I think Brooking is on the I expect his eventual replacement to be drafted this year. DeMorrio Williams signed a FA contract w/KC, so 2nd year man Stephen Nicholas (USF) might step in, as he did when D-Mo was injured at the start of '07. They sign Michael Boley to a long-term deal, then get youth to backfill Brookings in '09.
Some folks liked rookie FA LB Tony Taylor (UGA) in spots last year. The current DC was the LB coach for the Falcons last year (left when Petrino jetted, got hired as DC by current coach).

quote:

Originally posted by B Triple:
Well,

quote:

Why does Atlanta need three running backs? With two, Dunn and Norwood, virtually the same player. Norwood is 10 years younger and has a cheaper contract.

Why you restructure or did you miss that part in my original post? If it's about money that's what you do.

quote:

So you don't think teams still would not have loaded up on the run if Dunn was around for next season? Even if Atlanta drafts a QB, teams are still going to load up on the run.

See the last point of my response. I never said anything about drafting a QB.

quote:

The Falcons passing game will still be shady because it will take at least three years for that QB to develop. Do you think Dunn will want to wait until he's 36 to win? Do you think Dunn would want to be on a bad team?

Where did you hear this at? It'd be different if he demanded a trade. I've yet to hear Warrick talk about being traded to a better team or wanting to be cut so he can sign on a better team.

quote:

I know NFL teams like to have good PR. We all do. But why have Dunn on the team and he will not have a role on offense? Atlanta will be wasting a roster spot and money. Unless he can play QB, then Atlanta does not need him to just be a spokesman for the team. Atlanta does not need guys that provide a "little" production or "decent" production. They need impact players, and players who provide tons of production.

As somebody said, people KNOW what they're getting with Dunn. Also Dunn had played in the NFC South, teams that will POUND a feature back and pride themselves on defense. Like Whines ask, are Norwood and Turner ready to be the man and why drop tons of money on backups? If neither one of them are ready to be the man, teh Falcons will have basically wasted alot more money than reworking Dunn's contract.

P.S. MOST teams have 3-4 running backs on the roster. Keeping Dunn (an experienced back) would actually show some type of experience. Especially if one is going to a run first offense.

But that would be common sense.

1. Why restructure the contract of a 33-year-old running back who will have a reduced role in the offense? it makes no sense. I could understand if Dunn was a No.1 or No.2 running back, but not a No.3, which he would have been if Atlanta had not released him.
2. Dunn never told to Falcons to trade him or made statements that he wanted to move. However, with Turner in the fold and with question marks at the QB and OL position, it would only seem right for him to think twice about staying in Atlanta. Like I said, with the signing of Turner and Norwood an established No.2, Atlanta had no plans for him long term.
3. The Falcons have to see if Norwood and Turner could be their long term solutions at running back. Dunn, at 33, is not in it for the long haul. Sure, Atlanta could have kept him around, but how would his reduced role help the Falcons in the future? Yes, the Falcons will be a run first offense, but why be that type offense with a 33-year-old lightly built running back who provides just a “little” production.

quote:

Originally posted by MARSHALL:

quote:

Originally posted by B Triple:
Well,

quote:

Why does Atlanta need three running backs? With two, Dunn and Norwood, virtually the same player. Norwood is 10 years younger and has a cheaper contract.

Why you restructure or did you miss that part in my original post? If it's about money that's what you do.

quote:

So you don't think teams still would not have loaded up on the run if Dunn was around for next season? Even if Atlanta drafts a QB, teams are still going to load up on the run.

See the last point of my response. I never said anything about drafting a QB.

quote:

The Falcons passing game will still be shady because it will take at least three years for that QB to develop. Do you think Dunn will want to wait until he's 36 to win? Do you think Dunn would want to be on a bad team?

Where did you hear this at? It'd be different if he demanded a trade. I've yet to hear Warrick talk about being traded to a better team or wanting to be cut so he can sign on a better team.

quote:

I know NFL teams like to have good PR. We all do. But why have Dunn on the team and he will not have a role on offense? Atlanta will be wasting a roster spot and money. Unless he can play QB, then Atlanta does not need him to just be a spokesman for the team. Atlanta does not need guys that provide a "little" production or "decent" production. They need impact players, and players who provide tons of production.

