AFC East Free Agency Grades

What a bummer, we didn't win the offseason like recent years

 

Same grade I have unfortunately

 

I like the Alonso trade. I think he'll be back to rookie form. Vernon was offered too much so I cool with exchanging Mario for him. What kills me is the offensive line negligence yet again. We should have gotten at least one plug in starter. Instead we are going to experiment with bushrod at og. This front office better get a starter at oline this draft or they get an F just for being imbeciles again

 

I Like:
- Gase hire
- Joseph hire
- Numerous assistant coach hires
- Mario
- IAQ
- Bushrod
- Not resigning OV for the money

Neutral:
- losing Matthews
- getting Maxwell
- getting Alonso

I don't like:
- very little other moves on the oline (need more guards)
- losing Miller
- missing on CJ
- dropping 8 to 13

 

If they get the player they want at 13 and 1 of the 2 players work out the trade is good. If both work out and they get their player at 13 the deal is phenomenal. If they don't address the OLine issues it will only add fuel to not re-signing Miller.

 

Since the last two offseasons yielded high grades and little results on the field, I think this is a step in the right direction.

 

It's funny how everyone screams for a culture change but cry when a guy gets let go. Yea I hate the fact Miller left, bottom line, he wasn't much of a leader...
vernon was a loose cannon, as well as Mathews... So I hoped it would be more on the chopping block..
new team is what I want, perhaps one with winners on it.

 

you sound exactly like chip kelly, he 100 percent believes culture over talent..

well, the coach is the first move to develop a culture, so its cool that gase seems to have a presence about him.

 

It seems like this all comes down to whether or not you're comfortable enough in seeing these young guys leave.

I for one am totally comfortable with the moves made so far. I'm way more optimistic about Devante Parker coming on than I am worried about losing Rishard Matthews. At the same time, I think Vernon and Miller were both good players that for the right price would've been nice to keep. That said, they are far from irreplaceable.

 

I think people are mostly upset becsuse Vernon, Miller and Matthews were all draftpicks and decent to good players...

In my view though no way in hell you pay Vernon that money, Miller isnt that special. But I think Matthews could have been kept.

 

....and here, I expected a negative thread. Silly me. D+??? F--k yeah!!!

 

taking grades from pundits who dont know our team like we do is silly margin scmargin.

 

I agree. I was disappointed with the analysis of the Pats, Jets and Dolphins. I don't think the Pats or Jets have done anything that remarkable. Meanwhile the Dolphins decisions were all portrayed as huge mistakes, particularly trading down 5 spots which they made seem like 25 spots. The views of those guys seemed quite extreme if you ask me.

 

the moving down 5 spots was a mistake imo..

 

My first reaction to the trade was the same. I'd like to have seen Miami get a better than average starter for what they gave up. It seems like Miami took a lot of risk.

It hurts if you're looking to nab a blue chipper, yeah, and there's a lot of people who would argue that's what it's all about in the 1st round (myself included), but from the larger perspective of roster building which is what I think the focus is on, I don't think it's nearly as much of an issue. Anytime you start talking about trading down, I think you have to be realistic about what you're getting. I can't think of a time when Miami traded down and I was happy about the compensation. To be fair, you're never happy with the compensation. But, the reality is that Maxwell is 28 and Alonso is only 25 so you could argue that both of them are in their prime. As you know, age is a huge parameter in determining value, so I do think it's easy to undersell what Miami got in return for dropping down. As you've noted, they may trade down again. If they somehow came away with 4 solid prospects in return for the #8 pick, that's a good haul from the perspective of re-building a roster.

 

I don't mind the moving down 5 spots move. It's a risk but a calculated risk. If you can get 2-3 starters out of that one trade then it was a no brainer. If it yields 3 starters then it was a steal. If either Maxwell or Alonso return to their previous form then we committed robbery. The other side of this is what is the quality difference between an 8 and a 13? We know that going back 5 spots saves us approximately $3mm in salary cap.

 

The way I see it, LB was the FO's top priority in the off-season and with Alonso available on a rookie deal then we took a shot at his recovery. It's a gamble and we've been burned on injury history a lot recently. If we had been able to get him by himself then that would have been a solid move at say a 5th rounder. My guess is that they wanted to get Alonso so they can address another position, probably DB, in the draft. The Grimes --> Maxwell move is meh although it worsens the overall trade for me. Letting Matthews and Miller walk blows my mind. Matthews is better than Stills and you cut Jennings. I'd have moved on from Stills too in order to roll with Matthews, Landry, and Parker. We can't be certain that Parker is going to go off next season so that's just too optimistic for me. Miller is the best back in the league under 200 carries and a home-grown guy. Outside of Cameron, we'd have had all drafted and developed skill position starters.

