Paul Kruger won't be resigned by Baltimore.

[Balzer40]

Again IF the Colts elect to give him that kind of money I don't think they will be doing it because they are over paying just to get a big name.  I think Grigson proved he isn't that kind of GM when he let Garcon walk last year rather than over paying him.  If Grigson gives him that kind of money it's going to be because Grigson thinks he is worth it or worth something near to it.  The problem with Free Agency, and the reason Polian avoided it for years, is that if you want a good young player you are going to end up over paying for him some what because you are pretty much in a bidding war.  That's not a case with Kruger that's a case with free agency in general.  So any good young player we get if they have any kind of name we are going to over pay some what.  With that said, the key is to make sure you don't turn a $15 million dollar player into a $40 million dollar player.  That's where Grigson has to do his homework and if he thinks Kruger is closer to the 15 million range he wont over pay to get him. 

 

 

I'm not trying to argue the point of what you're saying, I'm simply stating that from what Kruger has done, he isn't worth anywhere near the type of money he's reportedly seeking. I have no doubt that we will need to overspend a little to get any FA, but those signings have to be prioritized. For an example of what I'm trying to say, if you look at Jerry Hughes stats this season and compare them to Kruger's stats, they are very similar and Hughes was a rotational player and many think he is a bust. So why would we want to spend a ton of money on a player that has comparable stats to a guy we already have on the roster and most think he's a bust?

[GoColts8818]

I'm not trying to argue the point of what you're saying, I'm simply stating that from what Kruger has done, he isn't worth anywhere near the type of money he's reportedly seeking. I have no doubt that we will need to overspend a little to get any FA, but those signings have to be prioritized. For an example of what I'm trying to say, if you look at Jerry Hughes stats this season and compare them to Kruger's stats, they are very similar and Hughes was a rotational player and many think he is a bust. So why would we want to spend a ton of money on a player that has comparable stats to a guy we already have on the roster and most think he's a bust?

That's the thing you aren't paying for what he has done you are paying for what you think he can do.  If you think he can be an elite pass rusher if he's in a regular role then $40 million is going to seem to very fair.  If you think he was a one year wonder playing great in a contract year who benefited from being a situational player then no he's not worth it.  That's what Girgson has to figure out.  That's why he gets paid the big bucks so to speak.  What I am saying is if Grigson decides to give him that kind of money it's going to be because Grigson thinks he's an elite pass rusher just coming into his zone and if we let Freeney go that is a huge need for us and would be worth the money if Kruger backs it up with his play. 

[Balzer40]

That's the thing you aren't paying for what he has done you are paying for what you think he can do.  If you think he can be an elite pass rusher if he's in a regular role then $40 million is going to seem to very fair.  If you think he was a one year wonder playing great in a contract year who benefited from being a situational player then no he's not worth it.  That's what Girgson has to figure out.  That's why he gets paid the big bucks so to speak.  What I am saying is if Grigson decides to give him that kind of money it's going to be because Grigson thinks he's an elite pass rusher just coming into his zone and if we let Freeney go that is a huge need for us and would be worth the money if Kruger backs it up with his play. 

 

 

 

I agree with you on that. I trust Grigson to make the right call. I don't have any reason to doubt him yet so if he brings in Kruger and gives him a big payday, then I'll trust that Kruger lives up to it.

[lollygagger8]

$40 mil for Kruger? No way!

 

That would be a Nightmare on Elm Street Part 27.

[Rian Huff]

im not going to argue the fact that he could be an elite pass rusher but i do agree with the guy that says jerry hughes and kruger have very similar stats

 

jerry hughes

41 comb 29 total 12 assist 4 sacks

paul kruger

42 comb 30 total 12 assist 9 sacks

 

and if hughes wasnt a rotational player he would of beat kruger easily in some of these stats and might od got another sack or two

[Hans Moleman]

That's the thing you aren't paying for what he has done you are paying for what you think he can do.  If you think he can be an elite pass rusher if he's in a regular role then $40 million is going to seem to very fair.  If you think he was a one year wonder playing great in a contract year who benefited from being a situational player then no he's not worth it.  That's what Girgson has to figure out.  That's why he gets paid the big bucks so to speak.  What I am saying is if Grigson decides to give him that kind of money it's going to be because Grigson thinks he's an elite pass rusher just coming into his zone and if we let Freeney go that is a huge need for us and would be worth the money if Kruger backs it up with his play. 