As somebody said, people KNOW what they're getting with Dunn. Also Dunn had played in the NFC South, teams that will POUND a feature back and pride themselves on defense. Like Whines ask, are Norwood and Turner ready to be the man and why drop tons of money on backups? If neither one of them are ready to be the man, teh Falcons will have basically wasted alot more money than reworking Dunn's contract.

P.S. MOST teams have 3-4 running backs on the roster. Keeping Dunn (an experienced back) would actually show some type of experience. Especially if one is going to a run first offense.

But that would be common sense.

1. Why restructure the contract of a 33-year-old running back who will have a reduced role in the offense? it makes no sense. I could understand if Dunn was a No.1 or No.2 running back, but not a No.3, which he would have been if Atlanta had not released him.
2. Dunn never told to Falcons to trade him or made statements that he wanted to move. However, with Turner in the fold and with question marks at the QB and OL position, it would only seem right for him to think twice about staying in Atlanta. Like I said, with the signing of Turner and Norwood an established No.2, Atlanta had no plans for him long term.
3. The Falcons have to see if Norwood and Turner could be their long term solutions at running back. Dunn, at 33, is not in it for the long haul. Sure, Atlanta could have kept him around, but how would his reduced role help the Falcons in the future? Yes, the Falcons will be a run first offense, but why be that type offense with a 33-year-old lightly built running back who provides just a “little” production.

The Falcons won't hurt themselves by paying an experienced RB on the roster especially considering that there will be carries to spread around. You're not going to run only 2 backs so why NOT keep a guy who led your team in rushing.

"little" production (I'd think a reporter would know in what context that was used) but you're not a good one so I'll break it down.

In this sense, little production is basically saying that he won't give your 2,000 yards BUT, he can get some things done. Also he won't be counted on to carry the load NOR would anybody build the offense around him (that's why you brought in Turner.). Sheesh.

You're still assuming that Dunn wanted to go anywhere.

Norwood for all his "hype" only scored once. But as a Panther fan, I'm glad that guys who think like you are running the franchise..

You can't talk about contending immediately and then rebuild in the same breath. If the Falcons ARE going to rebuild then why not drop weight NOW.

Do they think they're going to get great value for Brooking?

Brooking may have lost a step or 2, but he hasn't missed a start since 2000 (according to NFL.com). His salary alone puts the bullseye on him, but we have so many holes to fill, there are more pressing issues. Draft his replacement then cut 'em lose in the '08 offseason.

Yall must've missed my other post in the Turner Signing thread where I indicated Dunn had until COB Feb. 29 to restructure his contract. Keep in mind that not all restructuring is the same. They could ask you to defer money over a very long time. I don't know what those terms were but Dunn obviously didn't like them.

See my problem with all of that is why sign an unknown quantity for all of that cash? Dunn is healthy having never experienced a serious injury in the years with the team. The Falcons will look like idiots if Turner crashes and burns (see the Bears Cedric Benson as a feature back).

If the Falcons wanted to spend some cheese then go out and get the Giants Mitchell and let Brookings go. Hayul both sides of the ball will be horrible. At least if they had a good defense the games could be kept close enough for a marginal offense to eek out a win. I just don't see that happening with what's currently in house.

quote:

Originally posted by B Triple:

quote:

Originally posted by MARSHALL:

quote:

Originally posted by B Triple:
Well,

quote:

Why does Atlanta need three running backs? With two, Dunn and Norwood, virtually the same player. Norwood is 10 years younger and has a cheaper contract.

Why you restructure or did you miss that part in my original post? If it's about money that's what you do.

quote:

So you don't think teams still would not have loaded up on the run if Dunn was around for next season? Even if Atlanta drafts a QB, teams are still going to load up on the run.

See the last point of my response. I never said anything about drafting a QB.

quote:

The Falcons passing game will still be shady because it will take at least three years for that QB to develop. Do you think Dunn will want to wait until he's 36 to win? Do you think Dunn would want to be on a bad team?

