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!

     

Dolphins extend Chubb


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Sack numbers aren’t everything though. Reddick is only comparable to Burns in that one category, plus Burns is younger. Reddick will need to be replaced again in a couple years probably while Burns will be locked up and productive for longer. Just my opinion, and I liked Reddick, but he had less of an impact despite having a couple more sacks. 

Here again fans are looking at this in a vacuum.  Reddick doesn't have to be as good for the trade to be worthwhile.  Maybe Reddick is 90% the player, you still have $15m to improve another position. Maybe you greatly improve another position.  Maybe one of those 2 picks greatly improves another position.

Look at it this way, imagine all players on a scale of 1-10.  Let's say an average player is a 5 and Burns is a 10.

Keep Burns who you consider a 10 and that forces you to keep a WR who is a 5 and a LB who is a 5.

Trade Burns and sign someone like Reddick who might be an 8, use the cap savings to improve the WR to an 8, and maybe just one of those 2 1st rounders improves that LB position to an 8.

All the numbers are arbitrary, but my point stands, the decision to keep or trade Burns isn't as simple as one position getting better or worse.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Burns isn’t a liability against the run at all. He’s actually quite good against the run despite the rhetoric parroted on here. 30-45 is an extreme exaggeration, and the first rounders in question are 2 and 3 years down the road.  If we had gotten offered two real first round picks (this year) then the deal probably would have had a chance.  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush though, we couldn’t necessarily replace either with a first because that first could easily be a bust whereas Burns is a proven young commodity.

At all huh? Yep, we’re done here. 
 

And Reddick(or similar player) 3/45M

Burns 5/125M 

  That’s 30M for the first 3years. If they don’t pay him more. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Burns isn’t a liability against the run at all. He’s actually quite good against the run despite the rhetoric parroted on here. 30-45 is an extreme exaggeration, and the first rounders in question are 2 and 3 years down the road.  If we had gotten offered two real first round picks (this year) then the deal probably would have had a chance.  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush though, we couldn’t necessarily replace either with a first because that first could easily be a bust whereas Burns is a proven young commodity.

Based on what?  Where do you rank Burns against the run vs all other edges?  How does he compare against Reddick? Against the pass? Against the rush?

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Better than Robby’s $15M this year for maybe 400 yards! WTF were we thinking there. Kirk’s deal is rich but he’s already down to the 18th highest paid receiver. With all the young WR talent out there recently, he’ll be near the bottom WR1/top WR2 salaries in year 3. Crazy. Burns will make a bit more than Chubb. I’d put his floor at $26M now after Chubb.

Also, Chubb is 2 years older (30/31 in years 4-5), so I could see us pay extra since we could potentially do a 6 year extension to save cap now because he’d be 30 in year 6.

Oh absolutely, Robbie was a worse value than Kirk or any of these other new contracts, but it was also a lower investment. Kirk to me was worse because it was a bigger commitment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get both sides of this (should've traded & not), but with Burns seemingly growing into a leader we NEED on defense, I also don't love trading him. Defense has a potentially elite young core and he's hopefully the leader for years to come. 

I'd love the cap savings & draft picks, but you're also hitting the reset button on some of the (possibly) overrated intangibles & locker room influence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stbugs said:

Goff was the #1 pick in the draft. He didn’t turn out great but McVay didn’t make it rain with some late pick. Eagles have the same production from Reddick at half the cost. There was no way we’d get those picks.

Even Barnwell said it best, “some” teams value future firsts less. As a team that’s 17-40 the past 4 years including 2-6 now, we shouldn’t be in the “some” teams.

It’s over but I think it was a lost opportunity.

Goff was going the way of Baker/Darnold and other busts before McVay got there, I could easily see McV doing the same with guys like that (who will be available) as he did with Goff. Eagles were rumored to have interest and it's been stated we wanted at least 2 first round picks. Couldn't get a deal done and we just kept him, which was our intention anyways. They needed someone opposite Reddick, wound up getting Quinn instead. I disagree it was a missed opportunity, it was us sticking to our guns on value which is the right call. There was no need to rush into tearing it all down right now, he can still be traded next year too.

 

Every single team values future firsts less, every draft pick value chart accounts for this. How many times have we seen teams add a pick on draft day by trading a future higher pick? If it being in the future didn't decrease the value those would be like future 3rd for current 3rd rather than future 2nd for current 3rd.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Draft picks value decrease as well. Essentially the Rams offered us a 2nd and a 3rd. And depending on where that team is....in the future....those picks could be a late 2nd and late 3rd. Would have been moronic to take those "1st's". The coach after our next coach would have loved to have them I guess.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I’m not necessarily advocating sticking with Bryce. His highs show the ability is there, but there’s enough bad film out there to doubt that he can consistently enough play at a high enough level. But this video from Brett Kollman is a pretty good argument to give it a bit more time, whether that be rolling with Bryce just next year or picking up his 5th year option (not extending him).      The gist is that the structural (wider hashes) and rule (3 yd vs 1 yd thresholds for intelligible offensive lineman downfield penalties) differences in the college and NFL have led to wildly different play calling and scheme diets in college. There is much more shotgun and RPO calls in college and screen/quick throws. This simply doesn’t set up young QBs to be able to play under center, which is more preferred in the NFL due to RBs being able to more effectively run out of that formation.  They don’t know how to do it and have to learn. Yes, the NFL has trended more toward college style offense in the last decade or so, but it isn’t that pronounced and is more out of necessity than desire. And on top of all that, they ask the young QBs to do all this learning with coaching and other personnel churn going on around them.  Bad results lead to coaches getting fired and new ones with different ideas on scheme and footwork and different terminology and playbooks coming in. It makes it harder on those young QBs to learn.     So we may drop Bryce for a young QB starter in the draft and be in a similar situation. With a QB who is going to take years to learn how to operate in an NFL style offense and will struggle along the way.  So you have to weigh whether the struggles we see from Bryce are more due to this learning process vs solely physical limitations on his part. It’s almost undoubtedly a bit of both, but the answer to that question I think dictates your strategy at QB over the next few years. And of course, you have to consider what the alternatives available are.    I’m neither a Bryce hater or a Bryce Stan and I don’t have an answer to that question. But I do fear that if we move on from him, unless it’s for an established player, we’re just in for continued frustration on the QB front because it’s going to take a few years for a college QB to develop (Drake Maye’s don’t grow on trees). 
    • The defense has pulled that feat off this season though.  Multiple times. offense has not had a single good first half all season.  Only and good opening scripted drive paired with disappointing play.  defense has been the actual unit you can measure real and consistent improvement IMO.  Still holes and flaws to it that aren’t going away until new bodies get here but they really are the story of the season IMO
    • One thing about RB's and LB's is they are going to get hurt. It's inevitable. Having a fresh Chuba is not a bad thing.  My only criticism of this entire situation is that I wish our staff would adjust personnel to matchup a little better. I think Chuba is a lot better than Rico against the stacked boxes we've seen the last two weeks. They are very different backs with very different strengths, and I love them both. Rico is so good at identifying the hole early, and hitting it full speed early. He's much better at breaking the big run. Chuba is a much more patient back, and finds 3 yards when there's nothing there better than Rico.  It's in no way a criticism of either, but I think Chuba would have had more success than Rico the way the Saints and Falcons attacked us from a Defensive standpoint.  When you put 9 in the box, often times there is no hole to attack. 
×
×
  • Create New...