 

Well said. Pags will also have valuable insight into whether Kruger's worth the risk or not given that he coached Paul for years. Is it a red flag that Kruger didn't produce much under Pagano and broke out this year? Perhaps. But I know regardless of whether we sign Kruger or not, our choice will be the right one. There's simply no other team besides the Ravens themselves with as much information on Kruger as we have. Our desperation for a Freeney replacement shouldn't outweigh whatever conclusion Pagano and Grigson draw from that. 

[Smonroe]

Depending on how they structure Flacco's new contract, they could have plenty left to re-sign Kruger. They'll also either restructure Reed or let him walk.

Realistically, we should be looking at teams that are already way over the cap. Dallas, Carolina, NO, NYJ, and Pittsburgh are all at least $10M over. They won't be able to sign a lot of decent players.

[NewColtsFan]

Not sure how you see a contract that long straps a team. More than likely a contract like that will be front loaded leaving the remaining years (last 3 lets say) at basically just base salaries which would be cheap. They did that with Mathis' second contract. He got something like 24-26mil up front and then his last two years were just 3mil. Polian structured that well just in case Mathis happened to fall off production wise he costs you virtually nothing to release him. Front load that deal that way in the back half of his contract he may not even see the last 8-10mil if his production declines and he ends up released.

 

Your last sentence answers the issue.    We might want to structure the deal that way,  that doesn't mean the players is going to accept that.    It's not very beneficial to the player.    Why should he do that?

 

One last thought....   The Peytonator's deal was for 7-years, $40 Mill.    The problem with that is that Kruger also wants his 40 Mill within a 5-year structure.    He wants $8 Mill a year.     $40 for 7, is less than $6 Mill per year....    I think that's a deal breaker.

 

Just my opinion....

[gbrads_rants]

Your last sentence answers the issue.    We might want to structure the deal that way,  that doesn't mean the players is going to accept that.    It's not very beneficial to the player.    Why should he do that?

 

One last thought....   The Peytonator's deal was for 7-years, $40 Mill.    The problem with that is that Kruger also wants his 40 Mill within a 5-year structure.    He wants $8 Mill a year.     $40 for 7, is less than $6 Mill per year....    I think that's a deal breaker.

 

Just my opinion....

LOL Kruger is delusional LOL again....

[NewColtsFan]

LOL Kruger is delusional LOL again....

 

He may be....  but that's what he's said publicly....    And in a FA class without a lot of marquee type players,  the Law of Supply and Demand might just bump his price up and he might just get it.

 

Kruger woke up this morning as an NFL Champion.    That doesn't hurt.

[Malakai432]

At least we don't have to pay for Joe Flacco, .

[BleedBlu8792]

Your last sentence answers the issue.    We might want to structure the deal that way,  that doesn't mean the players is going to accept that.    It's not very beneficial to the player.    Why should he do that?

 

One last thought....   The Peytonator's deal was for 7-years, $40 Mill.    The problem with that is that Kruger also wants his 40 Mill within a 5-year structure.    He wants $8 Mill a year.     $40 for 7, is less than $6 Mill per year....    I think that's a deal breaker.

 

Just my opinion....

 

 

He gets all of his guaranteed money up front for the most part. MANY players take their deals like that. I do agree 7 years is a little long but if structured right, its really no different than a 4 or 5 year contract. It doesn't strap the team any differently. Its all dependent on how you structure the deal. Sure, it can be back-loaded, but why do it when you have the money now? I'd much rather front-load it that way in 3 years if production slips or a serious injury occurs he walks with his guaranteed money and I end up saving on the back end because he didn't make it through the life of his contract. Now, again, there are those cases like Mathis in which a player ends up playing out the full contract, but Mathis' production stayed consistent and the Colts ended up getting a cheap 2 years out of him, because like I stated above he got a large portion of his money up front. Reggie's deal was also similar to Mathis' (I'm referring to their 2nd contracts not the ones they just did) and I commend both of them for not holding out because they knew their last couple of years they wouldn't be making much more than just their base salaries. Just 2.5mil for Mathis in his final 2 years which is CHEAP for 20.5 sacks and 4 FF. 