Where did you hear this at? It'd be different if he demanded a trade. I've yet to hear Warrick talk about being traded to a better team or wanting to be cut so he can sign on a better team.

quote:

I know NFL teams like to have good PR. We all do. But why have Dunn on the team and he will not have a role on offense? Atlanta will be wasting a roster spot and money. Unless he can play QB, then Atlanta does not need him to just be a spokesman for the team. Atlanta does not need guys that provide a "little" production or "decent" production. They need impact players, and players who provide tons of production.

As somebody said, people KNOW what they're getting with Dunn. Also Dunn had played in the NFC South, teams that will POUND a feature back and pride themselves on defense. Like Whines ask, are Norwood and Turner ready to be the man and why drop tons of money on backups? If neither one of them are ready to be the man, teh Falcons will have basically wasted alot more money than reworking Dunn's contract.

P.S. MOST teams have 3-4 running backs on the roster. Keeping Dunn (an experienced back) would actually show some type of experience. Especially if one is going to a run first offense.

But that would be common sense.

1. Why restructure the contract of a 33-year-old running back who will have a reduced role in the offense? it makes no sense. I could understand if Dunn was a No.1 or No.2 running back, but not a No.3, which he would have been if Atlanta had not released him.
2. Dunn never told to Falcons to trade him or made statements that he wanted to move. However, with Turner in the fold and with question marks at the QB and OL position, it would only seem right for him to think twice about staying in Atlanta. Like I said, with the signing of Turner and Norwood an established No.2, Atlanta had no plans for him long term.
3. The Falcons have to see if Norwood and Turner could be their long term solutions at running back. Dunn, at 33, is not in it for the long haul. Sure, Atlanta could have kept him around, but how would his reduced role help the Falcons in the future? Yes, the Falcons will be a run first offense, but why be that type offense with a 33-year-old lightly built running back who provides just a “little” production.

The Falcons won't hurt themselves by paying an experienced RB on the roster especially considering that there will be carries to spread around. You're not going to run only 2 backs so why NOT keep a guy who led your team in rushing.

"little" production (I'd think a reporter would know in what context that was used) but you're not a good one so I'll break it down.

In this sense, little production is basically saying that he won't give your 2,000 yards BUT, he can get some things done. Also he won't be counted on to carry the load NOR would anybody build the offense around him (that's why you brought in Turner.). Sheesh.

You're still assuming that Dunn wanted to go anywhere.

Norwood for all his "hype" only scored once. But as a Panther fan, I'm glad that guys who think like you are running the franchise..

You can't talk about contending immediately and then rebuild in the same breath. If the Falcons ARE going to rebuild then why not drop weight NOW.

Do they think they're going to get great value for Brooking?

Ok, I don’t go around critizing your job just because of your opinion. How classless is that? Anyway, let me ask you this? At this stage in his career, is Dunn a difference-maker for the Falcons? Has he been one of the two or three players the falcons have had since he signed with the team that they could not do without?
I remember the year Vick broke his leg and the Falcons went into the tank. last season without Vick, the team went into the tank. And even with Vick and Dunn at their best, the Falcons only reached the NFC title game. So how much better will Dunn make the Falcons in 2008 with a team still full of question marks?

quote:

Originally posted by MARSHALL:

quote:

Originally posted by B Triple:

quote:

Originally posted by MARSHALL:

quote:

Originally posted by B Triple:
Well,

quote:

Why does Atlanta need three running backs? With two, Dunn and Norwood, virtually the same player. Norwood is 10 years younger and has a cheaper contract.

Why you restructure or did you miss that part in my original post? If it's about money that's what you do.

quote:

So you don't think teams still would not have loaded up on the run if Dunn was around for next season? Even if Atlanta drafts a QB, teams are still going to load up on the run.

See the last point of my response. I never said anything about drafting a QB.

quote:

The Falcons passing game will still be shady because it will take at least three years for that QB to develop. Do you think Dunn will want to wait until he's 36 to win? Do you think Dunn would want to be on a bad team?

