An excellent reminder, thanks for posting that. I recall reading about it when he first came up with the study, there was interesting evidence to support his conclusion. Granted, there will always be exceptions, but its a generally sound idea.
For my take: this is frustrating. Yes, i do approve of filling needs in free agency and our offensive line is one giant gaping need. Yes, it could be debated that Albert is better then the other options. But this is just the sort of reactive thinking that has consistently gotten us into trouble for years now. Albert might(and thats the precise word: might) be better then Monroe and Veldheer, but hes also older and has an injury that could be chronic. As well, Veldheer and Monroe are both 27 years old, they are entering the prime of their careers. We wont be a Superbowl contender until we start acting proactive and looking beyond "what happened yesterday". If we went after Veldheer or Monroe, we could have the reasonable expectation that they would play well enough to stay the entirety of their contracts. As Hoops suggested, with Albert we have to start looking for a backup plan before he hits year 3 of his deal. And no, sorry, we just arent a player away from contending for a Superbowl, we are going to need at least 1 more offseason.
This isnt simply about filling needs, its about using our resources in the best way possible. We can blindly throw money at problems for the moment but thats not going to work when we have to start paying a quarterback $18-$20 million a year.
All of that said, if my two choices are Albert or spending another high draft pick on a lineman: then come on down Albert, enjoy that fat paycheck buddy.
Oh, and obligatory: this isnt true because the media is 100% of the time wrong and i just dont want this to be true.