[Gavin]

Certainly not worthy of the money he's supposedly seeking. 

Pass rushers aren't in my opinion, yes they get to the QB but how many times a year do they do that? most its ever happened is what? 22? out of how many snaps? in a season, sure they also provide pressure, but I'd take the potential elite Corner especially if they have size (Xavier Rhodes) over a pass rusher, Sam Montgomery. Mingo, even Jarvis Jones as good as he has been

[GoColts8818]

Pass rushers aren't in my opinion, yes they get to the QB but how many times a year do they do that? most its ever happened is what? 22? out of how many snaps? in a season, sure they also provide pressure, but I'd take the potential elite Corner especially if they have size (Xavier Rhodes) over a pass rusher, Sam Montgomery. Mingo, even Jarvis Jones as good as he has been

Good luck beating elite QBs in today's NFL without a good pass rusher.

[Balzer40]

Pass rushers aren't in my opinion, yes they get to the QB but how many times a year do they do that? most its ever happened is what? 22? out of how many snaps? in a season, sure they also provide pressure, but I'd take the potential elite Corner especially if they have size (Xavier Rhodes) over a pass rusher, Sam Montgomery. Mingo, even Jarvis Jones as good as he has been

 

 

I don't mind an elite pass rusher getting paid a good contract(Not Freeney money this last season, that was ridiculous), but IMO Kruger hasn't proved himself to be anything yet. He had a good half a season which I might add, coincided with Suggs return from injury......coincidence??? Who Knows, but I would rather see more proof that he's the player he was the second half of the season before dropping major $$$ on him. Unfortunately, thats not possible. So Grigson and Pagano will have to do some major homework on him to see if he's worth a good payday.

[Gavin]

Good luck beating elite QBs in today's NFL without a good pass rusher.

Robert Mathis also several teams over the last few years have had a high number of sacks and QB hits and been near the bottom of barrel in yards allowed through the air, Cowboys, Giants, Vikings all of years passed, '09 Cleveland Browns, this years Dolphins, obviously a pass rusher and Corner go hand in hand but I'd go for Corner every time

[GoColts8818]

Robert Mathis also several teams over the last few years have had a high number of sacks and QB hits and been near the bottom of barrel in yards allowed through the air, Cowboys, Giants, Vikings all of years passed, '09 Cleveland Browns, this years Dolphins, obviously a pass rusher and Corner go hand in hand but I'd go for Corner every time

it's been proven time and time again good corners can only hold up in coverage for so long.  If you can't get to the QB I don't care who the CB is sooner or later they are going to get beat.  If you look at the Giants this past years their pass rush was not what it has been in years past and their secondary paid the price. 

 

Also the Colts already have a top corner in Davis.  They need a second corner too but if they let Freeney walk they have to replace him and if Mathis is that guy then you need to replace Mathis.  Frankly till this year Mathis had not done much of anything in games when Freeney had been out with an injury.  He benefits a lot from teams focusing on Freeney.  If the attention shifts to him because Freeney is no longer there Mathis production will go down if we don't have another threat of a pass rusher beside him. 

[Superman]

Pass rushers aren't in my opinion, yes they get to the QB but how many times a year do they do that? most its ever happened is what? 22? out of how many snaps? in a season, sure they also provide pressure, but I'd take the potential elite Corner especially if they have size (Xavier Rhodes) over a pass rusher, Sam Montgomery. Mingo, even Jarvis Jones as good as he has been

 

A good pass rush changes the game. And a good pass rusher upgrades your pass rush almost 100% of the time. I do think it's becoming a position that can effectively be moneyballed, with the right scheme and coaches, especially if you're strong up front. But you generally don't pay a pass rusher for his sacks. You pay him for the impact he has on the game.

