![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Not to start any arguments but one of the best short-yardage backs I ever saw was Priest Holmes.
I kinda concur with the rest of the group. I'd sign him if he can handle having a reduced role for less money. If he still wants to be top dog, I'll pass. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The talking heads on the NFL network at the SB are predicting he goes to either Seatle or Houston. I don't think he would be worth the money it would take to get him
__________________
NBT - Elder statesman. Wisdom comes with age - Now if i could remember what it was! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Oops... I just poted something similar to this in the Slaton injury thread before seeing this thread... Yes, I could see LT coming here, and yes, I'd sign him as long as he comes fairly cheap and knows/accepts his role. He's certainly an upgrade over most of what we have now and I personally think he still has a little bit left in the tank.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Given that we're likely going uncapped, people are going to have to drop the idea of budgetary restriction -- at least within reason.
Pre-2010 football would dictate that we worry about such a thing. But, not that we will not have a cap, the amount of money LT would get is only a concern to McNair, Rick Smith, and LT. There's really no difference in LT coming to us for 2 years $2M, 2 years $6M, or 2 years $10M. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I just hate to see the idea of bringing in an effective RB pooed on because of antiquated restrictions. So, if the singing of LT was dependent on not re-signing Pollard, Ryans, and Daniels, I'd obviously prefer the latter. But, I don't believe that to be true. And, even if it was, we still have a couple of more years to work out a contract with those guys (though that's obviously not ideal). |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|