Just re-signed Jermon Bushrod...

"danmarino wrote:

Two days ago you were angry because you thought Bushrod was going to be let go. The Dolphins signed him and now you're angry again.

Nice try, Mando.

I never said I was angry because he was let go. I said I was angry because we didn't sign anybody better.

I am actually happy to have bushrod back as a cheap and versatile backup, but not as one of our starting day one guards. Same goes for Larsen, good backup, not a good starter.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

"hitman8 wrote:

I never said I was angry because he was let go. I said I was angry because we didn't sign anybody better.

I am actually happy to have bushrod back as a cheap and versatile backup, but not as one of our starting day one guards. Same goes for Larsen, good backup, not a good starter.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

Your past posts betray you.

"danmarino wrote:

Your past posts betray you.

No they don't, that is if you had any reading comprehension.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

"hitman8 wrote:

No they don't, that is if you had any reading comprehension.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

Look, Mando, just because you're a hack writer (who can't spell al lot) doesn't mean you know anything about football.

You complained when you thought Bushrod was a goner and now you're complaining about Bushrod not being a goner. You're trolling...at best.

"hitman8 wrote:

It's in the OP, I listed five different names.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

Didn't see that, thanks. All good names. All of course... from the top of the free agency pool at the position. The issue becomes the almighty dollar.

So, if we signed Zeitler... who were we not going to sign/re-sign? Stills? Jones? Landry next year? Couldn't afford that deal and both of those guys. No chance.

Same goes for Leary really. His cap hit on the deal he signed is 8.4-9.4 million per season. Same question at above likely applies.

Lang would have been a good one... but again, that deal he struck. Far too rich. 3 years, 28.5m with 19m guaranteed, with a cap hit of 5.9, 10.9, 11.7. Just, not something we are in the position of doing IMO.

Warford went for 4 years, 34 million with 17 guaranteed, 8.5m average, cap hits of 3.5, 9, 10.5 and 10.6. Again, too rich for us.
Warmack is the exception here. Would have loved that deal, but you could easily make the argument he's on the same level as they guys we presently have. He's not been what anyone thought he would be, he's struggled. Who knows, maybe we reached out to him, maybe we didn't, maybe he wasn't interested, or maybe we weren't based on his film or fit. Obviously I can't answer that, but I'm not sure he would have been the kind of upgrade we're looking for.

These guys all got significantly overpaid. Would it have been nice to add them? Absolutely, they're good players. At what cost though? There's this thing called a salary cap. The fact of the matter here is this roster has been pretty bare in a lot of area's for quite sometime. It precedes this front office group, and definitely this coaching staff. It's going to take time to fix, but you can't fill every hole on your roster by throwing money at it in free agency. Especially not at the deals those guys you mentioned all got. Maybe if you weren't planning on keeping both Stills and Jones, but that would have been a foolish plan. You've got a big money deal coming up for Landry as well. You've got to manage the cap, you can't just throw money everywhere, especially when you're competing for these guys with teams that had far more salary cap space available than we did.

There's some talented kids in this draft along the OL. I think we proved last year that we could make due. Our depth is better this year. Also, along the OL, it's not always the best talent that's required, it's the best unit, and how well they function together. I think if they snag one of the inside guys in the draft, you slot him in at LG, Bushrod or Larsen, or even Urbick/Steen fill in at RG and you can make due with that. The nice thing about Bushrod, Larsen, Steen and Urbick is their position flexibility. I'm not going to say we'll have a great OL, who knows really? However, I'm not sure that's it's going to be horrific either. I'm almost positive we'll bolster this unit through the draft, and as other teams make cuts through the summer. Sure, I see the cause for concern, but not the panic.

It's a hell of a lot easier said than done to say we should have signed a combination of those guys you listed. This isn't Madden, you can't turn off the salary cap. You have to plan accordingly and budget your position groups accordingly. They clearly don't put a lot of stock into over paying at the Guard position. I'm not sure that can really be disagreed with either. Some of the money those guys got, is just far too rich IMO.

