I certainly won't whine about the Starks tag if they are able to work out a more reasonable longer term deal, but right now, what's the better bang for the buck?Originally Posted by Oviedo
$6.9 million for a backup tackle whose primary contribution last season was as a 3rd TE in short yardage situations? Or $1.4 million for a guy who has caught 64 balls for 1074 yards (16.8 average) and 9 TD's over the past 2 years? One was a panic move by a team desperate along the o-line, while the other was a smart business decision because another team would have certainly signed Nate to an offer sheet if we gave him the lowest tender that would not have required any compensation. The team did not want to have to rely on unknown quantities like Baker and Reid to be 3rd and 4th WR's next year (remember, Sweed was not in the equation when RFA tenders were given out).
I still don't understand why so many people hate Nate so much. He functioned significantly above average for a 3rd WR the past couple of years, and will be a better 4th option than any other team in the league could put out there next season. With Sweed now in town as the likely #3 WR, Nate should now hold the role that Cedrick Wilson held last year, for about half the cost we paid Ced and providing more than twice the production. Where's the big issue here?