I like replacing Vernon with Williams based on how much Vernon got paid. Everything else is pretty small, too small to matter to me at least. I'm decidedly negative on Tannenbaum as VP and don't really see a way out as it stands. His status as a friend of Ross, as I felt when he was first hired, raises questions about accountability and how likely he is to be removed from that position if we under-perform.

 

Final 6 games Devante Parker averaged: 4 catches 74 yards 18.5 ypc 0.5 touchdowns a game.
In 10 games Rishard Matthews averaged: 4 catches 65 yards 16.3 ypc 0.4 touchdowns a game.

I do think that there is a good chance that Devante Parker can play up to Rishard Matthews's play last season. I also think there is a decent chance that he surpasses.

Even though I would have liked to sign Rishard Matthews.

 

The only relevant question is, is the team better?

CB) Swapping Grimes for Maxwell, lets just call this a wash for arguments sake. improvement = none.

DL) Swapping OV and Shelby for Williams and Branch, again, for arguments sake, lets call this a wash. improvement = none.

WR) Clearly weaker. improvement = minus.

RB) Clearly weaker. improvement = minus.

LB) There is nothing to go on here. improvement = unknown.

OG) Again, nothing to go on. improvement = unknown.

Lost 5 spots in the 1st round of the draft = minus.

As always, we have to see how all these things work out, but on the surface we have gotten weaker in talent, a D grade is very fair at this point imo.

 

You are putting a lot of stock in a guy that has been injured the last 3 seasons and all with the same foot being injured. Your point does support those of us that are saying Matthews will be missed!

 

Yes, imagine replacing Landy targets with Parker and Matthews. We'd be so much more explosive.

 

E for effort.

 

I think the tendency in the forum has been towards under-valuing what DeVante Parker did at the end of last season. In my view he really came on strong and offered a glimmer of hope. Between he and Landry and I think the WR-corp will be fine.

Due to the fact that virtually all of Parker’s production came after Matthews was lost to injury we can compare how the two faired without worrying about their influencing each other.

Matthews’ weekly average over the first 10 games:
4.3 Rec, 66 Yds, 0.4 TD

Parker’s weekly average over the last 6 games:
3.7 Rec, 74 Yds, 0.5 TD


It’s evident by those stat-lines that DeVante Parker was the equal of Rishard Matthews in terms of overall production (marginally better actually). The kicker is of course that Parker did that as a rookie who came on late in the year after an injury. To do that as a young player that we’d suspect had no chemistry with the QB is probably more impressive than the accomplishments of Matthews who even his advocates would agree was a fully-developed 4[SUP]th[/SUP]-year player. On that basis, the upside would seem to lie with Parker, even despite his lower catch-to-target ratio (52% vs 70%).

In fact, if we project Parker’s rookie stat-line to a full 16-game season we get roughly 60 catches for just under 1,200 yards and 8 TDs. That looks like the level of production you’d hope to get from a 1[SUP]st[/SUP] round WR. In fact that would make Parker the most productive offensive player on the team. The fact it’s rookie-level production also indicates there’s potential for those averages (and thereby the totals) to go up. So if you ask me, Parker’s future is bright. He also has a better-than-average chance (thanks to his build) to make up for what Tannehill lacks in throwing guys open.

I understand someone having reservations about a young player, but Parker is most certainly Rishard Matthews equal in terms of what they can do for a franchise and in my opinion viewing the two as equals is more of a worst-case scenario for Parker. If and when Parker fully matures as an NFL receiver he’ll be a notch (or two) above Matthews. In the end, Parker has the physical potential to join the NFL’s elites and there’s a lot to be said for that.

Review the highlights if you’ve forgotten some of what Parker did:
Tannehill Highlights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByVpWHnLC8I
Parker Highlights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azDvoSVKMi0
Maybe those stats and that vid will help your confidence.

As for Matthews, had he remained healthy (and Parker stayed on the sidelines) his averages suggest he may have reached 1,050-yds and 6-TDs. Those are solid numbers. However, that’s on the level with what Hartline was doing. Clearly the upside lies with the other guy.




