we could have signed marco coleman

J

jd13

he signed with jax for 3 years/$4.5mil. we could have gotten him for that...we gave burnett 2 years/$2mil...coleman is 3 years younger but he will probably start in jax...i am not at all pissed about signing burnett, who if healthy will be fine... i just preferred coleman thats all...
 

Dolfan54

Scout Team
Joined
Jun 15, 2002
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Age
38
Location
College Station, TX
Coleman

Coleman wants to start. We have Taylor and Gardner at the ends and brought in Burnett for some depth. Plus, Burnett has said he is comfortable in a backup role
 

Muck

Now completely imaginary
Hammered
Joined
Feb 3, 2002
Messages
30,528
Reaction score
7
Location
Elsewhere
Coleman's contract also has incentives in it. And it likely has more up front money than Burnett's deal. We probably couldn't afford that.

And most importantly, Jax offers Coleman a place where he will start. Whereas in Miami he'd be a backup.
 

VanDolPhan

Starter
Joined
Mar 3, 2002
Messages
7,199
Reaction score
0
Age
43
Location
Hamilton, Ontario
Burnetts contract also has incentives. If Burnett plays 50% of the downs and the team does well his contract becomes 2 years at $4million.

They should have just gone with the 3 year deal and seen if Marco would bite. Everyone knows you get 60% of snaps (starter snaps) in the "Armstrong" mold.
 

stan marino

Pro Bowler
Joined
Apr 27, 2002
Messages
1,977
Reaction score
0
Age
43
I think either way would have worked out really. Coleman would have been a preference just cuz he was here before. I think we should be more worried about the offensive line anyway.
 

EddieIrvine13

Active Roster
Joined
Mar 8, 2002
Messages
595
Reaction score
0
Age
39
Location
Chicago
I am not dissappointed with Burnett over Coleman. I was hoping Burnett would take the league minimum though so we can get another decent FA. I am more dissappointed in not getting Blake... Denver got him for relatively cheap. We would have had a solid line if we landed him.
 

Dolfan54

Scout Team
Joined
Jun 15, 2002
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Age
38
Location
College Station, TX
Coleman vs. Burnett

I agree that Burnett should have gotten paid less. Both ends had injury plagued seasons in 2001, especially Burnett. Looking at 2000 stats they're pretty even (of course Burnett played for one of the best D's in history that year).

Burnett 39 Tack. 9 Asst. 10 Sacks 5 Fum Rec
Coleman 41 Tack. 9 Asst. 11.5 Sacks

Of course Burnett is going to be 35 at the start of the season, while Coleman will be 32.
 

Ozzy

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2002
Messages
5,405
Reaction score
2
Location
Miami FLA
Originally posted by VanDolPhan
Burnetts contract also has incentives. If Burnett plays 50% of the downs and the team does well his contract becomes 2 years at $4million.

They should have just gone with the 3 year deal and seen if Marco would bite. Everyone knows you get 60% of snaps (starter snaps) in the "Armstrong" mold.
Miami talked to Colemans agent. His preference to play in Miami was legit, but it did not out weigh his preference to start

I'm just glad they got a decent player to be in uniform NOW!!
 

Muck

Now completely imaginary
Hammered
Joined
Feb 3, 2002
Messages
30,528
Reaction score
7
Location
Elsewhere
I wasn't sold on Brockermeyer. We've already got two LTs coming off injury. Blake still can't practice with that leg.
 
Top Bottom