Universal Gaming League

2 months ago
The 2022 NFL offseason has already delivered more than enough splashy headlines. But there are still dozens of notable names available in free agency. Many of them could stick around on the market until after the draft, and some may still cash in with big-money deals as 2022 starters, but almost all of them offer enough experience to warrant some kind of look in the coming months.With that in mind, here's one look at where 15 of the top remaining https://www.shopprobengals.com/vernon-hargreaves-iii-jerseys free agents could end up:The market for "Honey Badger" has been unusually slow, which only makes Pittsburgh a better option considering the lack of overpriced bids. The Steelers are still leaning on their defense to win now, and Mathieu next to would give them one of the league's rangiest safety pairings.OBJ would prefer to stick with the , but they've already paid up to secure his replacement in . If you're Odell, why not stay in L.A. while saddling up with another title contender? Imagine having Beckham to join and down the stretch. Buffalo could use a starting corner opposite with gone, and Gilmore has been there, done that in the city. Call it a win-win reunion, with Gilmore getting another shot at a title on an ascending Bills defense.Yes, he's aging and clearly a short-term fill-in at left tackle, but that's exactly what Indianapolis needs after making its latest quick fix at quarterback. Call it the https://www.shopprobengals.com/brandon-wilson-jerseys solution, except with a higher floor and ceiling.Both parties would benefit from sticking together. Clowney finally saw his sack numbers jump working opposite in 2021, and https://www.shopprobengals.com/jackson-carman-jerseys the Browns are clearly in the busine s of winning sooner rather than later after their busy offseason. Another homecoming! Campbell, 35, is getting up there, but as long as Arizona is paying older or injury-prone starters (see: , ), why not? With gone, he could pair nicely with to keep the D-line formidable.After striking out on a potential reunion with , Baltimore is still in search of some pa s-rushing help for a playoff-ready defense. Ingram, meanwhile, wouldn't nece sarily break the bank on a short-term deal.Tenne see would've been a nice landing spot before the added . But let's be real: this is the right pairing for both sides. will never say no to Gronk. And Gronk should never say no to Brady. With gone and still unsigned, Arizona suddenly needs some proven depth alongside out wide. Landry makes all the sense in the world as a target machine/safety valve https://www.shopprobengals.com/trey-hopkins-jerseys for .Minnesota is converting to a 3-4 defense under new coordinator Ed Donatell, who coached Hicks in Chicago, and while should man the nose tackle spot just fine, Hicks has the talent to play inside and on the edge.After dealing and letting Cedrick Wilson Jr. walk, Dallas is expecting more from and , which is fine. But Jones has the big name that'll appeal to Jerry Jones, and he'd still be a red-zone weapon for . Remember when these two almost struck a lucrative free-agent deal before he settled back into Minnesota? Well, with the Vikings adding at LB this year, he could finally relocate to New York and give Robert Saleh's unit added experience/versatility.Yes, you can find running backs everywhere, but coach Nick Sirianni and offensive coordinator Shane Steichen both have a history with Gordon. More importantly, they're likely committed to a run-heavy approach with QB . Gordon could step in on a one-year deal as a more talented version of , who split carries with .With gone, they could use another proven pa s rusher opposite . Hughes is best suited as a rotational reserve these days, but he'd still be a smart investment for any defense. Born and raised in Maryland, Haden could be a plug-and https://www.shopprobengals.com/josh-tupou-jerseys -play starter for Washington, where III struggled in 2021 and is arguably best utilized in the slot. Ron Rivera would appreciate his experience on the Steelers' "D."

Reply