PDA

View Full Version : Alan Faneca signs with.....


texanfan2002114
04-27-2010, 06:19 PM
The Arizona Cardinals for a one year deal worth $2.5 million. Per Adam Schefter

"Adam_Schefter One other note on Pro Bowl guard Alan Faneca's $2.5 million deal with Arizona - it's fully guaranteed. 3 minutes ago via UberTwitter"


"Adam_Schefter Filed to ESPN: Pro Bowl guard Alan Faneca reached agreement with Arizona on a one-year, $2.5 million deal. Nice pickup for the Cardinals.
7 minutes ago via UberTwitter"

Goldensilence
04-27-2010, 06:28 PM
Thought this was an outside possibility being reunited with Russ Grim.

All things considered that's an easy contract to take. Wonder what or if the FO offered him anything.

Ryan
04-27-2010, 06:28 PM
I want Sharper more. But i have a feeling we won't make a move either. We would've pursued him early if we were really interested.

JB
04-27-2010, 06:34 PM
I want Sharper more. But i have a feeling we won't make a move either. We would've pursued him early if we were really interested.

We may have persued him. He may have not given us a chance. We just don't know.

BIG TORO
04-27-2010, 08:40 PM
Can anyone tell me why we cant come to terms and sign anyone? Are we that cheap, I mean we have a good team and a coach that most players like what is the deal?

Lucky
04-27-2010, 09:00 PM
Can anyone tell me why we cant come to terms and sign anyone?
Part of me wants to say that Kubiak & Smith don't want veterans who might challenge authority. But, I think the real reason is that the Texans are so locked into their system, they refuse to bring in anyone that's not a perfect fit. Or, they could just think the guys that are available have nothing left. Maybe some combination of these reasons.

Whatever it is, not bringing in vets and going with young players is not an excuse for mediocrity. If someone suggests that the Texans are the youngest team in the league (which is a crock), just say "So what?". Smithiak made a conscious decision to go young and stay young. They don't deserve a get out of jail free card for building a young team.

ArlingtonTexan
04-27-2010, 09:16 PM
Part of me wants to say that Kubiak & Smith don't want veterans who might challenge authority. But, I think the real reason is that the Texans are so locked into their system, they refuse to bring in anyone that's not a perfect fit. Or, they could just think the guys that are available have nothing left. Maybe some combination of these reasons.

Whatever it is, not bringing in vets and going with young players is not an excuse for mediocrity. If someone suggests that the Texans are the youngest team in the league (which is a crock), just say "So what?". Smithiak made a conscious decision to go young and stay young. They don't deserve a get out of jail free card for building a young team.

Of all the possible issues with the current administration, this is the one that I think bothers me the most. Teams need a system and philosophy, but the Texans seem to have less flexibility in their way of thinking about players and adjustments than most of the league. I mean I don't want them to turn into the Raiders or pre-Shanny Redskins where they just sign names because they are names, but why is it that a name brand player is NEVER a fit what we do?

The Pencil Neck
04-27-2010, 09:36 PM
Of all the possible issues with the current administration, this is the one that I think bothers me the most. Teams need a system and philosophy, but the Texans seem to have less flexibility in their way of thinking about players and adjustments than most of the league. I mean I don't want them to turn into the Raiders or pre-Shanny Redskins where they just sign names because they are names, but why is it that a name brand player is NEVER a fit what we do?

Ahman Green and Eric Moulds were name brand players. Roosevelt Colvin was a name brand player. Who was the Bucc we brought in last year at LB that didn't make the team? He had a name (even though I don't remember it at the moment.)

We'll never know how many we've gone after and missed (like Bodden.)

And I don't think we're that different from most teams. There are a few teams that always seem to get the big name guys (like the Jets and the Redskins and the Giants and the Cowboys) but it's because those are name franchises. We're not a name franchise. It will take several years of being a winner before we are.

sometexansfan
04-27-2010, 09:40 PM
Cato June.

JB
04-27-2010, 09:41 PM
Ahman Green and Eric Moulds were name brand players. Roosevelt Colvin was a name brand player. Who was the Bucc we brought in last year at LB that didn't make the team? He had a name (even though I don't remember it at the moment.)

We'll never know how many we've gone after and missed (like Bodden.)

And I don't think we're that different from most teams. There are a few teams that always seem to get the big name guys (like the Jets and the Redskins and the Giants and the Cowboys) but it's because those are name franchises. We're not a name franchise. It will take several years of being a winner before we are.

I believe you are thinking of Cato June

and exactly dead on

The Pencil Neck
04-27-2010, 09:43 PM
Exactly.

Cato June.

Thanks, guys.

GP
04-27-2010, 09:46 PM
Sooooo glad he isn't on our team. A one-year deal? OK. That says it all.

Seriously. He would have been a huge downer for this team.

He plays the same sob story everywhere he goes. "People don't listen to me. I got ideas, man. You know that infomercial for 10-minute abs? I'm going to do a 9-minute abs infomercial."

eriadoc
04-27-2010, 09:47 PM
Part of me wants to say that Kubiak & Smith don't want veterans who might challenge authority. But, I think the real reason is that the Texans are so locked into their system, they refuse to bring in anyone that's not a perfect fit. Or, they could just think the guys that are available have nothing left. Maybe some combination of these reasons.