On the basis of what I just argued (Parker > Matthews), one could make the bold suggestion that simply by virtue of Parker getting healthy and taking over Matthews’ spot, the Dolphins got better at WR. That’s to say if you consider the two mutually exclusive, the Dolphins are better off with Parker.

Now, of course they aren’t mutually exclusive but the question remains to what extent the two would be stealing targets from each other. My guess is that the Dolphins probably wouldn’t have gained anything by retaining Matthews given that his production would mostly be the product of taking targets away from an equally-talented player.

It would be the equivalent of stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Knowing that, Miami asked a simple question—why pay 2 salaries when we can just pay 1?

And that’s the logic as I see it.

Most folks agree that alongside Cameron, Landry and Parker, you can only really half-way feature another WR. Thus, Miami either had to cut Stills and re-sign Matthews or keep Stills and let Matthews walk. Obviously, the Dolphins went the cheaper route which also opens up more flexibility after 2016.

To me, that’s probably smarter. I think you get at least the same production while ultimately paying less.

 

How many targets did it take for Parker to get those numbers? You see, Landry and Mathews were well on their way to having the same number of yards. But Mathews was receiving about 1/3 less targets. I don't need to explain why that's better. Also he scored more TDs.

Parker plus Mathews with Landry in the slot is the best scenario. Even if Landry hogged all the targets (blech).

I know at the end of the year, it took Parker a lot of targets to get that production. But I don't know if that was heavily weighted at the beginning, and was much improved at the end. Too lazy to look it up right now. But Mathews plus Tannehill was very, very efficient. Of all receivers with enough catches, Mathews was the only one to rank in the top 25 in catch percentage and yards per catch. Those two usually have a negative correlation.

 

Matthews had one good season and then got hurt.

 

I agree with the statement, "Miami is better off with Parker and Matthews."

I disagree with the statement, "Parker is not a good replacement for Matthews."

 

I've made the first, not the second, because I think it's the wrong comparison. Stills vs. Matthews is the right one.

 

Think Miami did better than Buffalo and NE.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

I know. I am just clarifying my position.

 

It's not that I'm not aware of it, I just don't care about it, haha. If you read my post you'd see I actually recognized the efficiency aspect and cited numbers to back up the point you're making.

I understand that Rishard Matthews caught 70% of the passes intended for him while Parker only converted 52% but we also have to recognize that they did different things and that for a guy like Parker, it's okay to have a lower conversion percentage. Parker scored more TDs-per-game and had a higher YPC than Matthews. Things like that are borne out of what Parker brings you, which is the ability to go down the field. In fact, if you look at what Mike Wallace did during those couple big years in Pittsburgh (what earned him $60M), it's essentially the same thing Parker did --> 1,200 yds, 8-10 TDs and something like 20 YPC.

In my opinion, the stat you're holding on to is an efficiency stat that only further demonstrates how Matthews played the role of possession receiver a la a guy like Brian Hartline (who I'm not slamming at all). Hartline was really solid for a couple years and Matthews is better IMO. However, you're still talking about a possession receiver.

Guys like that aren't game-breakers. When you lose Hartline you replace him with Matthews. When you lose Matthews you replace him with _____.


If you want to make the Stills versus Matthews debate, it's fine to do that but Stills is cheaper and considering we're talking about someone who's going to be the 4th most targeted guy, I think it's wise to stay cheap. The fact that Stills also brings an element of big-play potential is also nice.


Again, I'm not saying you're wrong to like Matthews. Everyone liked Matthews.

 

I like Gase a lot, I'm not sure how he got talked into this job, Ross must be quite the closer. Tannenbaum was a huge mistake, he just doesn't know how to build a team. Look at those Jest teams that everyone likes to point at and say "wow 2 AFC Championships in a row". Yeah, wow, he built a great defense then threw the defense down the drain with ****ty offenses and half a team. Then destroyed the team and its cap in a few years. The wreckage there is just now getting cleaned up.

If Gase can put this team together this year we can really make a push next year, I just hope that Tannenbaum doesn't blow the team up this year making crackhead decisions. Honestly if Gase can just put Tannenhill on the right track and we get some decent oline play the team will beat 6 wins but we need a lot of help to move up into the 10+win area.

 

I think I found my new Sig

 

Why, did someone take this one?

 

As was I. :-)