In response to mthurl's comment:
In response to BassFishingII's comment:
There is no question Kelly can play and play well. He's basically Gerard Warren in 2010 but with a pass rush down the middle. That's the difference in those two and their skill sets. So, we need pash rush upgrade from Love or Deaderick in the 4-3 DT spot, so you get it right there.
He also has multiple years in the 3-4 at DE. So did Warren. Bonus.
I don't know why people keep saying the Wilson and Kelly adds are unknown adds. Seymour got hurt last year, only playing 6 games. This meant Kelly would be the slam dunk choice to be doubled all the time, which he pretty much had been for most of 2011 when he had 7.5 sacks on a bad D from a 4-3 DT spot. That's impressive production for a guy playing on a crappy team with nary a chance at a sniff at a SB ring. Go look at how many DTs in the 4-3 get almost 8 sacks in a season. You won't find many.
Wilfork>Seymour. Do the math, please.
Plop him down here next to Vince and are you kidding me?
Go ask a knowledgeable Raiders fan. Seriously. Tommy Kelly was better than Seymour on that team since 2011.
Seymour played for his last deal at 14 mil, raped the Raiders and then got lazy again.
As for Armstead, word around the building per Zolak is the guy looks like a beast. I am not sure if this in the weight room or sort mini drills or what the scoop is, but they like the upside there.
Would not be shocked if he and Kelly are the 4-3 DT guys as a duo similar to how BB used Wilfork in 2003 with Ted Washington and then later Keith Traylor.
When using the 4-3, whoever is the better fit, with possibly the older Kelly as the subrusher on 3rds/passing downs, with Armstead being that 3-4 DE and 4-3 DT "project", if you will.
It's fair to say we don't know on a guy who played in the CFL, but Kelly has to be hungry at this point after 10 years in the crap hole in Oakland. Why do you think Wilson and Kelly didn't even talk to any other team? They may have had suitors, in fact I know they did, but why do you think they didn't shop themselves? They WANT to be here.
Keep in mind, Kelly was UNDRAFTED, which means he busted his tail and earned every penny to get what he had. He'll fit in very well here with Adrian Wilson, two guys who would love a sniff at another ring.
I can always tells who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't. I get Oakland and Arizona were bad teams and it's unlikely to watch, but it's somewhat annoying for people to look at the age of a player and just assume that means they have little in the tank.
Houston just paid Ed Reed 6 mil and he just had hip surgery. Good luck!
I think you underestimate what age can do to older players in the NFL...it's a gamble - so two of the biggest free agent signings we had were gambles. Now every player every year is a gamble, but when you are going to be counting on these guys I would of liked them to be younger. Age does matter.
Yeah, but this points to how building a roster in the NFL is really like a shell game.
I already noted that the aged vet FA addition worked better when your defensive *core* was Seymour, Wash/Wilfork, Warren, Law, Bruschi, etc.
The last few years it's been as if they really keep signing these guys hoping for them to play at their peak level from their prime. Or to play complete seasons starting at rather advanced ages.
Of course a DT that is going to be 33, and really had his best seasnons sandwiched with a HOF end would be a question mark of some sorts, no matter what his size, pedigree, talent level of yore is.
For every one vet that has been a total home run, this team cycles through a dozen that are just JAG role players, or are off the roster within a season or so.
Frankly, though, if TK can do even what Brian Waters did (give NE one season of probowl T essentially) it would vastly improve them. No roster spot outside of QB and possibly OT has the impact on a game that a DT or pair of DTs can have.