Where did you hear this at? It'd be different if he demanded a trade. I've yet to hear Warrick talk about being traded to a better team or wanting to be cut so he can sign on a better team.

quote:

I know NFL teams like to have good PR. We all do. But why have Dunn on the team and he will not have a role on offense? Atlanta will be wasting a roster spot and money. Unless he can play QB, then Atlanta does not need him to just be a spokesman for the team. Atlanta does not need guys that provide a "little" production or "decent" production. They need impact players, and players who provide tons of production.

As somebody said, people KNOW what they're getting with Dunn. Also Dunn had played in the NFC South, teams that will POUND a feature back and pride themselves on defense. Like Whines ask, are Norwood and Turner ready to be the man and why drop tons of money on backups? If neither one of them are ready to be the man, teh Falcons will have basically wasted alot more money than reworking Dunn's contract.

P.S. MOST teams have 3-4 running backs on the roster. Keeping Dunn (an experienced back) would actually show some type of experience. Especially if one is going to a run first offense.

But that would be common sense.

1. Why restructure the contract of a 33-year-old running back who will have a reduced role in the offense? it makes no sense. I could understand if Dunn was a No.1 or No.2 running back, but not a No.3, which he would have been if Atlanta had not released him.
2. Dunn never told to Falcons to trade him or made statements that he wanted to move. However, with Turner in the fold and with question marks at the QB and OL position, it would only seem right for him to think twice about staying in Atlanta. Like I said, with the signing of Turner and Norwood an established No.2, Atlanta had no plans for him long term.
3. The Falcons have to see if Norwood and Turner could be their long term solutions at running back. Dunn, at 33, is not in it for the long haul. Sure, Atlanta could have kept him around, but how would his reduced role help the Falcons in the future? Yes, the Falcons will be a run first offense, but why be that type offense with a 33-year-old lightly built running back who provides just a “little” production.

The Falcons won't hurt themselves by paying an experienced RB on the roster especially considering that there will be carries to spread around. You're not going to run only 2 backs so why NOT keep a guy who led your team in rushing.

"little" production (I'd think a reporter would know in what context that was used) but you're not a good one so I'll break it down.

In this sense, little production is basically saying that he won't give your 2,000 yards BUT, he can get some things done. Also he won't be counted on to carry the load NOR would anybody build the offense around him (that's why you brought in Turner.). Sheesh.

You're still assuming that Dunn wanted to go anywhere.

Norwood for all his "hype" only scored once. But as a Panther fan, I'm glad that guys who think like you are running the franchise..

You can't talk about contending immediately and then rebuild in the same breath. If the Falcons ARE going to rebuild then why not drop weight NOW.

Do they think they're going to get great value for Brooking?

Ok, I don’t go around critizing your job just because of your opinion. How classless is that? Anyway, let me ask you this? At this stage in his career, is Dunn a difference-maker for the Falcons? Has he been one of the two or three players the falcons have had since he signed with the team that they could not do without?
I remember the year Vick broke his leg and the Falcons went into the tank. last season without Vick, the team went into the tank. And even with Vick and Dunn at their best, the Falcons only reached the NFC title game. So how much better will Dunn make the Falcons in 2008 with a team still full of question marks?

IF you can't take it then don't bother dishing it out.

You knew what I meant by that but, you choose to go the other route.

If you talk to people like they're stupid, you will be smashed on this board. If your behavior is how you measure class, I'll gladly take your "classless" comment as a compliment and I thank you.

quote:

So how much better will Dunn make the Falcons in 2008 with a team still full of question marks?

You can NEVER have ENOUGH good players on a team. I'll say it AGAIN, I wouldn't have Dunn there for DIFFERENCE MAKING (please follow me), That's Turner's job now. Dunn (along with Norwood) would've been a way to give a change of pace, give Turner a rest, and keep teams honest off the pass (whenever they get one) when Turner is out.