Whatever it is, not bringing in vets and going with young players is not an excuse for mediocrity. If someone suggests that the Texans are the youngest team in the league (which is a crock), just say "So what?". Smithiak made a conscious decision to go young and stay young. They don't deserve a get out of jail free card for building a young team.

Rep. There are no excuses for mediocrity this year. A quick glance at guys they could have had (trade or FA), if they wanted them bad enough:

Faneca
Darren Sharper (going ahead and adding him here, b/c it's a foregone conclusion)
Anquan Boldin
Santonio Holmes
Antonio Cromartie
Thomas Jones
John Henderson
Kirk Morrison (not a direct fit, but he was had for a song)
Jason Campbell (better than Dan-O?)
Nathan Vasher
Lito Sheppard
Aaron Kampman ...


... and about 100 other guys. Then you have the guys that are being talked about as possibly on the block lor being cut, like Atogwe, or Haynesworthless. I'm not saying we should have gone after any particular one of those, but it's obvious there were some deals to be had this off-season and the Texans have turned their nose up at every one of them.

So they built it, now win with it.

bckey
04-27-2010, 10:28 PM
Rep. There are no excuses for mediocrity this year. A quick glance at guys they could have had (trade or FA), if they wanted them bad enough:

Faneca
Darren Sharper (going ahead and adding him here, b/c it's a foregone conclusion)
Anquan Boldin
Santonio Holmes
Antonio Cromartie
Thomas Jones
John Henderson
Kirk Morrison (not a direct fit, but he was had for a song)
Jason Campbell (better than Dan-O?)
Nathan Vasher
Lito Sheppard
Aaron Kampman ...


... and about 100 other guys. Then you have the guys that are being talked about as possibly on the block lor being cut, like Atogwe, or Haynesworthless. I'm not saying we should have gone after any particular one of those, but it's obvious there were some deals to be had this off-season and the Texans have turned their nose up at every one of them.

So they built it, now win with it.

We need this guy really bad. Wilson can't be counted on.

ArlingtonTexan
04-27-2010, 10:47 PM
Ahman Green and Eric Moulds were name brand players. Roosevelt Colvin was a name brand player. Who was the Bucc we brought in last year at LB that didn't make the team? He had a name (even though I don't remember it at the moment.)

We'll never know how many we've gone after and missed (like Bodden.)

And I don't think we're that different from most teams. There are a few teams that always seem to get the big name guys (like the Jets and the Redskins and the Giants and the Cowboys) but it's because those are name franchises. We're not a name franchise. It will take several years of being a winner before we are.

I think my post was reactionary versus logical, but why do we rarely create buzz?

Let me sleep on this, but Fanaca like June like Moulds, like Green were "NAMES" who were past prime when either signed them or were "looking" at them. At some point, some player who fits what we do should a guy who the non-hardcore fans gets excited about. Me thinks the Texans get to locked into "their" way ( smart, tough, character, etc) versus is the guy a good football player. I don't think these concepts are mutually exclusive.

The Pencil Neck
04-27-2010, 11:41 PM
I think my post was reactionary versus logical, but why do we rarely create buzz?

Let me sleep on this, but Fanaca like June like Moulds, like Green were "NAMES" who were past prime when either signed them or were "looking" at them. At some point, some player who fits what we do should a guy who the non-hardcore fans gets excited about. Me thinks the Texans get to locked into "their" way ( smart, tough, character, etc) versus is the guy a good football player. I don't think these concepts are mutually exclusive.

Take a step back and take off your Texans glasses for a moment. How many teams make splashes by signing big names and making astounding deals every year? I haven't tried to run numbers on this (and there's a huge amount of subjectivity on deciding which moves are splashy and which moves aren't) but I think that most years, most teams don't make splashy moves. So the fact that the Texans as a team haven't made a bunch of huge splashy moves over the first few years of its existence isn't that peculiar.

And we have gone after some guys who've been the "top" of the FA market (like Weaver and Green) and we have made some splashy moves (like the trade for Schaub). I could be wrong (and I'm sure someone will correct me) but I think we've made at least as many "splashy" moves over the past 4-5 years as the other teams in our division over that same time period.

Personally, I think we're about average when it comes to all that.

It might be interesting to sit down with a sampling of teams and see if we can figure out how many "splashy" moves they make on average.

Big Poundcake
04-28-2010, 01:57 AM
How about a vet CB like Dre Bly?

infantrycak
04-28-2010, 08:58 AM
Can anyone tell me why we cant come to terms and sign anyone? Are we that cheap, I mean we have a good team and a coach that most players like what is the deal?

FWIW - McClain said this morning that Faneca was approached by several teams including the Texans and gave none of them a chance because he wanted to be with the coaches in Arizona. And it isn't just the $2.5 mil because the Jets will be paying him $5.25 mil this year as well.