[Superman]

He gets all of his guaranteed money up front for the most part. MANY players take their deals like that. I do agree 7 years is a little long but if structured right, its really no different than a 4 or 5 year contract. It doesn't strap the team any differently. Its all dependent on how you structure the deal. Sure, it can be back-loaded, but why do it when you have the money now? I'd much rather front-load it that way in 3 years if production slips or a serious injury occurs he walks with his guaranteed money and I end up saving on the back end because he didn't make it through the life of his contract. Now, again, there are those cases like Mathis in which a player ends up playing out the full contract, but Mathis' production stayed consistent and the Colts ended up getting a cheap 2 years out of him, because like I stated above he got a large portion of his money up front. Reggie's deal was also similar to Mathis' (I'm referring to their 2nd contracts not the ones they just did) and I commend both of them for not holding out because they knew their last couple of years they wouldn't be making much more than just their base salaries. Just 2.5mil for Mathis in his final 2 years which is CHEAP for 20.5 sacks and 4 FF. 

 

Yeah, this is a common practice in NFL contracts. Just because you give someone like Kruger a five year deal doesn't mean you're going to keep him those five years. I'd rather not see us waste money on an experiment, and I do think Kruger is largely unproven. We'd probably get more bang for our buck with Barwin, who had a bit of a down year -- as opposed to Kruger who kind of blew up this season. But whatever we do in that regard, we needn't assume we're committed to the full value of any player contract that's not fully guaranteed.

 

We could do a five year, $40m contract for Kruger that includes $8-10m upfront in bonus money, plus guaranteed salaries in the first two years, and if we met that $8m/year threshold he's reportedly looking for, I think that would be more than enough to get him.

[Carlos Danger]

I think that the Ravens winning the SB has changed the dynamic... They are in cap trouble and will have to shell out big bucks for Flacco, but the SB win could convince Baltimore's F.O. to get creative with the cap in order to keep players like Kruger for another run at a title. It would seem entirely possible that they might just backload some contracts in order to free up the space to make the signings.. They are already losing Lewis and probably Reed... they might not think that they have another run in them (I don't).. if that's the case, they may just rebuild (reload) their defense and let Kruger and/or Williams go... I'm leaning toward neither of them ever reaching the market and the Ravens shooting themselves in the foot by mortgaging their cap space 3 years down the road....  Flacco had an amazing postseason, but he isn't a top 5 guy... I'm guessing he will get paid like one though...

[Balzer40]

Yeah, this is a common practice in NFL contracts. Just because you give someone like Kruger a five year deal doesn't mean you're going to keep him those five years. I'd rather not see us waste money on an experiment, and I do think Kruger is largely unproven. We'd probably get more bang for our buck with Barwin, who had a bit of a down year -- as opposed to Kruger who kind of blew up this season. But whatever we do in that regard, we needn't assume we're committed to the full value of any player contract that's not fully guaranteed.

 

We could do a five year, $40m contract for Kruger that includes $8-10m upfront in bonus money, plus guaranteed salaries in the first two years, and if we met that $8m/year threshold he's reportedly looking for, I think that would be more than enough to get him.

 

 

I agree. This is what I've been saying about Kruger, I like him, but he is absolutely unproven and IMO isn't worth the chance we'd be taking on him. I find it funny how so many are drooling over him when I(and others) and pointed out that his stats are almost identical to Hughes in a rotational roll and yet everybody thinks Hughes is a waste and a bust. Kruger did have 5 more sacks but the rest of the stats are nearly identical. Those sacks didn't happen till Suggs came back from injury either which leads me to question if Kruger didn't benefit greatly from having an all-pro LBer opposite of him. If Mathis can play the rush lber, maybe Kruger can continue to prove his worth, but I don't know if I would take that chance if I were the one handing out the contracts.

[RomanianColtsFan]

I hope Kruger is not the next Adalius Thomas.

