Any news on the tag?

[Au165]

(03-09-2021, 05:23 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: This makes no sense.

Your argument is to keep Lawson to fill one DE spot.

My alternative that I offered has resulted in you challenging me to fill two DE spots.  It also appear you set an age requirement, or "big names"???

My point was that you could target a DE in FA, to replace Lawson @ a range of 5-11 million dollars per.  (I know this is wide range, but it's a large market and it's dependent on how we value other positions)

This would leave you with anywhere between 6 to 11 million to spend elsewhere (DT, LB, CB, another DE).

So the question comes down to this:  Would you rather keep Carl Lawon at 17 million, or would you rather you use that 17 million on multiple players that can help the defense?

Keep in mind, I didn't even say that one approach is necessarily the best, or fool proof.  I brought all of this up to point out how ridiculous it is to assume that if you're not for keeping Lawson and Jackson then you're automatically ignoring the defense, and that you only care about "toys" (whatever that means).

My argument is to keep him or else you need to fill two. 

Yes, because you need to replace 60+ pressures of production and you are also paying a premium for a 26-year-old with Lawson.

You aren't replacing Lawson with a player in the 6-11 million range that will produce close to him. You may replace him with a person, but not of equal value. Maybe you can get a guy like Dupree on a one-year deal for 10 or 11 but his stats last year were pretty sketchy when you look at his average time to throw on sacks and pressures.

All this is moot as the reports now are we have chosen to pass on tagging Lawson, or Jackson. I guess they are banking on a flooded market driving prices down but that could seriously come back to bite them with the maneuvering teams can do with the cap.