A one year deal for $1.7m is hardly risky. That's not a lot of money in NFL terms.

At his age Sharper would have wanted a multi year deal.

---

Neither was Woodson if you look at it that way. He came pretty cheap.

I'm talking about the personal, locker room part. You bring in Sharper, someone who appears to have gone over the hill in Minnesota, and you bring him in. He's going to want to start. You can't really bench him, even if he does bust. If you do, you'll lower your morale and create a hostile locker room in no time. Pro Bowl/All Pro veterans usually don't like to be benched.

And that's why I still see Porter as a risky FA signing that I'd love to make. Or a trade for Shawne Merriman, for that matter.

But that goes back to leverage in a way... meaning, I would believe the Saints would have set out the parameters of how they thought Sharper would fit in. If he didn't earn the starting spot.. he wouldn't be the starter.. and if he griped about it... his remainder of the contract would be nulled with a release...

Not to mention... a one year deal puts the pressure on the guy to play balls out in order to secure another deal.

But you are right.. there is some risk to the locker room dynamic that I failed to mention specifically.

BTW... I would rather take a gamble with Bulluck than Porter.. it might take Keith some time to get on the field.. but the dude was still a force before the injury... Porter hasn't been a force in a while.

---

I'm sorry, but I don't see Porter or Bulluck being worth the 'risks' associated with them. Porter is, simply, over the hill - unless he's willing to come in very cheap and - here's the fun part - shut his mouth and do as he's told (never happen), the 4-5 sacks he might contribute aren't close to worth the headaches. Bulluck is an older guy coming off a nasty injury, and he's not been in a 3-4 system, so you're asking him to adjust as well - is he capable of doing so? Probably. Is he a good guy and would he be good in the locker room? Sure, but are we really lacking leadership on defense?

Merriman is the guy that might be worth the 'risk' - assuming he tracks like most, he'll be clear of the injury concerns and his "character" issues aren't wrecking locker rooms - he made some questionable decisions and it blew up on him in a very public way. Assuming he's willing to grow up (and they would have to determine that from talking to him), he could come in and provide real lift on the left side for a few years. Is he worth losing a draft pick? Maybe.

Merriman, I could see it, maybe - Porter and Bulluck seem like major reaches to me, given what's likely to be available at that position in the draft.

---

In my opinion.. yes, yes we are.

Woodson is a leader through play... but when was the last time you seen him get in anyone's face for their play?

Barnett talks a good game about being a leader.. but shows little past the opening huddle in my opinion.

I was waiting for anyone to step up during the Cards game on that defense and fire the troops up... instead.. we got filleted up like lambs to the slaughter. Albeit that Harris was missing..

It is easy being a leader when things are going right.. but IMO, we lack it when things go south.

---

Spot the difference:

Sharper - 1 year deal, $1.7 million.

Woodson - 7 year deal, $52 million, $10.5 million in the first year.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2423159 

---

He came relatively expensive, but for the player he is, he came pretty cheap. $52 million says very little. He's earned "just" $18 million guaranteed over the first 3 years. And he didn't even hit that Pro Bowl incentive. A pretty average CB called Dunta Robinson went over that easily.

That said, it is quite a bit higher than I remember.

I'm certainly not arguing that Woodson was overpaid. He's proven to be a bargain. But there was quite a bit of 'risk' there - he was an injury concern and back then had some question marks over his character.

But this is the whole point - Ted Thompson seems to have a feel this stuff, when he goes for guys like this and commits a lot of money he seems to come out on top.

But that doesn't mean if Ted Thompson signs Merriman or Porter they will work. Ted Thompson has shown he knows a good deal when he sees one, so IF he signs a guy like Merriman or Porter then that's a reason for us to think we might be on to a good thing.

Now if Ted Thompson throws big money at a free agent and it blows up then I'll change my tune.

---

Hence why I called the Woodson signing very similar to the Brees signing.. just as risky.

Again.. the Saints vs Packers FA moves aren't all that different over the past couple years.

We fix our offensive line problems.. when needed control the ball and keep it out of a 'hot' offenses hand... and we become a dominate club.

The Cards game was a prime example of why you need to be able to run the ball.

Why some ask.. (Zombie, lol)... because when you need to keep the opposing offense off the field and give your defense a chance to recover... you have to be able to run the damn ball.

---

And my reply is the short pass substitutes for the run. First downs keep opposing Os off the field and let your D rest. Your best shot is to make 7 yards on first down instead of 4, then the next two downs, you only have to make 3 yards. Bill Walsh knew this, and usually had crappy running teams as his Os were more designed for passing but his RBs were generally good receivers.

You can eat just as much clock by a short passing game as you can with a running game. It's all about first down after first down. That's how you rest your D. It also frustrates opposing Ds and ruins their morale.

Now my primary concern with the OL is Aaron's health.

For the record, I'm not totally against the run. I sometimes exaggerate to make a point, but I make it obvious that I'm exaggerating. What I was mocking was MM's insistence that there had to be a balanced number of run vs pass plays. Screw that. Do what you're good at.

---