[Superman]

I agree. This is what I've been saying about Kruger, I like him, but he is absolutely unproven and IMO isn't worth the chance we'd be taking on him. I find it funny how so many are drooling over him when I(and others) and pointed out that his stats are almost identical to Hughes in a rotational roll and yet everybody thinks Hughes is a waste and a bust. Kruger did have 5 more sacks but the rest of the stats are nearly identical. Those sacks didn't happen till Suggs came back from injury either which leads me to question if Kruger didn't benefit greatly from having an all-pro LBer opposite of him. If Mathis can play the rush lber, maybe Kruger can continue to prove his worth, but I don't know if I would take that chance if I were the one handing out the contracts.

 

I do think Mathis can play the rush spot, but I don't think the Sam spot is as valuable as the rush spot, so I question the wisdom of paying Kruger Mathis-level money, even if he is as good as he's played the last three months.

 

I'm not overly concerned about the money, but I do think we could get more bang for our buck with Barwin and Hughes than with Kruger and Hughes. And we still could use a backup for the rush spot, which I guess would come in the draft. I don't think Kruger is the best answer to this question.

[Rian Huff]

i woulod much rather startn hughes with his low salary than pay kruger 40 mil, i mean if your going to pay a guy the big bucks at least make his stats be way more impressive than the rotational or back up guy we got......use some common sense guys....we probably wont sign him (i wouldnt). not a professional contract singer or anything but common sense tells me no

[Rian Huff]

honestly i think we might get a olb in are first pick to learn from mathis and have hughes have a shot, i mean we are still rebuilding it the prefect time to see what the guys got

[Rian Huff]

sry not what i meant by that, have hughes rotate behind mathis and rookie on the other side depending on who we get

[IndyColtScout]

There is talk Suggs maybe a cap casualty. If true Ide rather have him even if it cost more.

[Superman]

There is talk Suggs maybe a cap casualty. If true Ide rather have him even if it cost more.

 

Can't imagine Suggs being a cap casualty, especially after he made such a difference for them when he came back from his injury (way earlier than expected, by the way).

 

I do think they'll restructure or extend his contract, though. He's due $11m in base salary and bonuses next season that could easily be converted to a signing bonus to lower his cap.

[shakedownstreet]

i've heard he has a brother named freddy who is pretty good for a lot less money

[HtownColt]

If we are moving Mathis over to play Freeney's role just insert Hughes into Mathis's role, Hughes showed last year he can do that role well on limited snaps, he deserves to be the full time starter in that role in that case, I been saying you cant produce at high level being rotated in and out like Hughes has been

im fine with that too

[Mr. Blue]

Man, I was a big advocate of the 'Get Paul Kruger' movement. But 40mil is a lot of cash to give up on a guy that had one good season, especially when we have quite a few holes left to fill. If we can get him cheaper then great, but otherwise I'd turn my attention further towards Anthony Spencer.

Me too exactly

[Gavin]

A good pass rush changes the game. And a good pass rusher upgrades your pass rush almost 100% of the time. I do think it's becoming a position that can effectively be moneyballed, with the right scheme and coaches, especially if you're strong up front. But you generally don't pay a pass rusher for his sacks. You pay him for the impact he has on the game.

Oh Im not saying pass rushers are like a running back and can be replaced easily with a good O Line, Im just saying pure pass rushers such as Freeney for example can be rather easily avoided just bu running right at them and making them stop the run while also for example, take Micheal Strahans 22.5 single season sack record for example, he was an absolute force to be reckoned with by O Linemen but over the course of the whole season 22.5 sacks out of 4-500 or so defensive snaps is a small small affect as opposed to a Corner especially an aggressive one such as Butler or Davis or Cary Williams from the Ravens who are threats to pick a pass off any play just by the chance that they are aggressive I consider at least as valuable if not slightly more valuable then a pass rusher that yes gets pressure on a QB and gets sacks but against the calmest and best of QB's and run games its easier to recover, there are a few teams over the last 5 or so years that have been top 10 or better in sacks, such as Giants, Steelers, Vikings who have all been at the top of the league (in Minnesota's case just in 2011 I believe, without going back and double checking) but have been all near or the worst in the league in passing yards given up, Obviously like I said both pass rusher and good or great Corner go hand in hand to truly make up a dominant defense but if I had my choice of Jared Allen, Dwight Freeney, or a Darelle  Revis then I'd think hard on it but I just might pull the trugger on the Revis pick over for example Freeney or Allen as elite as they have been

