[New World Order]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

That's a different argument.

But if we torch $2.5 million in cap space on Foster and he's a 10% improvement on Ragland for the 15 snaps/gm that Ragland's likely to play, that's NOT a good use of that cap space, not when it could be rolled into cap credits for next year instead.

This is a fine argument to have in favor of bringing in Lee - there could be a real upgrade there if O'Daniel can't be trusted in space. But Foster and Ragland would both play a nominal role in this defense as neither can be trusted in coverage and Ragland's fine when he's coming downhill.

At best I'd give him the CJ Spiller treatment. I'd have him in camp, cut him prior to week 1 and then re-sign him after week 1 when NFL veterans salaries are no longer guaranteed. Then if he continues to show better than Ragland in limited use, I'd keep him and cut Ragland. But I'd be extremely reluctant to guarantee money to a marginal 'thumper' linebacker who's role here will be fairly small and who's on the wrong side of 30.

I'm in agreement with you for the most part.

I have no idea what kind of deal Foster will receive. Maybe he would be open to no guarantees in order to sign with a potential SB winning team. If so, as you said, you sign him no problem.

I still wouldn't have a problem taking a bit of a risk and giving him some guaranteed money to compete with Ragland. If he beats out Ragland, then you cut him and recoup some of the money you gave to Foster.

I just don't have a good feeling about our LB corps. They are by far the worst positional group on our defense and I'm willing to gamble in order to improve that position.