"danmarino wrote:

Look, Mando, just because you're a hack writer (who can't spell al lot) doesn't mean you know anything about football.

You complained when you thought Bushrod was a goner and now you're complaining about Bushrod not being a goner. You're trolling...at best.

Show me where I am complaining about bushrod being a goner? My complaint was that we have not upgraded the o-line over what we had last year.

Specifically I said our five starters last year including bushrod were better than what we have now. Unless you want to bring albert back also that is still the case.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

"hitman8 wrote:

Show me where I am complaining about bushrod being a goner? My complaint was that we we have not upgraded the o-line over what we had last year.

Specifically I said our five starters last year including bushrod were better than what we have now. Unless you want to bring albert back also that is still the case.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

It's only the case because we haven't filled the LG spot yet. Clearly they're comfortable with Bushrod, or Larsen & company at RG at this point. Albert was a goner regardless of what you want to think. I don't believe there was any way he was coming back here, but I covered that for you in the other thread. So, you add a LG in the draft, probably another interior lineman too if you can. It will be fine. You could also make the argument we may be better off. Sure, Tunsil was good at LG, but he was even better IMO at LT. He was by far better at LT IMO than Albert was. So, that's an upgrade at LT. It creates the hole at LG, but that was happening regardless, there's no way Albert was going to stay at his price tag, and it doesn't look like he wanted to switch to LG either, but with his injury history he may have been a wasted roster spot again as he continues to age.

"hitman8 wrote:

Show me where I am complaining about bushrod being a goner? My complaint was that we have not upgraded the o-line over what we had last year.

Specifically I said our five starters last year including bushrod were better than what we have now. Unless you want to bring albert back also that is still the case.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

Offensive line: We let go of albert and bushrod and replaced them with Ted Larsen. We are right now worse on the OL talent wise.

---hitman8

"danmarino wrote:

Offensive line: We let go of albert and bushrod and replaced them with Ted Larsen. We are right now worse on the OL talent wise.

---hitman8

Exactly, you will notice I included albert and that my gripe is that we did not get better, not that we let them go.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

"brandon27 wrote:

Didn't see that, thanks. All good names. All of course... from the top of the free agency pool at the position. The issue becomes the almighty dollar.

So, if we signed Zeitler... who were we not going to sign/re-sign? Stills? Jones? Landry next year? Couldn't afford that deal and both of those guys. No chance.

Same goes for Leary really. His cap hit on the deal he signed is 8.4-9.4 million per season. Same question at above likely applies.

Lang would have been a good one... but again, that deal he struck. Far too rich. 3 years, 28.5m with 19m guaranteed, with a cap hit of 5.9, 10.9, 11.7. Just, not something we are in the position of doing IMO.

Warford went for 4 years, 34 million with 17 guaranteed, 8.5m average, cap hits of 3.5, 9, 10.5 and 10.6. Again, too rich for us.
Warmack is the exception here. Would have loved that deal, but you could easily make the argument he's on the same level as they guys we presently have. He's not been what anyone thought he would be, he's struggled. Who knows, maybe we reached out to him, maybe we didn't, maybe he wasn't interested, or maybe we weren't based on his film or fit. Obviously I can't answer that, but I'm not sure he would have been the kind of upgrade we're looking for.

These guys all got significantly overpaid. Would it have been nice to add them? Absolutely, they're good players. At what cost though? There's this thing called a salary cap. The fact of the matter here is this roster has been pretty bare in a lot of area's for quite sometime. It precedes this front office group, and definitely this coaching staff. It's going to take time to fix, but you can't fill every hole on your roster by throwing money at it in free agency. Especially not at the deals those guys you mentioned all got. Maybe if you weren't planning on keeping both Stills and Jones, but that would have been a foolish plan. You've got a big money deal coming up for Landry as well. You've got to manage the cap, you can't just throw money everywhere, especially when you're competing for these guys with teams that had far more salary cap space available than we did.