[Balzer40]

Oh Im not saying pass rushers are like a running back and can be replaced easily with a good O Line, Im just saying pure pass rushers such as Freeney for example can be rather easily avoided just bu running right at them and making them stop the run while also for example, take Micheal Strahans 22.5 single season sack record for example, he was an absolute force to be reckoned with by O Linemen but over the course of the whole season 22.5 sacks out of 4-500 or so defensive snaps is a small small affect as opposed to a Corner especially an aggressive one such as Butler or Davis or Cary Williams from the Ravens who are threats to pick a pass off any play just by the chance that they are aggressive I consider at least as valuable if not slightly more valuable then a pass rusher that yes gets pressure on a QB and gets sacks but against the calmest and best of QB's and run games its easier to recover, there are a few teams over the last 5 or so years that have been top 10 or better in sacks, such as Giants, Steelers, Vikings who have all been at the top of the league (in Minnesota's case just in 2011 I believe, without going back and double checking) but have been all near or the worst in the league in passing yards given up, Obviously like I said both pass rusher and good or great Corner go hand in hand to truly make up a dominant defense but if I had my choice of Jared Allen, Dwight Freeney, or a Darelle  Revis then I'd think hard on it but I just might pull the trugger on the Revis pick over for example Freeney or Allen as elite as they have been

 

 

 

This may be the longest sentence ever constructed in the history of mankind. Congratulations Gavin! Just messing with ya BTW.

[Superman]

Oh Im not saying pass rushers are like a running back and can be replaced easily with a good O Line, Im just saying pure pass rushers such as Freeney for example can be rather easily avoided just bu running right at them and making them stop the run while also for example, take Micheal Strahans 22.5 single season sack record for example, he was an absolute force to be reckoned with by O Linemen but over the course of the whole season 22.5 sacks out of 4-500 or so defensive snaps is a small small affect as opposed to a Corner especially an aggressive one such as Butler or Davis or Cary Williams from the Ravens who are threats to pick a pass off any play just by the chance that they are aggressive I consider at least as valuable if not slightly more valuable then a pass rusher that yes gets pressure on a QB and gets sacks but against the calmest and best of QB's and run games its easier to recover, there are a few teams over the last 5 or so years that have been top 10 or better in sacks, such as Giants, Steelers, Vikings who have all been at the top of the league (in Minnesota's case just in 2011 I believe, without going back and double checking) but have been all near or the worst in the league in passing yards given up, Obviously like I said both pass rusher and good or great Corner go hand in hand to truly make up a dominant defense but if I had my choice of Jared Allen, Dwight Freeney, or a Darelle  Revis then I'd think hard on it but I just might pull the trugger on the Revis pick over for example Freeney or Allen as elite as they have been

 

I know it's easy to get in a hurry or get carried away, but give me a period or something man!

 

Just to comment on a couple things, though... Strahan had 22.5 sacks in one season, right? And let's say he played 500 snaps that season. Your comment suggests that his only impact came on those 22.5 plays where he got to the quarterback, and that's not true (by the way, 22.5 sacks could technically be accrued one half sack at a time, which would actually be 45 plays; that's not the case here, but probably a handful or more are half sacks). The offense has to account for a great pass rusher on every down, and they often game plan around said pass rusher. The Saints certainly game planned around Freeney in the Super Bowl, and he was hurt.

 

Then there are the plays where the pass rush forces the quarterback to check down, or even throw into coverage, giving your secondary a chance to make a play. There are third and long situations where the coaches elect to run a quick pass or a draw, partly out of respect for the pass rush. Teams might favor the run more than usual because of the threat of a great pass rusher.

