By what measure is Dan Connor the more talented player? He has 123 sacks, 1 forced fumble, 1 sack and 2 passes defensed - in 4 years.
Originally Posted by Oviedo
He has also never started 16 games. He has either a talent problem or a durability problem. He might have been a decent depth signing, but Foote, for all his flaws, is still the better player.
And an experienced starter on this D. That has to count for something.
Originally Posted by phillyesq
And as to whoever earlier said that he signed for $2.5, that is incorrect, that is the guaranteed money. He will count $1.83M against the cap each season he is on the team. That is a number that allows him to either start at tremendous value, or be a backup at a reasonable price. If we cut him after the season, the hit is only $666K, after the following year only $333K
Like him or not, this contract is a good deal for the team. It allows a starter to be brought in via draft or FA, or, if your starter is only on the cap at $1.83, it allows money to be spent elsewhere.
Foote: (from Bleacher report - the seventh worst rating is from profootball focus)
"The re-signing of Larry Foote does little to help fortify the interior of the Steelers’ defense. In addition to bringing a nearly 33-year-old player back to the NFL’s [URL="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2012/introducing-snap-weighted-team-age"]oldest[/URL] defense on a per-snap basis, Pittsburgh also gave another go to 2012’s [URL="https://www.profootballfocus.com/data/by_position.php?tab=by_position&season=2012&pos=IL B&stype=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=0&numgames=1"]seventh-worst[/URL] inside linebacker at stopping the run. Even playing next to one of the league’s [URL="http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1517898-why-was-steelers-ilb-lawrence-timmons-ignored-in-2012"]best[/URL] inside linebackers may not be enough to conceal Foote’s weaknesses."