Tennessee Titans: Is Jason Babin an Option at Defensive End?
The Titans let Babin go in 2010 after he had a breakout season with 12.5 sacks.
For the Titans to get Babin, they would have to claim him off the waiver wire. Since Babin is just one year removed from having 18 sacks, it's likely that several teams will put in a claim for Babin.
It would be tough for the Titans to get waiver priority for Babin, but they should entertain the idea.
The Titans are 21st in the NFL in sacks with 23. That number spiked big time after getting six sacks against arguably the worst team in the NFL in the Jacksonville Jaguars last week.
The truth is that the Titans still need help in their pass rush, and a better pass rush would drastically improve a secondary that has trouble stopping pretty much anyone.
The money is there for the Titans to pay the $1.6 million that Babin would be owed for the remainder of the 2012 season.
If Babin were to play well to finish out this season, then you lock him up for a long-term deal. That would improve one of the big weak links the Titans have heading into next season.
It is possible that the bridge has already been burned when the Titans didn't agree to signing Babin to a long-term deal despite Babin's interest in remaining a Titan.
Should the Titans make a waiver claim on Jason Babin?
There are a lot of teams that are ahead of the Titans on the waiver priority, so the likelihood of the Titans claiming Babin is pretty low.
However, the Titans definitely should make a run at him. It's obvious that the Titans need help in this area, and Babin could really help this team finish strong.
One of the reasons why the Titans were so hesitant to sign Babin to a long-term deal originally was probably concern about whether or not 2010 was a fluke season.
Last season had to relieve those doubts, as Babin had 18 sacks.
At the very least, the Titans have to give themselves a chance at claiming Babin off waivers.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?