I think I made this thread last year and also the year before that. This year, it's legit: lol But then: -Chicago Tribune Rosenhaus is teasing the market I'm assuming. Leverage games with the Bears. Although I don't see why they'd want to resign him when Martz doesn't really use him. Either way, I'd love for us to land someone like Olson or Miller.
I like the idea, but it depends on what we end up giving up for Orton and Bush. I like the idea of Olson and Fasano as our TEs, but I dislike the idea of going into next years draft with only 3 or 4 pics because we traded them all away. Let's see if there's an actual market for Olson first.
last yr the Bears almost traded him to the pats for a #2 pick, to me he is not worth that in a capped environment, he worth maybe a 4th.
I'd agree with that. Ross Tucker and Bob Papa on Sirius NFL Radio were just putting a 5th round value on him, but I think that's low. I'd agree with you Pads... 4th for Olsen. I'd do it too. We could really us him here IMO.
Can't do that with the Cap as he also wants a new deal, and he just is not worth that investment for us.
On Sirius NFL radio, Tucker and Papa are interviewing Phil Simms, along with confirming the news that Reggie Bush has signed with the phins to complete the trade, Simms also thinks we will persue acquiring Olsen as well since a TE with his athleticism will be the final piece our offense would need to really take off. Simms expects us to look into getting Olsen. Again... just random talk on NFL radio, but thought I'd share it.
A 4th for Olson is more than worth it. He is an elite TE stuck in an unfavorable offense, and any restructured contract wouldn't be top 5 TE money (and TE's are already among the most financially reasonable positions). It would be very, very uncommon to land a Pro Bowl talent with your average 4th rounder. So yes, yesterday. You can always float Chicago a young WR instead. since they're desperate for receivers. I wouldn't be opposed to trading Hartline straight up, and bringing in Sims-Walker on the cheap
I'd have no problem giving up a 4th and a 6th for Olsen and Bush as long it doesn't mean we give up a 2nd or 3rd for Orton. I want those top three picks for a potential move up into the low teens in this coming draft.
I agree. Not to turn this into a QB thread, but if you 'solve' the RB and TE positions with low-rounders, I'd rather go with Vince Young than spend a 2nd or 3rd on Orton. Best case scenario, VY turns into a franchise guy. Worst case scenario, he fails (but would be much more fun to watch him fail than Henne or Orton), and we package everything we have left to jump into the top 10 for a QB
The odds of him getting out of OAK are much smaller. That and if we want Olson we'd need to move now and not wait til tomorrow to see if Miller is even available. There's also no way that Miller wouldn't cost considerably more.
I think much of that is debatable. I don't know that anybody can say what Al Davis is thinking. As for cost, I think Miller would cost more in salary but Olsen would require a trade.
Well his only two noticable FAs are Bush and Miller sooo. I meant Miller's contract will be way bigger, obv Olson would require a pick.
If Orton and his agent are truly wanting to get paid like a Top 5 TE then how much larger can Miller's contract really be?
Who said he wanted to get paid like a Top 5 TE? And how the hell would he considering he's done very little the last few years?
If Orton's agent wants him paid as a top 5 TE, and Orton agrees, I don't want him anywhere near Miami Also, Bears just signed Spaeth, Pittsburgh TE.
Yeeeeeeea. No. OLSON's agent is Rosenhaus. What he said on Olson is on the first page of the thread. And it sure as **** has nothing about Top 5 TE money lol That'd be absolutely ******ed.
If we still have picks 1 through 3 , and the following years picks if we need to and decicde to pursue a QB in the draft this year I don't see that as a huge hinderance . Plus if who we add with picks dealt are players like Olsen , I am more than ok with it.
LOL, that's mostly based on the lowest point where good QBs tend to be available. I don't know where we'll end up of course, but I figure at best we'll make the playoffs and be in the mid 20s and at worst we suck and don't even have to trade up for a QB. Either way I want to have the picks available should we need to trade up.
Using a fourth to get Orton would be more than fine , and if he lights up then the need for QB may not be nearly as significant . If he doesn't , it was a low cost flier and we can trade up and use multiple picks and a player or two for a QB we have a true conviction on. There should be 3 to 4 QB's worthy of a mid range 1st pick and higher , so I would love to have that viable option remain open.
I have no problem with a 4th. My concern is if we go above that. In that case we lose flexibility to trade up. I'm not willing to give that up for a player I see as no better than Henne (given the same offense).
Brad Biggs says CHI got a 3rd bc CAR wouldn't give up Dan Connor or any of the other players they wanted. A 3rd is a little high but if we had a player they wanted we prob could of worked it out a little cheaper. Damn.
I think I'd rather have Zach Miller anyway. The name Zach evokes pleasant memories in the minds of Dolphins fans and maybe a 2nd Zach could add more Zach memories. Also Miller is an easier name to spell correctly than Olsen. Heck, half the fans would be spelling it Olson and that would upset Padre, who has a phobia about misspelling player names. On the other hand, we could have nicknamed him Oley, and there really isn't any good nicknames for a Miller. Could have talked to him in my best Swedish accent...yompin' yiminy Oley, you got a chew of snoose?
