How's that? He's only 30, not old by OL standards at all.... And what other moves have we made along the OL that have 'brought us to where we are now'? When was the last time we signed a semi-legitimate veteran offensive lineman? The last I can remember is Kendall, and he worked out well for us, being part of the OL that was one of the best in the league in 2004, paving the way for the league's leading rusher, until we went and dealt him without a legitimate backup on the roster.... And back to Kendall.... I just don't understand how you and others think dealing him was a good move.... Other than the contract dispute, what was good about that move? You and JetsLookingForDWare have both mentioned that he wasn't that good, but he was without a doubt one of our two best lineman, and a veteran presence between two very young players in Mangold and Ferguson. It helps tremendously when a young OL has someone next to him whom he can trust as he starts to develop as a player. Ferguson took a small step back this year, and Mangold wasn't near the player he was in his rookie season, and a big part of that was the fact that they had to try to account for Clarke's incompetence at LG. I don't care if he's "not all that great" you simply do NOT deal a proven starter on the OL when you have absolutely NOTHING on board to replace him with... How on EARTH was that move anything but a mistake, brought about by the FO's stubbornness?
trying to survive with other teams left overs instead of getting quality. i never said he was a bad player a little overrated, undersized and aging but still a solid starter. But the way he acted this offseason was inacceptable. Bitching like a little girl. How could Brick and Mangold trust on a guy who?s playing here against his will. He thought he could blackmail our young unexperienced FO only cuz he knew we don?t have a viable replacement. No way we could have given him that extra million. The way he "asked" for it was unacceptable. So yeah, at that point, it was a good move to deal him.