There's some talented kids in this draft along the OL. I think we proved last year that we could make due. Our depth is better this year. Also, along the OL, it's not always the best talent that's required, it's the best unit, and how well they function together. I think if they snag one of the inside guys in the draft, you slot him in at LG, Bushrod or Larsen, or even Urbick/Steen fill in at RG and you can make due with that. The nice thing about Bushrod, Larsen, Steen and Urbick is their position flexibility. I'm not going to say we'll have a great OL, who knows really? However, I'm not sure that's it's going to be horrific either. I'm almost positive we'll bolster this unit through the draft, and as other teams make cuts through the summer. Sure, I see the cause for concern, but not the panic.

It's a hell of a lot easier said than done to say we should have signed a combination of those guys you listed. This isn't Madden, you can't turn off the salary cap. You have to plan accordingly and budget your position groups accordingly. They clearly don't put a lot of stock into over paying at the Guard position. I'm not sure that can really be disagreed with either. Some of the money those guys got, is just far too rich IMO.

You make some good points, but it was still doable. Even right now we have enough cap room to sign another big free agent and still sign all of our draft picks. If we hadn't overpaid for branch we would be in even better shape.

If you ask me I would not commit a lot of money to extending Landry right now. We are deep at reciever and already invested big on stills. However we are very thin on the line with no starting quality guards on the roster and a very injury prone Pouncey at center. I would have much rather invested in a top guard who would secure us at the position for five years and figure out the landry situation next year. Losing landry wouldn't be the end of the world if he is asking for too much of a payday since we have parker, stills and caroo already locked up and invested for the future.

Bad guard play on the other hand is one of the biggest reasons our offense has struggled the last few years and we should not be undervaluing that position.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

"hitman8 wrote:

Exactly, you will notice I included albert and that my gripe is that we did not get better, not that we let them go.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

Riiiiiight...

Explain your way out of this one:

Bushrod didn't have the best season due to injuries and playing a new position but on day one he was a former pro bowl left tackle starting at guard.

---a hitman8

"danmarino wrote:

Riiiiiight...

Explain your way out of this one:

Bushrod didn't have the best season due to injuries and playing a new position but on day one he was a former pro bowl left tackle starting at guard.

---a hitman8

Exactly, I was referring to my evaluation of the talent on the oline on day one of last year, which was better than what we have right now, again that was including albert. Notice I never once said bring bushrod back as a starter, I simply said the oline on day one last year was better than what we have now.

Bushrod then proceeded to have a terrible season and showed we cannot depend on him to be a quality starter. I repeat I am happy bushrod is back as a versatile backup, but I would not depend on either him or larsen to be our starting guards.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

"hitman8 wrote:

You make some good points, but it was still doable. Even right now we have enough cap room to sign another big free agent and still sign all of our draft picks. If we hadn't overpaid for branch we would be in even better shape.

If you ask me I would not commit a lot of money to extending Landry right now. We are deep at reciever and already invested big on stills. However we are very thin on the line with no starting quality guards on the roster and a very injury prone Pouncey at center. I would have much rather invested in a top guard who would secure us at the position for five years and figure out the landry situation next year. Losing landry wouldn't be the end of the world if he is asking for too much of a payday since we have parker, stills and caroo already locked up and invested for the future.

Bad guard play on the other hand is one of the biggest reasons our offense has struggled the last few years and we should not be undervaluing that position.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

Not doable in the least. Unless you're OK with the never ending (failing) cycle of overpaying FA's? I would guess you don't even understand that that has been the MO for the Dolphins for awhile.

Branch wasn't/isn't overpaid. He's a middle of the road DE getting middle of the road pay. I'm not sure how many times you need to have that explained to you, but it's been at least 100 now.

Your comment about Landry is just, well, confusing. And weren't you one of those whining about Carroo and Parker? lol...If not I apologize.

The REAL facts are, the Dolphins have a lot of holes to fill. Filling one or two with overpriced players, as we did in the past, will get them nowhere. Building through the draft while placing stop gaps via FA is the right move. And, sometimes those FA's turn out to play above their grades. And, once again, they're cheap. The Dolphins have had a good starting OL the past couple of years. Keeping them healthy and having reliable back-ups is the key. Do you know what the Dolphins' record is when their OL has been healthy the past couple of years?

