The Official NFL Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vairox

raiders lol... j/k, I heard maybe the cowboys...whoever gets him gets a steal cause they can pay him a lot less since he is a trouble maker, put a clause in that they don't have to pay if he gets into more trouble etc, it's win win.

---

It may turn out good for whatever team picks him up.

Or it may turn out bad.

Some guys can literally be a cancer on the team (i.e. TO). Other guys may not be so bad, but the team may grow to rely on them being there (i.e. Ricky Williams) and when the player "disappears" (for whatever reason... Barret Robbins before the Superbowl) it can be a distraction and even force a change in the teams gameplan.

And what had struck me lately about some of these players is that they don't seem to learn from their bad experiences. They make the same mistake again (i.e. "PacMan" Jones).

Some of these athletes have been catered to so much in their life where they liteally think that the rules of society somehow don't apply to them.

So I think that it's kind of a crapshoot... you may get a steal or you may get a disruptive cancer (worst case scenerio).

And yea... I'd write the contract as such that if he screws up once... he's gone.

It should be low risk to whoever picks him up. Sign him to a one year deal, if he messes up once cut him. If he gets his act together you just got a good starter.

No sign him to a multi year contract laden with incentives, but at base pay and little signing bonus. If he has a great year, you don't want to renegotiate a contract. Is Tank a free agent or is he on the waiver line? And I think he would be a good fit with the Raiders. We like trouble makers that perform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spamjedi

It should be low risk to whoever picks him up. Sign him to a one year deal, if he messes up once cut him. If he gets his act together you just got a good starter.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mindwarper

Is Tank a free agent or is he on the waiver line? And I think he would be a good fit with the Raiders. We like trouble makers that perform.

---

Free agent, I'm pretty sure, since he was cut. Also, the Raiders have a good enough defense imo to not have to bother with him, even if they DO like the troublemakers.

I dont mind saying that Detroit who runs a very similar tampa2 could be a nice fit, for Tank he could then play against the Bears twice a year. That would give us 3 possible probowl level tackles, assuming Tank is as good on a different team as he was on the bears.

Who knows, maybe he is beyond help, and will never clean up.

monro - good point, Raiders had the #3 defense last year... but who do they have at DT? terdell sands, not really great....warren sapp? he's old and has lost 50lbs, so he may be playing defensive end this year... displacing tyler brayton, unless burgess holds out then it will be him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vairox

monro - good point, Raiders had the #3 defense last year... but who do they have at DT? terdell sands, not really great....warren sapp? he's old and has lost 50lbs, so he may be playing defensive end this year... displacing tyler brayton, unless burgess holds out then it will be him.

---

Warren Sapp is old. But if we go off the most recent history, he had 10 sacks last year... which is GREAT for a DT. And the games that I saw... he did a good job against the run.

That being said... he won't last forever. But he was REALLY good last year.

If he comes into camp this year with the dedication to the game that he has shown... he may even be better this year than last... which would be amazing considering his age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard

Warren Sapp is old. But if we go off the most recent history, he had 10 sacks last year... which is GREAT for a DT. And the games that I saw... he did a good job against the run.

That being said... he won't last forever. But he was REALLY good last year.

If he comes into camp this year with the dedication to the game that he has shown... he may even be better this year than last... which would be amazing considering his age.

---

that many sacks for that age is phenomenal, absolutely phenomenal... but he lost 50lbs, will he lose strength too? obviously he will be faster, I just threw it out there since it would probably make more sense for him to play end being slimmer and faster, hell he might still be able to battle the o-guards being slimmer

He may lose a bit of strength, but i bet he's gained a step as well. That's a lot of weight to take off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vairox

that many sacks for that age is phenomenal, absolutely phenomenal... but he lost 50lbs, will he lose strength too? obviously he will be faster, I just threw it out there since it would probably make more sense for him to play end being slimmer and faster, hell he might still be able to battle the o-guards being slimmer

---

From what I read... all the weight that he lost was fat. He never really trained hard in the offseason and watched what he ate. It's my understanding that this offseason that he did. So he shouldn't lose any strength... just gain quickness. But of course being 50lbs lighter will make it easier for the guards to push him around... but well worth the tradeoff I would think.

