Ok, so slandog and I (Saidrick, macjack09, BWestFactor and Mike Will is Doubledown threw in some great points too) got into a nice, spirited discussion debating whether the Eagles are better off signing only NA or signing a few players, a cheaper but almost as productive RCB option and then a few other players to provide competition for position battles and roster depth.
I think this is something that the entire BGN community has thoughts on and can participate in, so, here is a FanPost that hopefully accomplishes that.
(It should be noted that I am not speaking for slandog, but I do reference some of his comments from the "Eagles indifferent on signing NA" post.)
Guys that I mentioned above, please correct me in the comments section if I have misrepresented your thoughts and opinions in any way.
I am of the opinion that we should go all in on NA and slandog is of the opinion that we may be better served by signing one of the cheaper RCBs available and then using the cost difference "to upgrade the LB situation, sign Jackson and maybe get a nice compliment to Shady would be nice too." (12:17 post on Eagles "indifferent" on signing Asomugha").
Let it be known, neither of these is the wrong answer, as both could work out very well for us. They are merely different routes to what we both agree is the same end result, a SB victory.
My thoughts are this: NA is a top 5 CB at the worst, arguably the best CB in the NFL, aside from maybe Revis, and will instantly upgrade our weakest position on defense and turn it into our strongest position. NA and Asante would be the best CB tandem in the league and make it easier on both our young Safeties and our pass rush. As for depth and position battles, I believe that the 2010 draft was an unbelievable haul the precludes us from having to turn to FA to achieve those goals. We drafted: a starting DE (Graham), a starting S (Allen), a starting LB (Chaney), a future b/u QB who could develop into a starter (Kafka), a more than adequate backup at both FS and SS that can start when needed (Coleman), a potential pass coverage specialist LB/S hybrid (Clayton), a pass rushing project who did well in College (Te’O), a potential starting CB (Lindley), a potential pass rusher who projects to thrive in our current wide 9 DL scheme (Sapp), and 2 guys who can develop into offensive weapons (Cooper and Harbor). In summary, NA drastically improves our biggest weakness and because we have enough young guys that can be counted on to contribute and push vets, we don't have a big need to bring in other FAs. He is older, but given the flexibility in guaranteed money in NFL contracts, we can always structure the contract so we have an out down the road (I believe that is what roster bonuses provide, but I may be wrong) should he decline drastically.
Slandog's thoughts are (and again, I am taking this from his comments on "Eagles indifferent on signing NA" post, so his thoughts were in response to other comments and as such, may be contextually different from how I am presenting them, but they are logical and well reasoned and pretty much speak for themselves. I summarized the comments in italics after each):
From his comment @ 11:44 - Although I’d love to have NA on our team next season I can see his (Clark Judge's) reasoning. Their are a lot of other talented CB’s that will hit the market and will be cheaper and younger then NA also. So as long as we get one of those guys, Grimes, Joseph, Marshall, I’d be fine. It’s still a leap better then what we had last season. In summary, NA is not the way to fix RCB, he is just the most expensive, but RCB does need to be fixed
From his comment @ 12:00 - Signing NA does not guarantee that the Eagles win the Superbowl. If it were that easy then yeah I’d say Of course the Eagles are going to go and get him. But to believer that by getting him we’d win it is crazy. He will help, sure, but so will anyone else. We have other issues with this team then just signing the #1 CB will solve. In summary, RCB is not our only issue that needs to be addressed, which is absolutely true
From his comment @ 12:17 - Putting everything in NA sounds great. But what happens when he’s in year 3 or 4 of the contract and he’s slower, not as quick, injuries are piling up?? I’m not saying that would happen, but at the same time it could. It’s a crapshoot and the Eagles might be willing to take that chance, which like I said I’d be fine with. But I’d also be completely fine with them signing another quality CB as well. I’d much rather go for a guy that will bring us almost the same production for less money and be younger to stick around for 5 or 6 years. Also using some of the leftover money to upgrade the LB situation, sign Jackson and maybe get a nice compliment to Shady would be nice too. In summary, there are risks to putting all of our eggs in NA's basket and we may regret this signing down the road, plus we could use the cost difference on depth at other positions
Slandog is also of the opinion that I am relying too much on the 2010 draft class and that they could end up being yet another set of Quentin Demps, Matt McCoys, Ryan Moats and Norman LeJeunes. (He made this point more than once, so I am going to skip referencing any specific comment) He feels that some may regress, or teams will have tape on these young guys and find potential weaknesses that can be exploited, and both are completely possible.
So, here are 2 sides of a discussion, please comment below what your thoughts are and which of the 2 options you would prefer AR and the FO execute: Sign only NA or Sign another RCB and a few other players.
Please note that while I was putting this together, other BGN folks chimed in with great points, counter points and additional thoughts, and although I have put some of that in here, there was a lot more great material that I didn't get in here and that was mostly due to my haste in trying to get this put together. Hopefully that great material will make it below in the comments.
Thanks, and have a great day. Reddgie