What are the 'Phins waiting on to sign Barrow?

[ether79]

:fire::fire::fire:

Way to many people are regurgitating this "build in the draft" theory with no understanding. Yes, you build the bulk of your team in the draft! No you do not rely solely on free agents as the core of your team. If you do not understand this see Wanny. Wanny was a man who try to build a team solely on free agents. This did not work.

But because you draft does not mean you should not look at free agents. Veteran talent adds a "help now" affect. It also offers teaching to your rookies. The "help now" affect is also VERY important in a team. The veteran touch can make or break a team.

If you do not believe this, see the Patriots, and Billy B. Yes you want lots of young players, but look at Harrison, all of the Patriot LBs, and Brown. You think tomorrow, but you have to think today as well.

Signing Barrow, for cheap I must add, will massivly help this team. How does it you ask? Well;

1. Barrow adds talent. Yes maybe his better days are behind him, but so are Zach's, and Seau's! Yet we keep them around?

2. Barrow will also add depth, something we NEED at the LB position. Last year was a good example of this.

3. Barrow offers alot of knowledge and experience which can help our young LBs grow (Moore, Crowder, Pope, etc.).

As for the arguement how many LBs will we keep? I say keep a heapload of them. LBs are versatile, they can role play. You can throw them at safety, at DL, extra pass rushers, special teamers, even offensive players. LBs are the most conditional players on the field, build by committy, not dependance.

The only arguement with meaning is cap space. Which is the deciding factor in signing him.

1. In his best days he couldn't hold a candle to ZT or Seau, right now they are still a lot better than he is.

2. The place we need better depth at is on D is CB so if we are going to sign a vet, that is the position we should do it for.

3. Barrow offers knowledge, sure. ZT and Seau offer more so why sign a guy for that reason.


He would be eating up cap space that is still needed to sign Brown and hopefully another CB and with Smith now gone maybe a veteran C.

 

[4evaFinz]

I don't recall once saying Zach and Jr can't do it. But what I did say is Mike can. Better looking at it, then looking for it - as they say. CB is a need, but there isn't much for us to pickup there. Unless we have a shot at Law? Look at the money he wants. Take what you can get. At LB we have a legit player, and contributer available. While at CB we have a bunch of bums...

 

[ether79]

Well IMO if I had to I'd rather have TBuck at a vet. miniumum contract than Barrow. I think our depth at LB is just fine and there is no reason to take snaps away from Crowder, Pope, Spragan, etc..

 

[jason_taylor]

I don't recall once saying Zach and Jr can't do it. But what I did say is Mike can. Better looking at it, then looking for it - as they say. CB is a need, but there isn't much for us to pickup there. Unless we have a shot at Law? Look at the money he wants. Take what you can get. At LB we have a legit player, and contributer available. While at CB we have a bunch of bums...

well imo that is even more 4 us to go out and get a cb and as 4 zack n jr. we dont need no more than those to teach our young players what they need to learn imo we will do very good this year at lb but like you said QUOTE(While at CB we have a bunch of bums...) THINK ABOUT IT

 

[jason_taylor]

Well IMO if I had to I'd rather have TBuck at a vet. miniumum contract than Barrow. I think our depth at LB is just fine and there is no reason to take snaps away from Crowder, Pope, Spragan, etc..

i agree 100% bro im with you :evil:

 

[4evaFinz]

You misunderstood. I meant by at CB we have a bunch of bums as in a bunch of bums to choose from on the FA list. But at LB we have a player/contributer to choose from. Hence the take what you can get phrase.

 

[ether79]

You misunderstood. I meant by at CB we have a bunch of bums as in a bunch of bums to choose from on the FA list. But at LB we have a player/contributer to choose from. Hence the take what you can get phrase.

I just think you might be putting to much value in what Barrow would bring into the fold.

 

[ether79]

You misunderstood. I meant by at CB we have a bunch of bums as in a bunch of bums to choose from on the FA list. But at LB we have a player/contributer to choose from. Hence the take what you can get phrase.

BTW :welcome: to finheaven.

 

[Lederhosen]

There is not much money left after they sign all the rookies, and I rather see them add depth on CB, C, DT, C, T and C.

 

[LarryFinFan]

mike barrow the homestead native was released by the Redskins on Saturday. he didn't play at all last year due to injury and was released after he wouldn't take a paycut. i understand that he's fully recovered and he had 177 tackles(122 unassisted, that's a man!!!) in 2004. he would be an excellent fit and it would also allow Zach to move outside where he could really utilize his quickness and experience,as well as his coverage ability. Zach would be alot more effective taking on te's/fb's than the 300 pounders!!! what do yall think....???


still hatin' wanny4e:

Cashman34:rawk:

With Crowder coming along, Seau, Spraghan, Pope having a good camp and Moore and Abendeyjo (sp), we are in decent shape at LB (also the use of JT and Dbo occasionally moving to standup OLB)....If we're going to spend more money, lets go after an experienced CB...We have Howard, Madison and Daniels....but very weak after that....Edwards does not seem to be working out very well...We need an established CB (can you say Ty Law) before we need a LB, even one with Barrow's resume...

 

[LarryFinFan]

Besides, Why on earth would you move ZT from the middle ?? Even in the 3-4 set, his speed and football savvy could be utilized...

 

[4evaFinz]

BTW :welcome: to finheaven.

Thank you. Well I guess it all breaks down to what your philosophies are. I am not the kind of guy who passes up talent based on team needs. Mind you if there were a CB worth signing, I'd be all for ignoring Barrow and going for him. But that is not the case. Now if Barrow wants a big payday I understand your opinions. But if he signs cheap, he is a better pickup than some bum at CB who will just get cut in a year or two after we draft someone. Fact is a player who plays (that was not a desperate NEED), is better than one who rides the bench (who was a desperate NEED).

Sure signing a CB will look pretty on the depth chart when we have 6-7 guys at the CB position for depth. But if he doesn't perform on the field what is the point?

 

[CD13]

mike barrow the homestead native was released by the Redskins on Saturday. he didn't play at all last year due to injury and was released after he wouldn't take a paycut. i understand that he's fully recovered and he had 177 tackles(122 unassisted, that's a man!!!) in 2004. he would be an excellent fit and it would also allow Zach to move outside where he could really utilize his quickness and experience,as well as his coverage ability. Zach would be alot more effective taking on te's/fb's than the 300 pounders!!! what do yall think....???


still hatin' wanny4e:

Cashman34:rawk:

We don't need him that is why

 

[tucker]

maybe b/c he's washed up....