Peter King made this cryptic prediction about Fletcher in this week's MMQB (emphasis added):
The best case scenario given that is a short term contract. Fletcher is 31 years old and isn't getting any younger. He is clearly an upgrade at the ILB position and I grant that his history with Gregg Williams makes him a solid pickup. The question worth asking though is whether he is over six times as good as Lemar Marshall.
This team has an infuriating tendency, exemplified in our free agency rumble last year, to decide upon a player and then ignore the cost. There doesn't seem to be a rational relationship between the needs of the team and the financial system this league is married to. While Lemar Marshall isn't a reliable starting ILB, he's about the greatest bargain in the league; at around 800K per year I doubt anyone can find a non-rookie that is producing as much for as little.
And so all I want is for the team to weigh the current costs vs. the future. It's simply a function of deciding how much better Fletcher is than Marshall. Overpaying is fine, to a degree. If Lemar Marshall were costing this team 2-3 million I could see this deal (with the attendent cutting of Marshall). I don't know if Fletcher is 2-3 times better than Fletcher, but I could justify paying him that much if it meant a substantial improvement in the defense.
But over 6 times as much? That would be a characteristic denial that financial decisions should be sound within this organization.
By the way, you can't reach a deal with Derrick Dockery but you can increase the amount we spend on one position annually by 6+M? Interesting.