As for Sharper - dude is 36 years old and somebody is going to overpay him and then be surprised when he ends up with 1 INT next year.

WolverineFan
04-28-2010, 09:06 AM
Everytime we go after an older FA it ends up being an absolute fail. And yet, it never fails that if we fail to sign a guy like this a billion fans will throw a shit storm because we aren't doing enough to win. Ridiculous.

ArlingtonTexan
04-28-2010, 09:57 AM
Take a step back and take off your Texans glasses for a moment. How many teams make splashes by signing big names and making astounding deals every year? I haven't tried to run numbers on this (and there's a huge amount of subjectivity on deciding which moves are splashy and which moves aren't) but I think that most years, most teams don't make splashy moves. So the fact that the Texans as a team haven't made a bunch of huge splashy moves over the first few years of its existence isn't that peculiar.

And we have gone after some guys who've been the "top" of the FA market (like Weaver and Green) and we have made some splashy moves (like the trade for Schaub). I could be wrong (and I'm sure someone will correct me) but I think we've made at least as many "splashy" moves over the past 4-5 years as the other teams in our division over that same time period.

Personally, I think we're about average when it comes to all that.

It might be interesting to sit down with a sampling of teams and see if we can figure out how many "splashy" moves they make on average.

I think the tough part would defining splashy move in any sort of objective way. There is a lot of "I know it when I see it" to the concept. Obviously, the frustration is tied to not winning. When i think of Indy the team we have chased for the last 8 years, they operate very much like the Texans. They draft according to their system with a bunch of smart, normally high character guys that don't really excite the masses when drafted or acquired.

The Pencil Neck
04-28-2010, 10:36 AM
I think the tough part would defining splashy move in any sort of objective way. There is a lot of "I know it when I see it" to the concept. Obviously, the frustration is tied to not winning. When i think of Indy the team we have chased for the last 8 years, they operate very much like the Texans. They draft according to their system with a bunch of smart, normally high character guys that don't really excite the masses when drafted or acquired.

Yeah, "splashy" is hard to quantify. Some things may look splashy until we have the benefit of hindsight (like the Green and Weaver signings.) And what's splashy to one fan may not be splashy to another.

I think there are several "good" teams that don't generally make splashy moves: the Colts, the Steelers, the Ravens. But without looking into it, I could just not be remembering all their starters and where they came from.

Maybe I'll do it like that. Take a look at teams' starters and where they came from and if they had a "career" prior to coming over in FA. Maybe a percentage of starters that came from other teams or something. I mean it doesn't take "flashy" into account and using that as a metric, the Texans actually don't score very low: Schaub, Antonio Smith, Pollard, Wilson, Reeves, Walter.

Hmmm... I have to cogitate on this some more.

BigTimeTexanFan
04-28-2010, 11:19 AM
Personally, I'm kind of releived we didn't sign him. It's not like he was a free agent because his contract ran out and his team couldn't re-sign him. The Jets, who are obviously trying to make a push for the Super Bowl this year, cut him. Not only do they not want him, they are paying him more than $5 mil. to leave. Something isn't right.

Anyone who harps on the Texans for the Ahman Green deal is being a little hypocritical if they're pissed at the Texans for not signing Faneca.

GP
04-29-2010, 09:36 AM
Personally, I'm kind of releived we didn't sign him. It's not like he was a free agent because his contract ran out and his team couldn't re-sign him. The Jets, who are obviously trying to make a push for the Super Bowl this year, cut him. Not only do they not want him, they are paying him more than $5 mil. to leave. Something isn't right.

Anyone who harps on the Texans for the Ahman Green deal is being a little hypocritical if they're pissed at the Texans for not signing Faneca.

I was critical of the Ahman Green move, and I was very critical of any attempt to get Faneca here. I am thankful that he's with Arizona.

Sharper is different, for me, because we're not asking him to be a savior. We need him to roam that deep secondary and just make the veteran decisions (during a play) that he has seemingly made his whole career. Let Pollard be the enforcer and guy who is all over the shallow part of the field, and let Sharper drift over to help out our CBs in coverage.

And I agree that something isn't right when you PAY for a guy to leave. IMO, he is a cancer and he wants to be THE center of attention or he will find a way to get it.

Rep your way!

kastofsna
04-29-2010, 09:50 AM
Faneca is not good

BigTimeTexanFan
04-29-2010, 12:48 PM
I was critical of the Ahman Green move, and I was very critical of any attempt to get Faneca here. I am thankful that he's with Arizona.

Sharper is different, for me, because we're not asking him to be a savior. We need him to roam that deep secondary and just make the veteran decisions (during a play) that he has seemingly made his whole career. Let Pollard be the enforcer and guy who is all over the shallow part of the field, and let Sharper drift over to help out our CBs in coverage.

And I agree that something isn't right when you PAY for a guy to leave. IMO, he is a cancer and he wants to be THE center of attention or he will find a way to get it.

Rep your way!

I wouldn't be opposed to bringing in Sharper for a visit. I just don't want to be signing players just for their names. If the staff watches tape and he checks out physically, then yeah bring him in.