And that many sacks for his age is great... but what makes it even greater was that it was done at defensive tackle. Tackles just don't usually get that many sacks being surrounded on all sides by blockers. It's much easier for a defensive end to sacks because of less double teams and the ability to do a speed rush around the outside.

He played at end when the Raiders played the 3-4. It didn't go well. I don't think that Sapp makes a good 3-4 end. I'd be surprised if they put Sapp at end.

The reason why I think he's a great tackle is because he is a short little explosive powder keg. Being shorter has it's advantages... namely leverage. There are in fact times when smaller is better. He has always been quick off the ball. Combined with his strength and understanding of leverage, he has carved out a pretty good career for himself.

He may trim down... but nobody will ever confuse him with a Jason Taylor type (i.e. quick around the corner, tall-lean, and all arms)

10 sacks for a d tackle is amazing, Be it 4-3 system or 3-4 system, which would be even more impressive. But if sapp dropped 50 lbs, from the 300 lbs he's listed at on nfl.com, there's no way it's all fat, 50 lbs would mean 16% body fat if it was all fat. Which is unheard of for a D lineman. Even if it was all fat, sapp's not a d end, he's a tackle, fat definitely matters because it's mass.

If sapp somehow becomes even more of a stud tackle at 250lbs, then god bless him. Though I'd be hoping he stays at 300lbs where he recorded 10 sacks which is incredible whether I was a raider fan or not. I doubt he'll do as well as he did last year at 250 though. Again weight matters, and obviously he can move all 300 lbs of himself effectively

With his 10 sacks at dt you might think it'd reflect a weakness at DE, I'd still be happy with 6 sacks at dt. But I see the right end had 11 sacks last season. That's a serious D line, you raiders fans better hope sapp didn't drop that weight, because it will probably hurt you.

Again I'm not a raiders fan, but if sapps getting the kind of penetration hsi numbers show, and that DE burgress if getting double digit sacks, that's a solid d line.

Burgess is a monster, I can't remember why the eagles cut him... he is the lowest paid at his position, the Raiders need to play ball with him and get him signed to a satisfactory contract. at 250lbs maybe sapp can play LB lol.

speaking of LB whatever happened to Darnell Bing? the raiders got both safety's from both national championship teams (usc-texas) and said they were thinking about using Bing as a linebacker, not even sure he played

Quote:

---

10 sacks for a d tackle is amazing, Be it 4-3 system or 3-4 system, which would be even more impressive.

---

10 Sacks as a DT in a 3-4 system would be stupid good being how the lineman in that system just basically occupy blockers and let the LBs make the plays.

Quote:

---

But if sapp dropped 50 lbs, from the 300 lbs he's listed at on nfl.com, there's no way it's all fat, 50 lbs would mean 16% body fat if it was all fat. Which is unheard of for a D lineman. Even if it was all fat, sapp's not a d end, he's a tackle, fat definitely matters because it's mass.

---

Those numbers are typically fudged so bad. I'm not sure why. Next to no linemen play at their listed weights. I'd say more realistically that Sapp played at between 320 and 330.

Quote:

---

I doubt he'll do as well as he did last year at 250 though. Again weight matters, and obviously he can move all 300 lbs of himself effectively

---

I'll be surprised if he does as well as he did last year. Age matters at some point. And maybe... just *maybe* the Raiders defence won't be on the firld nearly as mcuh this year giving guys like Sapp extra opportunity to get their stats.

The Raiders offence last year was the worst offence that I'd ever seen. Bar none. Period.

Quote:

---

With his 10 sacks at dt you might think it'd reflect a weakness at DE, I'd still be happy with 6 sacks at dt.

---

6 sacks at DT is still a fine year for a DT I agree.

Quote:

---

Again I'm not a raiders fan, but if sapps getting the kind of penetration hsi numbers show, and that DE burgress if getting double digit sacks, that's a solid d line.

---

Burgess is a demon. A HUGE miss by Philly not keeping him. Imagine Burgess and Kearse on the same line.

could the 2006 raiders be the most lopsided team of all time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vairox

Burgess is a monster, I can't remember why the eagles cut him...

---

Burgess had 2 regular season sacks in his last year in Philly. He had 2 more in the playoffs, which priced him out of the what the Eagles thought he was worth. Obviously the Eagles were wrong, but it's hard to argue with their decision at the time.