Dunn knows he's not in the league to be a difference maker. You're arguing a point that I never made.

quote:

Originally posted by B Triple:

quote:

Originally posted by MARSHALL:

quote:

Originally posted by B Triple:

quote:

Originally posted by MARSHALL:

quote:

Originally posted by B Triple:
Well,

quote:

Why does Atlanta need three running backs? With two, Dunn and Norwood, virtually the same player. Norwood is 10 years younger and has a cheaper contract.

Why you restructure or did you miss that part in my original post? If it's about money that's what you do.

quote:

So you don't think teams still would not have loaded up on the run if Dunn was around for next season? Even if Atlanta drafts a QB, teams are still going to load up on the run.

See the last point of my response. I never said anything about drafting a QB.

quote:

The Falcons passing game will still be shady because it will take at least three years for that QB to develop. Do you think Dunn will want to wait until he's 36 to win? Do you think Dunn would want to be on a bad team?

Where did you hear this at? It'd be different if he demanded a trade. I've yet to hear Warrick talk about being traded to a better team or wanting to be cut so he can sign on a better team.

quote:

I know NFL teams like to have good PR. We all do. But why have Dunn on the team and he will not have a role on offense? Atlanta will be wasting a roster spot and money. Unless he can play QB, then Atlanta does not need him to just be a spokesman for the team. Atlanta does not need guys that provide a "little" production or "decent" production. They need impact players, and players who provide tons of production.

As somebody said, people KNOW what they're getting with Dunn. Also Dunn had played in the NFC South, teams that will POUND a feature back and pride themselves on defense. Like Whines ask, are Norwood and Turner ready to be the man and why drop tons of money on backups? If neither one of them are ready to be the man, teh Falcons will have basically wasted alot more money than reworking Dunn's contract.

P.S. MOST teams have 3-4 running backs on the roster. Keeping Dunn (an experienced back) would actually show some type of experience. Especially if one is going to a run first offense.

But that would be common sense.

1. Why restructure the contract of a 33-year-old running back who will have a reduced role in the offense? it makes no sense. I could understand if Dunn was a No.1 or No.2 running back, but not a No.3, which he would have been if Atlanta had not released him.
2. Dunn never told to Falcons to trade him or made statements that he wanted to move. However, with Turner in the fold and with question marks at the QB and OL position, it would only seem right for him to think twice about staying in Atlanta. Like I said, with the signing of Turner and Norwood an established No.2, Atlanta had no plans for him long term.
3. The Falcons have to see if Norwood and Turner could be their long term solutions at running back. Dunn, at 33, is not in it for the long haul. Sure, Atlanta could have kept him around, but how would his reduced role help the Falcons in the future? Yes, the Falcons will be a run first offense, but why be that type offense with a 33-year-old lightly built running back who provides just a “little” production.

The Falcons won't hurt themselves by paying an experienced RB on the roster especially considering that there will be carries to spread around. You're not going to run only 2 backs so why NOT keep a guy who led your team in rushing.

"little" production (I'd think a reporter would know in what context that was used) but you're not a good one so I'll break it down.

In this sense, little production is basically saying that he won't give your 2,000 yards BUT, he can get some things done. Also he won't be counted on to carry the load NOR would anybody build the offense around him (that's why you brought in Turner.). Sheesh.

You're still assuming that Dunn wanted to go anywhere.

Norwood for all his "hype" only scored once. But as a Panther fan, I'm glad that guys who think like you are running the franchise..

You can't talk about contending immediately and then rebuild in the same breath. If the Falcons ARE going to rebuild then why not drop weight NOW.

Do they think they're going to get great value for Brooking?

Ok, I don’t go around critizing your job just because of your opinion. How classless is that? Anyway, let me ask you this? At this stage in his career, is Dunn a difference-maker for the Falcons? Has he been one of the two or three players the falcons have had since he signed with the team that they could not do without?
I remember the year Vick broke his leg and the Falcons went into the tank. last season without Vick, the team went into the tank. And even with Vick and Dunn at their best, the Falcons only reached the NFC title game. So how much better will Dunn make the Falcons in 2008 with a team still full of question marks?

IF you can't take it then don't bother dishing it out.

You knew what I meant by that but, you choose to go the other route.

