NFL Offseason Winners and Losers

The Super Bowl ended just over a month ago, so how is your team doing in the offseason? Some major moves have been made in the past two weeks and those have already changed the outlook for a number of teams. But who are the winners and losers?

Winners

Chicago Bears

I think it is clear thus far that nobody has made as bold of moves, or as good of moves, as the Bears. They signed arguably the best free agent available in Julius Peppers, solidifying a defense that was plagued by injury in 2009. They also signed the underrated Chester Taylor from inside the division.

Of all the 30-plus running backs available, Taylor was, in my opinion, the best available, simply because he has not incurred the damage that Brian Westbrook or LaDainian Tomlinson has over the years. Also, considering the Bears' hiring of the extremely pass-heavy Mike Martz as offensive coordinator, Taylor is a great fit with solid hands and great blocking ability. True, Westbrook would have been a better fit, but he would have cost at least twice as much and been less reliable.

While the Bears perhaps paid Peppers a bit too handsomely ($91.5 million for six years, $42 million guaranteed), they had to in order to sign up. They certainly paid a fair price for Taylor ($12.5 million for four years, $7 million guaranteed).

Baltimore Ravens

I think if there is an AFC team that is clearly better since the end of the season, it is the Ravens. Trading for Anquan Boldin gives Joe Flacco the best target he's had in his young career. Hopefully that will be a nice match.

Jacksonville Jaguars

Signing Aaron Kampman was a good move. I think they may have spent some money on the wrong side of the ball, but there is nothing wrong with signing a good player who has good years ahead of him. There is still a lot to be done before the Jags are back to playoff contenders, but they seem to be on the right track. Re-signing Troy Williamson, not such a good idea. If the Jags are going to get it right for 2010, they will make a move at wide receiver more significant than re-signing a complete bust.

Losers

Carolina Panthers

To be truthful, the Panthers started becoming 2010 losers in 2009 when they signed Jake Delhomme to that ridiculous deal. Releasing him meant losing $13 million dollars. The real reason the Panthers are losers thus far this offseason is because they failed to perform in 2009. An 8-8 record after a 12-4 record in 2008 sends the message that this team is headed in the wrong direction and fast. That's not the way to sign free agents and improve your team.

Arizona Cardinals

Losing Anquan Boldin wasn't good. Getting repaid with third- and fourth-round picks doesn't seem like ample re-payment. Sure, there is room for paying others money, but they've lost a quality player and didn't get enough for him. Throw in Kurt Warner's retirement and a large portion of Arizona's offense disappeared for 2010. They picked up Safety Kerry Rhodes and lost Safety Antrel Rolle; insignificant compared to the changes in the offense.

Green Bay Packers

I know, shocking, the Packers aren't spending money. They lost Kampman. I know he didn't fit the 3-4 scheme as well as the 4-3, but you hate to see good players go because your front office refuses to spend money. The Packers' offensive line improved throughout the season, but they still could use some help there. Re-signing Chad Clifton helps, but they could use more.

Pittsburgh Steelers

Regardless of what they're doing with transactions, distractions provided by Ben Roethlisberger cast doubts and uncertainties. That makes them losers. Period.

LaDainian Tomlinson, Brian Westbrook, Jake Delhomme, and NFL Fans

In an era of sports where it is rare to see a player stay with the same team for his entire career because of their own ambition, 2010 is showing us a new trend has arrived. NFL teams are unwilling to stick with players who have performed well for years and are on the down-slopes of their careers. I think players will suffer for the next five years because of this trend, but soon a new trend will arise (or at least should arise) where players will realize their value may decrease after a certain age and will accept new roles as backup players simply to stay with the same organization.

Toss Up

Minnesota Vikings

I would say they will end up being in the winners' column before all is said and done, but there hasn't been enough happening to call them winners. They lost Chester Taylor, which hurts, especially considering he didn't travel far and makes Chicago a formidable force.

But one can't help but look at their approach to the Brett Favre situation and at Favre's refusal to leave the game and think he'll be back, which I think puts them in the winner's column. I don't expect Favre to perform at the same level as 2009, but I do expect him to perform better than Tavaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels could perform.

The only other concern for the Vikings is if Pat Williams decides to retire. If that happens, the defense will need to fill that void well. I'd consider it top priority in the draft if Williams does retire.

San Diego Chargers

Perhaps you consider losing the best running back of the previous decade and the face of your team a bad thing, but from a purely economical standpoint, it was the right move. L.T. won't perform in San Diego well enough to be worth his paycheck. Perhaps a new setting will help. Perhaps nothing will and he is simply on the way downhill, much like 30-year-old running backs throughout the NFL.

But losing such an important part of the organization for fiscal reasons, I'm not such a fan of that. I understand L.T.'s need to be paid well and be the feature back, but there is a lot of me that wishes there would be more realism in the minds of NFL players, accepting their limitations that come with age and signing for less money than the previous year when it is clear their production is waning.

What's the right price for L.T.? Perhaps what Chester Taylor got paid? Perhaps a bit more? I wouldn't pay more than $4 million a year for him and I wouldn't sign him to more than three years. I think somebody will exceed both of those, but I truly don't know who. The top candidate at the moment I think should be Seattle, but it seems they're looking to spend money at receiver, perhaps pursuing Brandon Marshall.

Philadelphia Eagles

I think we'll see them in the losers' column very soon, but as with the L.T. deal for the Chargers, releasing Brian Westbrook was a financially-sound move. I think pairing that with the fact that most people seem to think Donavan McNabb will end up outside of Philadelphia means this team is going to need a new identity on offense. I think Thomas Jones would be a good fit in Philly, but there are no free agents on the market at quarterback who could come in and get the job done without serious doubts.

I can't imagine Eagles fans would be too happy seeing Jake Delhomme or Daunte Culpepper suit up. Nor are there any quarterbacks in the draft I would count on to perform in year one. Unless the Eagles want to go through some major rebuilding, they're going to have to make a trade for a quarterback or find a way to keep McNabb.