 

We saw all of these things pretty frequently throughout Freeney's time here, even when he was playing on one leg, or when he was playing linebacker for the first time in his career. A great pass rusher impacts the game every down he's on the field, and much of that doesn't show up in the stats.

 

Maybe a lockdown corner has more impact on the game than a great pass rusher. I don't think it's either/or, though. I'm not saying that we should favor a pass rusher over a corner. I think it's a very symbiotic relationship: a good pass rush helps your secondary, and a good secondary helps your pass rush. In a perfect world, you have lockdown corners and good pass rushers.

[Gavin]

I know it's easy to get in a hurry or get carried away, but give me a period or something man!

 

Just to comment on a couple things, though... Strahan had 22.5 sacks in one season, right? And let's say he played 500 snaps that season. Your comment suggests that his only impact came on those 22.5 plays where he got to the quarterback, and that's not true (by the way, 22.5 sacks could technically be accrued one half sack at a time, which would actually be 45 plays; that's not the case here, but probably a handful or more are half sacks). The offense has to account for a great pass rusher on every down, and they often game plan around said pass rusher. The Saints certainly game planned around Freeney in the Super Bowl, and he was hurt.

 

Then there are the plays where the pass rush forces the quarterback to check down, or even throw into coverage, giving your secondary a chance to make a play. There are third and long situations where the coaches elect to run a quick pass or a draw, partly out of respect for the pass rush. Teams might favor the run more than usual because of the threat of a great pass rusher.

 

We saw all of these things pretty frequently throughout Freeney's time here, even when he was playing on one leg, or when he was playing linebacker for the first time in his career. A great pass rusher impacts the game every down he's on the field, and much of that doesn't show up in the stats.

 

Maybe a lockdown corner has more impact on the game than a great pass rusher. I don't think it's either/or, though. I'm not saying that we should favor a pass rusher over a corner. I think it's a very symbiotic relationship: a good pass rush helps your secondary, and a good secondary helps your pass rush. In a perfect world, you have lockdown corners and good pass rushers.

Thats what I am saying, a lockdown Corner, not just some average......well Cassius Vaughn or Jerraud Powers, I agree they compliment one another

[Stewart Cole]

Any way we look at it we need to get younger at outside with players excelling in a 3-4 base. Jerry Hughes has shown he can play. Another LOLB option is Texans Connor Barwin. Spencer from Dallas would be good pick to replace Mathis. Wonder if Hughes can move to ROLB then trade Mathis for mid round pick. Try to do something to make up for 2nd round.

[Crunked]

Kruger would not be a bad acquisition but to think of him as a pass rush specialist would be wrong. He is advantageous, naked bootlegs, and down blocking away from his point of attack is where he gets most of his pressure otherwise he can be quite pedestrian in terms of sack production. Still an upgrade over what we have, but don't fool yourself into thinking he is the 3-4 version of Freeney, cause he is not I would say he is slightly above your average 3-4 DE.It would make me nervous to pay elite money for above average performance....like I said its an upgrade, but when you are starting at virtually nothing it doesn't take much to point to improving the position. 

[Stewart Cole]

The Jets sound like the have cap issues upcoming and Calvin Pace could be available as a short term stop gap. He's used to the ROLB in a 3-4.

[Superman]

If I were the Jets, Pace would be the first player I'd release. Frees up $8m in cap space, and he's not been very effective in two or three years now. He'll be 33 next season.

 

But those are pretty much the reasons I wouldn't want us to sign him.

[Balzer40]

Kruger would not be a bad acquisition but to think of him as a pass rush specialist would be wrong. He is advantageous, naked bootlegs, and down blocking away from his point of attack is where he gets most of his pressure otherwise he can be quite pedestrian in terms of sack production. Still an upgrade over what we have, but don't fool yourself into thinking he is the 3-4 version of Freeney, cause he is not I would say he is slightly above your average 3-4 DE.It would make me nervous to pay elite money for above average performance....like I said its an upgrade, but when you are starting at virtually nothing it doesn't take much to point to improving the position. 

 

 

Kruger is not a 3-4 DE.