If you talk to people like they're stupid, you will be smashed on this board. If your behavior is how you measure class, I'll gladly take your "classless" comment as a compliment and I thank you.

quote:

So how much better will Dunn make the Falcons in 2008 with a team still full of question marks?

You can NEVER have ENOUGH good players on a team. I'll say it AGAIN, I wouldn't have Dunn there for DIFFERENCE MAKING (please follow me), That's Turner's job now. Dunn (along with Norwood) would've been a way to give a change of pace, give Turner a rest, and keep teams honest off the pass (whenever they get one) when Turner is out.

Dunn knows he's not in the league to be a difference maker. You're arguing a point that I never made.

1. Dish out what? I never made a single disparaging remark about you or your opinion. I never even said you were wrong not once. So I don't know where the hostility is coming from

2. What is your definition of a good player as it applies to Dunn? OK, if Dunn is not a difference-maker on a bad team, then how valuable can he be to the team?

3. If Dunn is not a difference-maker, then why would the Falcons keep him around?

I'm arguring your logic of how it would benefit Dunn and the Falcons to keep him around. With the moves the team has made since the end of the season, the Falcons no longer feel that some of their older players can contribute to the team now.

There has been a overhaul in the coaching staff and player personnel wise, and the Falcons are trying to put in place the pieces they feel will help bring wins in the future.

If I was a Falcons fan I would be stunned by the moves, but that's part of the game when management decides to move in a different direction.

Yo Marshall you just don't understand how many players are not difference makers in the league. Most players -save the superstars- are role players and that's all Dunn was/should have been asked to do. The one thing about Dunn is he always came to play and never complained. His yardage drop off was directly related to the decline of the offensive line. Please don't try to evaluate any of the veterans performance under Petrino because it was well known that he was trying to get rid of the vets from Day One.

I talked to one of the guys that was released tonight and although he was cool with it, his overall impression was "What the hail are the Falcons doing". There just seems to be an absence of direction. His point was why cut or waive a guy when there is no one of higher ability already in house. Which is what the Falcons are doing. The new tightend can't catch and they are going to depend on Blakely to replace Alge on the receiving end? WTF? Blakely is cool and all but he is way short of being a replacement for Alge. Then they let DMo get away to KC and his supposed replacement has torn knee ligaments and may not be ready for the season.

Again, as I've said before, until you get on the inside where you talk to these players day in and day out, on and off the field the picture you will have won't be very accurate.

true...but how many of us have access to the players?
99.9% of the NFL fans live vicariously through the info pumped out by NFL Network, ESPN, Fox Sports or whatever media outlet shapes the perception of a given situation or player.

I also wonder about the FL Marlins-esque gutting of the Falcons (minus the championships ) but it is what it is...

oh well...off to Falcons 365 to order my deeply discounted Dunn jersey.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: decatur g,

Blanks is in cost cutting mode. Could a sale be in the foreseeable future or is he not making as much as he would have liked. Only him and his accounting team knows for sure.

He also moved the Force from Phillips back to Gwinnett. They were packing the house in Phillips by getting folks from ALL OVER the metro area. Now they are going to live or die with Gwinnett, Cobb, Forsyth, Cherokee & N. Fulton. At the expense of DeKalb, S. Fulton, Henry, Douglas, Newnan, Coweta & Fayette.

His recent moves are very...odd.

To quote the late Prop Joe, "[He's] thinking short, when [he] should be thinking long."

quote:

Originally posted by PapaGrizzly:
Yo Marshall you just don't understand how many players are not difference makers in the league. Most players -save the superstars- are role players and that's all Dunn was/should have been asked to do. The one thing about Dunn is he always came to play and never complained. His yardage drop off was directly related to the decline of the offensive line.

Now you see PG, all that logic just got in his way. I'm still trying to figure out WHY CUT a RB that can still produce when you're going to a "run first" offense. The Falcons aren't going to bring in a 3rd back that matches Dunn's production (he led the team in rushing). So why cut him if he doesn't want to leave.

Now if it was business (and I'm sure it is) that's cool in the game because that's what it all boils down too.

