I'm calling it now...

nero THE zero · #1 02-04-2010, 04:11 PM

LT makes him comeback to Texas (with the Texans, of course):

Quote:

(Rotoworld) Beat writer Kevin Acee expects the Chargers to release LaDainian Tomlinson before his $2 million roster bonus comes due on March 5.

Analysis: This is hardly a surprise. The Chargers "don't seem inclined" to pay Tomlinson's full $5 million salary for 2010. Both sides have indicated that they're not interested in restructuring a deal that had already been reworked once. The Chargers need to fix a broken running game, and a declining Tomlinson clearly isn't part of the solution.

TheMatrix31 · #2 02-04-2010, 05:54 PM

Incentive-laden deal. DO IT.

WMH · #3 02-04-2010, 07:30 PM

Vet min, OK, otherwise, no thanks. We have already had our experiment with over the hill RB's. More than once as best I can recall.....

nunusguy · #4 02-04-2010, 09:08 PM

In terms of another back, don't we most of all need a big thumper in the 225-235 lb range ?

TheMatrix31 · #5 02-04-2010, 09:40 PM

Probably, but I would still grab LT and have him on this roster also. If we can get him, given his production despite obvious line limitations and all the injuries (what, like 12 TDs and 800 yards?)....it could be real nice in Houston. I have no doubt he could produce that much here.

Besides, this isn't "just another retread". This is a guy who is a top 5 running back of all-time.

Pick up a bruiser in the draft.

barrett · #6 02-04-2010, 09:53 PM

Who says we need a big guy? We had red zone and short yardage issues. You don't need a big guy for short yardage. The best 3 short yardage guys of all-time are probably LT, Marcus Allen, and Emmitt Smith. Big guys are great to wear on a defense or punish tacklers. Guys who hit the hole fast, hard, and low are great short yardage guys.

I for one would love a guy at RB who specializes at scoring TDs.

Roy P · #7 02-04-2010, 10:30 PM

LT knows how to pick up the Blitzer. My only concern is that he still thinks too much of himself. He isn't that same guy he was 3 years ago, but he has the attitude that he is. We don't need a whiner who complains that he's not the main cog of the offense. Now, if he eats some humble pie and takes a reasonable contract, says that he's here to contribute, then I'm all for it. If he wants to make more "LT Shuffle" videos, then I'll pass. I suppose my main reservation is his attitude more than his production. Taking a look at the last 2 seasons, I can guess his production.

171 carries, 550 yards, 8 TDs That's about what I'd expect from Slaton too.

painekiller · #8 02-04-2010, 11:52 PM

I would not waste a roster spot on a worn out back. Draft me some young fresh legs with low mileage on them. Sorry!

nunusguy · #9 02-05-2010, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrett

Who says we need a big guy? We had red zone and short yardage issues. You don't need a big guy for short yardage. The best 3 short yardage guys of all-time are probably LT, Marcus Allen, and Emmitt Smith. Big guys are great to wear on a defense or punish tacklers. Guys who hit the hole fast, hard, and low are great short yardage guys.

I for one would love a guy at RB who specializes at scoring TDs.

I hear you. Marcus Allen for example, not a real big back, no doubt was one of the greatest short-yardage backs ever. But I also think there's a correlation between a back with size/strength and his ability to run inside the tackles where the traffic is relatively heavy, especially where the defense stacks a lot of bodies up at the los in short-yardage scenarios.
But whoever said bringing in LT is an Ahman Green redux got it right.

barrett · #10 02-05-2010, 09:33 AM

I think Roy nailed it. LT has always had a huge ego. But if he is truly ok with being nothing but a redzone guy who gets a 4-6 carries inside the 10 and maybe 8-10 total per game, then I am interested. Because the guy is still good in short yardage and at scoring TDs. After all, in a horrible year last year for one of the league's worst running teams, he still ran for 12 TDs. And after watching our team pretend Chris Brown was a goalline back (and losing three games because of it), I would have no problem with those carries going to LT instead.

