Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

What would you have done?


Ricky Spanish

Recommended Posts

Please, be honest and don't be condescending in your responses.

 

What would you have done this past offseason to prevent this from happening? What would you have done differently than what Gettleman did with the knowledge we had at the time. Who would you have signed, who would you have drafted, and what personnel moves would you have done that would make this team better than it is now?

 

I see everyone clamoring for Gettleman's head on a platter right now, but no one is providing any counter arguments to what he should have done differently. I'm seeing "he should have addressed the line" but when I ask with who, no one provides me with an answer. I'm not being condescending or patronizing, I honestly want to know what our other options were. Please be specific.

 

Go back to right after we franchised Hardy: Not knowing what we know now, what do you do with the Cap situation we are in? Who do we sign, who do we let go? How do we prevent this from happening? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't of tagged Hardy. Luxury since we were cap challenged.

that means we could of kept some key roleplayers. I would have made sure Bell and Chandlers were backups even if it meant losing some future draft picks. Wouldn't need Pro Bowlers but some young talent added

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't of tagged Hardy. Luxury since we were cap challenged.

that means we could of kept some key roleplayers. I would have made sure Bell and Chandlers were backups even if it meant losing some future draft picks. Wouldn't need Pro Bowlers but some young talent added

 

90% of the fanbase was thrilled with the tag at the time. That's a hindsight call, that's why I said AFTER Hardy was tagged. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not franchising hardy then being forced to pass up on legit talent at OT, WR via FA or trade.

and i wouldn't have picked old guys in the secondary who were bad enough that they got cut from really bad defenses in our division.

and i wouldn't have given rivera an extension until after he pulled off two winning seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree hindsight is always 20/20. just like all these guys that say we should have gone for it on 4th down and assume it could never fail. well there is your proof. The FO built a team they believed in. I was concerned about the OL i wish they had atleast tried to bring in some garbage level lineman to see if they were better then ours. Im not sure who, so i cant give you that. It has more to do with us not being a dominant D we all expected the D to be strong and the o to only need limited points to win. once we lost the ability to get off the field it all imploded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't of tagged Hardy. Luxury since we were cap challenged.

that means we could of kept some key roleplayers. I would have made sure Bell and Chandlers were backups even if it meant losing some future draft picks. Wouldn't need Pro Bowlers but some young talent added

 

I would have let steve go, but would have replaced him with better WR's than what we did.  I definetely wouldn't have tagged Hardy.  Also I agree Bell and Chandler are very good backups.  That is our glaring problem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

90% of the fanbase was thrilled with the tag at the time. That's a hindsight call, that's why I said AFTER Hardy was tagged.

i was in the 10% that wasn't thrilled. i questioned it all along. far too much money invested in two players from the same position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

funny thing is Hardy says he wants to play and feels bad seeing us lose... that money was thrown away and now he's somewhat guilty. If we were going to commit to him we should have signed a realistic long term deal. if they give him a monster contract next year it really proved DG is rdicilous!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you missed were he said you already tagged hardy, so now answer again

Don't make us try to compensate for Dave's dumbass move. Hardy was never going to be here next year, it wasn't going to happen. So you spent 13 million on a 1 year rental. Any other job in America that's enough to get you fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • shaq Thompson was begging to comeback even on a vet min but they looked at rozebum and said "nah, we good"
    • Oh I'm sure they'll try I'd just be floored of they find a taker.
    • Just look at OTC. It takes like 30 seconds. Also, ESPN just covered this today. As Dolphins coach Mike McDaniel openly mulls a quarterback change late in Tua Tagovailoa's disappointing season, here's the math on where things stand with Tagovailoa and the Dolphins. He has $54 million in fully guaranteed compensation in 2026. That breaks down as a $39 million salary and a $15 million option bonus that needs to be exercised between the first and third days of the 2026 league year in March. Additionally, on the third day of the 2026 league year, $3 million of his $31 million 2027 salary becomes fully guaranteed. So if he's on Miami's roster as of 4 p.m. ET on March 13, the Dolphins will be on the hook for $57 million guaranteed.   If they were to release him prior to that date, they'd still have to pay him the $54 million in 2026 cash and would absorb $99.2 million in dead salary cap charges. (They could spread that out over two years if they designated him a post-June 1 release, but they'd still take $67.4 million in dead money charges on their 2026 cap and the remaining $31.8 million in 2027.) If they were to find a way to trade Tagovailoa before March 13, the acquiring team would become responsible for the $54 million in 2026 salary and bonuses, and the Dolphins' dead-money charge would drop to $45.2 million. If they traded him after March 13, presumably they'd be on the hook for the $15 million option bonus, while the new team would take the $39 million salary; the Dolphins' dead-money charge would be $60.2 million.   None of this is even close to ideal, obviously, as it would leave Miami in a terrible cap situation and also without a quarterback. The Broncos took $80 million in dead-money charges (spread over two years) when they released Russell Wilson in 2024, and they managed to make the playoffs last season and currently hold the 1-seed in the AFC playoff field for this season. So huge dead-money charges don't necessarily kill a team's chances. But one of the reasons it has worked for Denver is it found a first-round QB in Bo Nix who could play right away.   If the Dolphins bench Tagovailoa this week, it'd be for either Zach Wilson or rookie Quinn Ewers, either of whom could theoretically be a 2026 starting option if they show enough in these remaining three weeks. But moving on from Tagovailoa would probably require the Dolphins to be players in that Mac Jones/Kyler Murray/etc. second-chance QB market if they want to compete next year. Not a great spot for whoever their next general manager turns out to be. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/47324378/nfl-week-16-buzz-news-updates-fantasy-intel-questions-predictions#trades
×
×
  • Create New...