SoFlaJets Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Broncos | Team signs S. Adams Mon, 4 Jun 2007 09:47:58 -0700 Updating a previous item, the Denver Broncos announced Monday, June 4, that they have signed free-agent DL Sam Adams (Bengals). Terms of the deal were not disclosed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 One less fat guy for the JETS to sign... I think he is washed up... but would have made a great backup... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drago Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 thank god, i didn't want that guy up in new england. They've gotten enough has beens and i'm worried one or two of them have plenty left in the tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFlaJets Posted June 4, 2007 Author Share Posted June 4, 2007 One less fat guy for the JETS to sign... I think he is washed up... but would have made a great backup... I'm just glad the Pats didn't get him-why does it seem we make the least amount of moves of any team in the league? The Broncos are always signing and trading and picking up FAs and such-where DO they get the $$$$? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachTsurfing Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 I keep seeing good defensive teams putting bodies on the roster. You can kind of see that the jets did the same thing with de and olb. We could have a different player for 4 downs on those 4 positions. I would like to see some more bodies in the middle of our defense though. As far as him being an old fat guy, I think he would be the best or at least equal to anything we have at NT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 It's better then the Pats getting him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVM Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 Not that this makes a huge difference, but there are now 4 extremely strong teams in the AFC, in New England, Denver, San Diego, and of course, the defending champs, Indianapolis. Now, take Brady, Cutler, LT, or Manning off their respected teams due to injury, and its a completely different story, but its just amazing at the talent difference in the NFL between the NFC and AFC. I really think New Orleans is the only NFC team that could make the playoffs in the AFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNorth09 Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 Not that this makes a huge difference, but there are now 4 extremely strong teams in the AFC, in New England, Denver, San Diego, and of course, the defending champs, Indianapolis. Now, take Brady, Cutler, LT, or Manning off their respected teams due to injury, and its a completely different story, but its just amazing at the talent difference in the NFL between the NFC and AFC. I really think New Orleans is the only NFC team that could make the playoffs in the AFC. What about the Bears? I know Grossman sucks but they have an excellent defense and a good running game plus Griese may wind up starting at some point next season and he'd be a significant upgrade at QB. I think B-more is going to be a powerhouse again next season too, at least during the regular season. They lost Adalius Thomas on defense but adding McGahee and Ben Grubbs on offense made up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 Not that this makes a huge difference, but there are now 4 extremely strong teams in the AFC, in New England, Denver, San Diego, and of course, the defending champs, Indianapolis. Now, take Brady, Cutler, LT, or Manning off their respected teams due to injury, and its a completely different story, but its just amazing at the talent difference in the NFL between the NFC and AFC. I really think New Orleans is the only NFC team that could make the playoffs in the AFC. I think the Saints are pretty much a one-shot wonder. Their offense should still be really good, but they are built too much like the Bengals to have sustained success. Their back seven on defense is pretty pedestrian. If McNabb can remain healthy, I think the Eagles are probably the class of the NFC. The 49ers should be very good if Alex Smith continues to develop. And the Rams would be great if they only had a defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faba Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 25 tackles in 16 starts are his stats - do not mean everything but still revealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 I'm just glad the Pats didn't get him-why does it seem we make the least amount of moves of any team in the league? The Broncos are always signing and trading and picking up FAs and such-where DO they get the $$$$? One reason we make less moves may be that the Jets lost NOTHING this offseason. I think the only guys we lost that started games were Blaylock, Askew and Barlow and we've significantly upgraded at RB. This is despite the fact that Mangini seemed to start different guys all the time. I'm not bothered by not getting Sam Adams. He's the kind of guy that probably wouldn't be able to practice and would therefore need some special treatment. He might be an upgrade performance-wise as backup DT, but he doesn't fit the philosophy. This isn't the "just win baby" Raiders. I had a big fight about this with somebody, but nevermind.... it was oktaren. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smizzy Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Damn....Denver is a Rescure for old DL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachTsurfing Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 One reason we make less moves may be that the Jets lost NOTHING this offseason. I think the only guys we lost that started games were Blaylock, Askew and Barlow and we've significantly upgraded at RB. This is despite the fact that Mangini seemed to start different guys all the time. I'm not bothered by not getting Sam Adams. He's the kind of guy that probably wouldn't be able to practice and would therefore need some special treatment. He might be an upgrade performance-wise as backup DT, but he doesn't fit the philosophy. This isn't the "just win baby" Raiders. I had a big fight about this with somebody, but nevermind.... it was oktaren. I understand we don't want that raider mentality on the Jets, but I really think we need more behind D rob then Mosely and Pouha. I would like the backup to even be able to push d rob for playing time. I love the you have to compete for your job thing. but, it's not much of a competition with those two behind d rob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 I understand we don't want that raider mentality on the Jets, but I really think we need more behind D rob then Mosely and Pouha. I would like the backup to even be able to push d rob for playing time. I love the you have to compete for your job thing. but, it's not much of a competition with those two behind d rob. I agree. I'd like to see the best players we can get. Particularly at NT. I just couldn't see this regime going away from their core philosophy for a guy like Sam Adams. Not enough upside for not enough years. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Sam Adams is a "Raiders" or "Bengals" style player, but I don't think he'd be able to practice at 100% for long. Besides, I don't think Adams played much if any 3-4 NT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.