If the signing bonus is low but the base and incentives are high, then you go into training camp with Foster, Slaton (if healthy), LT, and a rookie back. Then, if the rookie back can push one of those guys out the door you are happy about it. If not, at least you're not giving chris brown carries.

nero THE zero · #11 02-05-2010, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrett

I think Roy nailed it. LT has always had a huge ego. But if he is truly ok with being nothing but a redzone guy who gets a 4-6 carries inside the 10 and maybe 8-10 total per game, then I am interested. Because the guy is still good in short yardage and at scoring TDs. After all, in a horrible year last year for one of the league's worst running teams, he still ran for 12 TDs. And after watching our team pretend Chris Brown was a goalline back (and losing three games because of it), I would have no problem with those carries going to LT instead.

If the signing bonus is low but the base and incentives are high, then you go into training camp with Foster, Slaton (if healthy), LT, and a rookie back. Then, if the rookie back can push one of those guys out the door you are happy about it. If not, at least you're not giving chris brown carries.

That's pretty much it, right there. He's a veteran who can bring winning experience, football savvy, leadership, and, while not the threat he used to be, is still better than at least half (and maybe all) of our RB right now. I'd sign him to pair him with a high draft pick (Dwyer, Matthews, or Dixon.)

HPF Bob · #12 02-06-2010, 12:50 AM

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.

NBT · #13 02-07-2010, 05:05 PM

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

popanot · #14 02-08-2010, 07:30 AM

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.

nero THE zero · #15 02-08-2010, 08:25 AM

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.

popanot · #16 02-08-2010, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nero THE zero

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.

True, but I'm sure McNair has a budget in mind that he's willing to spend, and I'd rather they use it to re-sign some of our quality RFAs (DeMeco, Pollard, Daniels, etc.) than throw cash at LT. Just because there's likely to be no cap this next year doesn't mean you give some crazy contract to someone and be bound to it when there is a cap possibly in 2011.

nero THE zero · #17 02-08-2010, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by popanot

True, but I'm sure McNair has a budget in mind that he's willing to spend, and I'd rather they use it to re-sign some of our quality RFAs (DeMeco, Pollard, Daniels, etc.) than throw cash at LT. Just because there's likely to be no cap this next year doesn't mean you give some crazy contract to someone and be bound to it when there is a cap possibly in 2011.

I agree that re-signing some of our RFA is idea. But while the amount of money spent on our roster will be finite, it will also be malleable. There will be not "cap" on our roster, and McNair has shown the willingness to do what it takes to win.

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).

barrett · #18 02-08-2010, 10:22 AM

You also must consider that if you give LT 2 years and $10 milion because it is uncapped, it is not just between LT, McNair, and Smith. It is between every other Texans player who sees us spending big money because it's uncapped and wants a raise because of it.

Cap or no cap it is dangerous to sign bad deals. Not to mention that big money tells a guy he can expect a big role to go with it.

I want LT, but his expectations and his salary have to be in line with what we are asking him to do.

nero THE zero · #19 02-08-2010, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrett

You also must consider that if you give LT 2 years and $10 milion because it is uncapped, it is not just between LT, McNair, and Smith. It is between every other Texans player who sees us spending big money because it's uncapped and wants a raise because of it.

Cap or no cap it is dangerous to sign bad deals. Not to mention that big money tells a guy he can expect a big role to go with it.

I want LT, but his expectations and his salary have to be in line with what we are asking him to do.

Ya, that's a concern, but a minor one. My 2 year $10M example was also obviously hyperbolic. But, if the Texans were to offer LT a contract that some of our players felt was unfair (to them), they can go and become one of the greatest players at their respective position in the history of the game and then come back and bitch about it. Whatever.

barrett · #20 02-08-2010, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nero THE zero

Ya, that's a concern, but a minor one. My 2 year $10M example was also obviously hyperbolic. But, if the Texans were to offer LT a contract that some of our players felt was unfair (to them), they can go and become one of the greatest players at their respective position in the history of the game and then come back and bitch about it. Whatever.

After watching D-Rob be insulted by his $10 we should realize that these things don't have to make sense. And the reason for that is that contract negotiations are agent driven.

If we give a guy who had 800 yards and 3 ypc $4 million per year, then every agent who negotiates with us has to get that kind of value out of us or they are inferior to the agent who got it for LT (and they lose clients to that guy). So they give bad advice to their client in order to protect their slice of the pie. And honestly it has repercussions even beyond our team in terms of setting market values at various positions.

But the bottom line is that bad contracts are bad ideas whether there is a cap or not.