I'll change my mind occasionally, and hopefully that's allowed.
Without a specific ideal on a full story for various guys, it's just
going to be a few snippets on these guys.
*Dwan Edwards - it appears Carolina is leaning toward keeping Edwards,
and I'll just say this. I hope it doesn't keep them from adding other
under tackles, and I hope it doesn't come at too high a price. I had
some misgivings about keeping Edwards when it looked like he had a
contract in 2013 of $4 million. I have similar issues with a longterm
deal with Edwards, unless it's at a low price.
He brings pressure, but not necessarily as much as you might hope for.
I've seen mention that he only got 8 pressures to go with his 6 sacks.
It's not as easy as saying "he had more sacks than anyone at DT outside
of Ndamukong Suh." He's also just not that good against the run, and to
me, that's as critical. I know that a good rush DT is better than a
situational guy, in that you have some rush for those 1st, 2nd down
passes. But there's a lot of value in getting to 3rd down and you're
not having to decide between a run stopper or an end at DT on 3rd and 2.
*Chris Gamble - PFF strikes again.
See, 2011, Gamble was good. But most people didn't buy in. He didn't
have enough INT. So then, 2012 comes and he flips to LCB, a bad fit for
him, and when he got hurt, PFF said he had the lowest yards per route
run of any CB at 0.45. Neat stat.
So then they value him on production versus salary***, in which they
call him the most overpaid. Fair enough to a point, since his
contract-ending salary is high/he had injuries. But the part that got
me was that they stated his catch percentage had gone up 20%. And to
me, those don't jive. How had he, at one point, given up the least
yards per route run while also having a high completion percentage?
Sure, he was playing off more at LCB, and the early 2012 team in general
had too much loose cover 2/cover 4 shells. But catches are yards.
Either way, I'm starting to resolve myself to the idea that, while the
team can't get a Gamble-level player at CB, they might be able to pull
off a starter nonetheless, so I'm more willing to let Gamble go now.
Partially due to yet another isolated bit of sabermetrics that doesn't
tell the whole story on the player (I don't currently have access to see
what his QBR was, for instance), but it looked inevitable anyway.
The problem is, with that money, they're going to have to find two
starters, not one. That's going to be the difficult part.
***(I find this a somewhat interesting, but unuseful, stat since it
depends most signifcantly on what you're getting paid. Consider Greg
Hardy is on a rookie contract, he's going to have more production than
Charles Johnson, who's the highest paid guy. Though Johnson was 10th
underperforming, simply because he gets paid a ton, and honestly, they
had him valued similar to his actual pay. But the idea that any starting
player is worth only $800,000 is silly. Almost as important as how
you're being paid is where in your contract you are, and whether or not
you renegotiated salary away in that year, neither of which has a lot to
do with performance. They should consider running it against the median
salary of the contract.)
*James Anderson - He appears to be the odd man out at LB, but I'm not
anticipating any movement - and I'm not expecting him to start. It's an
odd mix - he'll make a lot to be depth, but maybe he'll become an
excellent special teamer. Given that Jon Beason should be back in full
health, but it's not just a given, maybe it's smart to have Anderson for
less than you could replace him with. So, maybe he and Haruki Nakamura
are a part of the core of special teams, and that can't hurt.