide to #13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 wasn't one of Adams' issues this year was he doesnt like training camp, which is why he waited to the last day of camp to sign with Oakland? I'd rather not have a thirty-year old D-lineman with any kind of lazy attitude. -we need to go for speed and strength on either side of Gardner(youth) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by jimster wasn't one of Adams' issues this year was he doesnt like training camp, which is why he waited to the last day of camp to sign with Oakland? I'd rather not have a thirty-year old D-lineman with any kind of lazy attitude. -we need to go for speed and strength on either side of Gardner(youth) Well, Adams certainly delivered for the Ravens. I haven't followed his progress with the Raiders. Speaking of skipping camp, your post reminded me that Dan Wilkinson skipped at least one voluntary minicamp this spring, drawing a rather pointed criticism from Spurrier. I'm wondering if this bad first impression contributed to the team's apparent decision to release him this offseason. Spurrier seems to be on a kick to dump the bad attitudes overboard, something I applaud. (Not saying that Wilkinson per se has a bad attitude, but Spurrier may think he does, and he's in a better position to judge.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Instead of signing Sam Adams to a big contract which he always demands, I would consider cutting Dan Wilkinson, and then resigning Wilkinson to a smaller contract. Like say an average of $1.5 Mil per season over two years. We failed to resign Marco Coleman to a smaller contract, but who knows Wilkinson might go for the smaller contract in that his days of getting $4 Mil a year are now over. This would also accomplish something else besides freeing up $3.5 Mil in cap space after June 1st, which is that it would buy us more time to find Wilkinson's replacement. We could then use our #1 draft pick on a DE or another position this year. That is provided that Big Daddy loses about 40 lbs., and gets his weight down from above 355 to something like 315. At his present weight he can no longer run or move that well. Just my 2cents. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorEastNCFan Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Personally, I'd pass. We made a decent push for him last year, and couldn't get him. Now he's a year older and not any cheaper. I agree with MRMADD and go for someone like the two up in GB. There young and have a great upside. That or look at a DL or DE with the 13th pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.