In other offensive line news, I see the Bears signed an extension with RT Bobby Massey. One gone.

Originally Posted by: KRK 

The thinking was apparently, that given enough supplemental draft picks, plus UDFA's, with awesome scouting and player selection, you didn't need FA's....and when you have either not so awesome scouting or poor player selection....the rest is history.

Packer History suggests that the addition of key FA's is what is necessary to supplement an imperfect draft outcome. When a team doesn't participate meaningfully in FA, its chances of getting to the top are de minimis.

Originally Posted by: KRK 

According to research by the Associated Press, the average NFL roster is getting younger, which means older players (who earn more money) are having a harder time finding and keeping jobs.

The study showed that the average experience of a player on an NFL opening-day rosters was 4.6 years in 2005, and was 4.3 this year.

In 2005, there were 784 players with three years of experience or less and 714 with five or more years. This season, there were 852 of the younger ones and 644 of the older ones.

Effectively, that points to the shrinking middle class in the NFL, as teams increasingly choose to pay a few stars, and fill in the roster with cheaper alternatives than guys who have been around.

“You don’t really have a lot of middle-class older guys. It’s actually kind of sad,” Lions safety Glover Quin said.

profootballtalk.nbcsports  wrote:

In 2007, there were 201 players — not including kickers and punters — over 30 who started at least eight games, according to Pro-Football-Reference.com.1 That number was down to 133 last season, equating to roughly four per team. That’s a drop of 33.8 percent.

Roster construction appears to be a big factor. Last year, the eight division winners spent an average of 52.1 percent of their total salary cap on their top 10 players.2 That left only about half the available money for 80 percent of those teams’ rosters. This would mean that a lot of minimum contracts are being used to fill in the gaps — and because minimum salaries increase according to service time, only the elite 30-somethings may be surviving.

fivethirtyeight  wrote:

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 

Ok Beast. How about-maybe having people that are better at deciding if a player is still good, and not a huge waste of money?
Many people on this site said they thought Graham was done, not anywhere near what he once was. Yet the “big wigs” in Green Bay thought he was worth big bucks. Yet Cook, who had proved his worth was was allowed to walk.
So obviously money is not the point, but ability by your guys to be better at SPENDING said money. To be better at judging talent, and not waiting until the best FA’s are already signed by other teams. Not being afraid to jump in and grab some players that can really matter to your team.
There.....is that better?

Originally Posted by: Cheesey