BUT PLEASE, let's not try to spin this as a way to make the team better.

DG I know man. Thing is many players would like to talk about what's really going on but some reporters can't tell the difference between on and off the record. They are so busy trying to break a story that they lose the source which is why some of the crap that hits ESPN, FOX et.al is straight make believe.

All I can say is ask yourself "If I was in that situation...WWID". Ya feel me. 4get the money because its still a job. Would any of us take less from our employer while some numbskull with half our ability or right out of school or on his first day on the work team gets more money than the rest of us?

Common sense that's all.

quote:

Originally posted by PapaGrizzly:
Yo Marshall you just don't understand how many players are not difference makers in the league. Most players -save the superstars- are role players and that's all Dunn was/should have been asked to do. The one thing about Dunn is he always came to play and never complained. His yardage drop off was directly related to the decline of the offensive line. Please don't try to evaluate any of the veterans performance under Petrino because it was well known that he was trying to get rid of the vets from Day One.

I talked to one of the guys that was released tonight and although he was cool with it, his overall impression was "What the hail are the Falcons doing". There just seems to be an absence of direction. His point was why cut or waive a guy when there is no one of higher ability already in house. Which is what the Falcons are doing. The new tightend can't catch and they are going to depend on Blakely to replace Alge on the receiving end? WTF? Blakely is cool and all but he is way short of being a replacement for Alge. Then they let DMo get away to KC and his supposed replacement has torn knee ligaments and may not be ready for the season.

Again, as I've said before, until you get on the inside where you talk to these players day in and day out, on and off the field the picture you will have won't be very accurate.

Well, through the eyes of a player, he has his own perspective of what's happening in Atlanta. But through the eyes of management, there are obviously decisions made that players can't graps. I've spoken to GMs, and they have always said that the goal is to put the most productive players on the field within the budget. And age and productivity potential also plays a huge role in those decisions.

Spoke to a GM who has a situation on his team where there is a young player who is replacing a veteran who helped the team win the championship and is one of the best in the league at his position. The fans are pissed because they don't feel the young player is on the level of the veteran. Now, the veteran had back problems and missed most of the season in 2007. The young guy came in and played well. The veteran is healthy and almost back to form. Now, we still don't know how good the young guy is, but we all know how good the veteran is when healthy.

It's the same situation on another team. This team is looking for a second basemen when they already signed a guy last offseason to play that position. The GMs rationale is that if I get this guy, my team will be so much better even though the team has a solid player in that position who helped lead us to the playoffs.

Now, I don't know what Blank might be thinking with the moving and cutting players, but he might feel that even if Crumpler and Dunn are on the roster, the Falcons still won't be competitve in 2008.

That's the only logic I can think of. I mean, the team does not know who the QB is, if the OL and DL will be productive or if the secondary will be good either. And yes, age might have played a huge role in the release of the players.

Dunn, at 33, probably can't help the Falcons be much better than they are right now in a reduced role. GM's rather fail with youth than veterans because if the young guy fails, then it can be excused. But if a vet fails, then it's like why is this old guy on the team?
A GM makes tons of tough decisions. Like I said, Dunn would be a great fit on a team that is close to winning something. But Atlanta is not in that position.

quote:

Originally posted by B Triple:

quote:

Originally posted by PapaGrizzly:
Yo Marshall you just don't understand how many players are not difference makers in the league. Most players -save the superstars- are role players and that's all Dunn was/should have been asked to do. The one thing about Dunn is he always came to play and never complained. His yardage drop off was directly related to the decline of the offensive line.

Now you see PG, all that logic just got in his way. I'm still trying to figure out WHY CUT a RB that can still produce when you're going to a "run first" offense. The Falcons aren't going to bring in a 3rd back that matches Dunn's production (he led the team in rushing). So why cut him if he doesn't want to leave.

Now if it was business (and I'm sure it is) that's cool in the game because that's what it all boils down too.

BUT PLEASE, let's not try to spin this as a way to make the team better.

The valid question would be how much better would Dunn make the Falcons as the third running back when he was No.1 last year with no QB and a shaky OL?