Anthony McFarland could be expendable in Indy (personal speculation) (1 Viewer)

[TylerDurden]

I would love to have Booger in Black and Gold. To me he is a huge upgrade at UT, alongside Hollis / Klancy. I don't think with his quickness he plays NT for the Saints. Young and Lake become backups used in rotation in this scenario.

 

[Professor]

Why would we want someone who is so obviously on the downside of his career???

 

[Bishop]

Which DT of the Saints has an upside?:dunno:

 

[saints225]

Why would we want someone who is so obviously on the downside of his career???

Because he's still better than our starters and will be for some time.

 

[TJK-ColtsFan]

As a Colts fan, I would hate to see Booger go because he was a big part of the run defense during the playoffs last season.....with that said, I think he has played his last game for Indy uness he takes a pay cut.....if it comes down to a choice between Dallas Clark (free agent this off season) and Booger (who can be cut without incurring a signing bonus acceleration), it is an easy choice......Booger is a solid one gap DT who can probably hold his own while the Saints look for a player to develop....but then I have no idea how uch it would take to sign him if the Colts release him.....I would guess a minimum of 2-3 million per year.....he is scheduled to make something like 6 million in 2008......

 

[kr29]

I'd take him--Experience would be priceless for a young DT on the team and he can still play the position

 

[Professor]

Because he's still better than our starters and will be for some time.

I will reserve my doubt regarding whether or not you are right until you provide evidence that he would be worth bringing in. Just because you say so means nothing. If he's worth it, fine. Otherwise, he is taking up a valuable roster spot for an over-the-hill player that could be given to a player with more upside, such as playing better and faster than the BM. (Yes, the pun, if you get it, is intended.)

 

[Professor]

Which DT of the Saints has an upside?:dunno:

That's not what "downside" means in that sentence.

 

[kooldak]

I will reserve my doubt regarding whether or not you are right until you provide evidence that he would be worth bringing in. Just because you say so means nothing. If he's worth it, fine. Otherwise, he is taking up a valuable roster spot for an over-the-hill player that could be given to a player with more upside, such as playing better and faster than the BM. (Yes, the pun, if you get it, is intended.)

JMO, and as such obviously not evidence , but Booger (assuming he fully recovers from his injury) would be an immediate upgrade at DT for us. I've watched him at LSU, a couple of times a year at TB and every game since he went to Indy (I am also a Colts fan). He is clearly better than any DT currently on our roster, IMHO.

Is he on the downside of his career? Certainly. But good, solid DTs are very hard to find. I wouldn't break the bank for him, but if his salary demands were reasonable, I'd sure sign him. I'd also look for a good, young DT to groom and use as relief for him and Hollis for now and to start in the future.

The real problem is that I think Indy will find other ways to get the money needed to sign Clark. They won't pay Booger the $6.85M due in 2008 (per NFLPA salaru numbers - link here), but a contract renegotiation would seem in order with some front loading to minimize the CAP hit in 2008 and put immediate $$$ in Booger's pocket. Just speculation on my part, but it seems like a logical move to me..

 

[fr3sh]

I'd take Booger in a heart beat. He has shown that his presence alone can have a significant impact on a defense. IMO, if we get Booger, we would have one of the better D-Line's in the league.

 

[lilvipa221]

if hes too much of an injury risk, make his base salary somewhere around 700,000-750,000 for 10 games and gets an extra 150,000 for each game he goes over 10.

 

[Bishop]

That's not what "downside" means in that sentence.

So what did downside mean? You said that he is on the downside of his career. I'm asking which Saints DT do you expect to improve enough to even reach the level of play that a declining Booger offers?

 

[Saints88]

He would fine for me. A big presence in the middle along with a little more speed and a younger age. Then take Kenny Phillips in the draft at #10!!

 

[Professor]

So what did downside mean? You said that he is on the downside of his career. I'm asking which Saints DT do you expect to improve enough to even reach the level of play that a declining Booger offers?

The word upside implies positives, while the word downside, as used in my post, means "over-the-hill" or no longer as good as he used to be.

However, let's consider his "downsides," as opposed to "upsides."

In 2007, he played in one preseason game, on August 9 against Dallas, in which he had zero tackles of any kind. Injury, I believe, was the main culprit for his lack of play in the regular season.

However, in 2006, a year he was not injured, he played in eleven games for the Colts and had a grand, eye-popping total of 33 tackles in that span. If he were able to play an entire season, which is a very big if, and if he were able to maintain that wonderful level of play (the aforementioned 3 tackles per game) from a man who is much slower than he was at Tampa (the reason they jettisoned him), very banged up from a career of playing the vast majority of defensive plays in his career, and who will turn an "old" 31 by season's end, he would amass a whopping 48 tackles. In 2006 he played the other five games in Tampa and amassed a stunning eight tackles in those five games.

I do realize he can be a "disruptive force" on any defensive line, but that ability to disrupt has gone south as his age has gone north. Just check his stats regarding tackles made, etc., which is the only way we can argue this, since being an LSU fan, or being one who wants the past not to catch up with players has no place in such a debate as this. Here's a link to his career stats:

http://www.nfl.com/players/anthonymcfarland/careerstats?id=MCF544722

Since we are wanting someone who can tackle the ball carrier, seeing as how we have only one LB capable of doing that on a consistent basis, then McFarland clearly doesn't even fit on this team, since his job, judging from his career numbers on tackles, seems to have been to tie up the O-linemen across from him, allowing the LB's and safeties to make the tackles, a defensive scheme that fits the style of Tampa and Indy. Not a good idea here.

That's the problem with fans who think they know football, and I am not necessarily pointing a finger at you in this case--you may just like McFarland because he was at one time a "big" name DT, which is why so many players past their prime still go to the Pro Bowl. But so many fans don't stop to consider if a particular player fits the scheme a team runs. Jason David is a perfect example. He was quite good playing the Tampa 2 that the Colts employed the majority of snaps. But put him on a team that plays man coverage most of the time, where CB's can end up on an island hoping for some safety help, and you have a recipe for disaster.

And by the way, if you do see a declining booger, tell the person to blow his nose.

 

[Bishop]

We've attempted to address this fascination with the stats of certain DTs before. Would you say that Tank is on the downside of his career? He rarely makes more than couple tackles a game, yet is regarded as a good asset to have. Booger's "paltry" 33 tackles in 11 games was about the same that Stroud and Henderson have averaged the last couple years. Yes, Booger's role of occupying a couple of players from the opposing OL is his game, and the Saints are making the upgrade of the LB and secondary corps a priority. So if Booger and Thomas each can tie up two players each on occasion, then this should create opportunities for Grant, Smith, and our new LBs. Our DT rotation would be better. I feel that Booger would be another piece of the puzzle. A healthy Booger has more stamina, and offers more pursuit than Thomas.