Dolphins extend Chubb

[AU-panther]

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.

 

 

[Toomers]

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. 

[AU-panther]

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?

 

[JawnyBlaze]

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. 

[CarolinaNCSU]

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. 

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, JawnyBlaze said:

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. 

It's only a 2 year commitment 

[PleaseCutStewart]

God, if the Dolphins gave a slightly above average, injury prone DE that much money, I have zero faith we will have enough money to sign Burns. I could see Burns getting close to 30 million a year

[t96]

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.

[Gerry Green]

Want to know how mediocre teams stay mediocre? By trading away their good young talent. 

[mrcompletely11]

2 minutes ago, Gerry Green said:

Want to know how mediocre teams stay mediocre? By trading away their good young talent. 

we are not even mediocre

[Pimpdaddy]

5 hours ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Between this deal and us turning down 2 firsts burns has crazy leverage on us now.

... keeps saying he'll break the bank and add to cap hell or, like we usually do, get nothing for him...

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, Pimpdaddy said:

... keeps saying he'll break the bank and add to cap hell or, like we usually do, get nothing for him...

Him not wanting to play here would be disastrous but I have to think we have some sort of assurances from him that he wants to resign here.

[Gerry Green]

22 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

we are not even mediocre

 

Point still stands. This team is not yet at a point where we can just jettison our young talent because we have good young talent waiting in the wings. 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Gerry Green

[Luciu5]

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.