"People continue to point out the teams that (spend) in free agency win less games," he said. "It takes chemistry. It's people working together. It takes time. When we get a guy off another team, invariably there comes that adverse time within the game that he reverts back to other things that he knows from another place and another time. That's not the reaction you need at that critical moment.

"The answer is to always try and reserve some of your own players and continue to progress with guys in the draft," Lewis said. "Continue to let them mature and develop as football players in the NFL. They're trained in your system, they're trained your way and that's the way teams continue to get better."

Is this insight learned from four years of experience?; or, rather, adherence to a sterile theory?; or just smoke to conceal miserly business decisions not to spend big $$$ this year on FAs?  Look at some of Lewis's FA signings and decide for yourself; you'd know much better than I which signings since `03 came with fanfare, confetti and balloons, and which were quiet deals involving role players.  Here's a partial list:  Kevin Hardy; Frank Chamberlin, John Thornton; Reggie Kelly; Tory James,  Nate Webster, Bobbie Williams, Brian Robinson; Antonio Chatman; Rashad Jeanty; Marcus Wilkins; and Dexter Jackson.  

In general, Lewis has used FAs mainly to build the D-line and for D-backs (though he's begun to use high draft picks on the D-backs) and TEs.   But the D-line is not one of the better ones in the league, and the fix of the secondary proved to be temporary and didn't last.  He had big FA linebacker signing in `03 and `04, and those didn't work out too well.  So I tend to think he's speaking from experience when he downplays the ability of free agency to build the sort of team he wants.  I take him at his word that he believes it takes time, it takes chemistry, and that free agents are unlikely to make an immediate good impact.  That may or may not be true, but he believes it.

I think the Bengals could have freed up money for free agent signings had they wanted to; but they didn't want to.  What players should they have signed?  Porter?  As a LB or DE, because the Bengals don't line up in a 3 - 4?  And Mark Maske of the Washington Post said today that Porter's game is deteriorating, that he talks a much better game than he produces on the field.  Maybe Lewis had the same opinion.  Nate Clements?  I doubt the Bengals could have outbid SF.  Also, Lewis has warned O'Neal to improve his play and his practice ethic; but he's not yet ready to cut or bench him; he'll give him one more chance to improve his play.  As a result, I think Lewis is more willing to draft a cornerback and pressure O'Neal that way, a young guy ready to take his job; rather than make a big FA signing that puts either O'Neal or Joseph immediately on the bench.  How `bout LB, e.g., London Fletcher?  I think Lewis is hoping to start Thurman, Brooks and Jeanty next season; that, together with his experience with Hardy, Chamberlin and Webster, suggests he won't spend big money on an expensive LB.  I think he's willing to commit to his young LBs, to sink or swim with them.  Besides, how many young, fast, quick, aggressive LBs, experienced in a 4 - 3 defense, are on the market, anyway?  If he'd wanted a LB longer on experience than the attributes he wants, he wouldn't have cut Simmons.  There's a message in that Simmons move.  

Perhaps it's because I've seen the annual Redskin FA extravaganzas that I'm so ready to cheer Lewis's "do nothing" approach.  Indeed, the Washington Post is cheering the Redskins' "restraint" this year.  A mega-deal to a soon-to-be 32 year old LB, and a smaller deal to Loveboat Smoot is what passes for restraint these days in the nation's capital.