Cause for optimism regarding Haynesworth staying?

Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by NewsGrabber, Jan 26, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GoTitans3801

    GoTitans3801 Forward Progress!

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Messages:
    7,640
    This is what distinguishes fans discussing theoretical situations from the people who make the decisions and spend the money. If you sign players that you can't afford and cut later, you still spent money that you can't get back and didn't get value out of. That's bad business, and especially in this economic climate, owners aren't going to go on rash spending sprees.

    Yes, of course real labor discussions haven't started yet, they never start until they have to. When the owners opted to cut the deal short, they were bringing the date up faster, which means that negotiations will have to get down to business sooner, rather than later. No, of course we can't be sure that it will or won't happen, but that's precisely why owners aren't going to spend as if it's an uncapped year.
    #41
  2. jessestylex

    jessestylex DeadGirlsCantSayNo

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Messages:
    10,484
    i hope he doesnt go to a division team.
    #42
  3. Riverman

    Riverman That may be....

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    Messages:
    8,670
    #43
  4. Soxcat

    Soxcat Starter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,485
    I really think you make a good point. If we figure statistically how many more points a game our defense would give up without AH compared to how many points more per game we could score with a high quality WR the right WR might very well be the better way to spend our money.

    Although that sounds good and logical however we still need to look at what WRs are available and what their cost would be to really do a cost benefit analysis. Right now there really are not any WRs available that IMO are worth signing a big contract with at the expense of losing AH. If a guy like Moss was out there (there isn't) and we could sign him it makes sense. I think Boldin is a definate possibility simply because if we get him in a trade we can probably sign him at a decent enough price we can still keep AH. Also, if we trade for Boldin and still miss out on AH at least we have our WR.

    In reality I'd wait until FA starts and if we sign AH go from there signing what ever WRs we can afford. If AH hits the open market we might start looking at life without him and open the back account up to try to grab a couple of guys we think can really help us score 3 more points a game.
    #44
  5. Fry

    Fry Hatin' is what I do.

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    26,232
    that does sound very logical, but when you have a defense that you can count on to give up only two touchdowns a game, do you really need those extra points the wide receiver would give you?

    we were 13-3 last year and gave up more than 17 points three times, once against the colts with our scrubs. i see no reason to mess with this defense in order to acquire a wide receiver for an offense that was in the top half of the league in scoring.
    #45
  6. Lumebray

    Lumebray Virtus Et Honor

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    178
    I am pretty sure you dommed this guy.
    very nice, very nice.
    hahaha.
    :applause:
    #46
  7. ColtKiller

    ColtKiller Starter

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,556
    I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Apparently you can't read because most of the 'points' he used to 'domm' (wtf does that mean anyway?) me we're words that he put into my mouth then proceeded to argue with. Thanks for your input tho, nothing like reading a post that provides us with absolutely no insight to anything whatsoever.
    #47
  8. ColtKiller

    ColtKiller Starter

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,556
    We did when it counted. Teams that rely on their defense to win games often lose big games because they can't score when they really need to. Keep in mind, there is a difference between being a defensive team and a team that relies on your defense. Pittsburgh is a defensive team, they have a great defense BUT they can score points when they need to. Being in the top half of scoring teams means we're better then all the scrubs. To be an elite team you need to be top-tier, not top half.
    #48
    • High Five High Five x 1
  9. Psychop1

    Psychop1 Big Tee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,461
    Who decides what value is??? You don't think the best DT in the league should be paid like the best DT in the league??? Furthermore who says they can't afford it??? I already used two examples in the Colts and the Patriots. The Titans can damn well afford it. The Colts have 'supposedly' been in cap trouble for some time now, yet through their struggles, they still made (all at the time of signing) Manning the highest paid QB in the league, Freeney the highest paid DE in the league, Sanders the highest paid SS in the league, and Clark the highest paid TE in the league. That's what it takes when you have top talent at those positions, and Bud has made the push before. I won't pretend to be the know-all of the Titans financial situation in this economy, but something tells me they could be quite competitive with any team in the league when it comes to bidding. I believe beyond the cap, the resources are there in excess.

    Also, take a look around. Owners ARE paying FA's like there's not going to be any cap. We've never seen contracts this heavily backloaded before. You better believe that if the Titans don't pay Haynesworth top money, some team will, and THEY will reap the benefits. If the club for some reason doesn't believe Haynesworth can/will continue playing at a high level, then that is a different story, but from what I've read thus far, they believe he can and will.
    #49
  10. GoTitans3801

    GoTitans3801 Forward Progress!

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Messages:
    7,640
    Of course some one is going to pay Albert a ridiculous amount of money, someone always does with FAs like that. It won't be us.

    As for the cap issue, the difference is that the cheaper owners won't risk losing the money for nothing. If you sign a player and then cut them, you may get back under the cap, but you don't get back all of the money that you already made. The difference is between how you look at it as the team dealing with the cap, and the owner who actually spends the money. No way we get authorized to go way over the expected cap in 2010. Bud's not a spender.
    #50
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.