"hitman8 wrote:

Exactly, I was referring to my evaluation of the talent on the oline on day one of last year, which was better than what we have right now, again that was including albert. Notice I never once said bring bushrod back as a starter, I simply said the oline on day one last year was better than what we have now.

Bushrod then proceeded to have a terrible season and showed we cannot depend on him to be a quality starter. I repeat I am happy bushrod is back as a versatile backup, but I would not depend on either him or larsen to be our starting guards.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

So Bushrod is no longer a "Pro Bowl" caliber O Lineman? He's had a year to learn the new position, after all. And he's healthy. lol...

You paint yourself into a corner and don't care that you're now tracking paint all over your house. lol

"danmarino wrote:

So Bushrod is no longer a "Pro Bowl" caliber O Lineman? He's had a year to learn the new position, after all. And he's healthy. lol...

You paint yourself into a corner and don't care that you're now tracking paint all over your house. lol

That specific post, was referencing my evaluation of bushrod before last season. At that specific point in time. I had never actually seem him play guard before at that time, it's true he is supposedly healthy now and could be better this year, but we should not depend on him to be the starting option going in given how he actually played.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

"brandon27 wrote:

It's only the case because we haven't filled the LG spot yet. Clearly they're comfortable with Bushrod, or Larsen & company at RG at this point. Albert was a goner regardless of what you want to think. I don't believe there was any way he was coming back here, but I covered that for you in the other thread. So, you add a LG in the draft, probably another interior lineman too if you can. It will be fine. You could also make the argument we may be better off. Sure, Tunsil was good at LG, but he was even better IMO at LT. He was by far better at LT IMO than Albert was. So, that's an upgrade at LT. It creates the hole at LG, but that was happening regardless, there's no way Albert was going to stay at his price tag, and it doesn't look like he wanted to switch to LG either, but with his injury history he may have been a wasted roster spot again as he continues to age.

The problem though is our crappy draft picks this year, we only have 2 normal picks in the first 4 rounds, a late 1st, a late 2nd and 1 comp pick in the 3rd, after all other teams 3rd round picks, then we don't draft again until late in the 5th.

So basically there are 2-3 picks we expect to become starters this year, we certainly can't count on any of the remaining picks, not to say we won't get a gem or 2, but we can't count on those picks as potential starters.

So with the lack of bodies on D, can we really even commit 1 of those first 3 picks on a G?

I guess it's just a pick your poison type deal, but I would have liked to see them get a real OG through FA.

"hitman8 wrote:

You make some good points, but it was still doable. Even right now we have enough cap room to sign another big free agent and still sign all of our draft picks. If we hadn't overpaid for branch we would be in even better shape.

If you ask me I would not commit a lot of money to extending Landry right now. We are deep at reciever and already invested big on stills. However we are very thin on the line with no starting quality guards on the roster and a very injury prone Pouncey at center. I would have much rather invested in a top guard who would secure us at the position for five years and figure out the landry situation next year. Losing landry wouldn't be the end of the world if he is asking for too much of a payday since we have parker, stills and caroo already locked up and invested for the future.

Bad guard play on the other hand is one of the biggest reasons our offense has struggled the last few years and we should not be undervaluing that position.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

We don't really have all that space you seem to think we do to sign one of these big free agents. Branch isn't being overpaid really. Who else was going to play DE opposite Wake? We have nobody after Wake really. Branch was needed, played well in the system, and was by all accounts a fantastic locker room guy and team mate. His salary isn't bad at all IMO. Maybe a touch high, but nothing that's going to free up enough space to bring on one of the guys you wanted with 8-12 million cap hits. It's just not doable. Clearly when they're still looking to sign a DT to add to the rotation given our chase of Dontari Poe recently too. To me that indicates the focus is likely on that OL come draft time.

Invested big on Stills? It's not that big at all actually. Not invest in Landry? I'm starting to think you might be a bit... well, nevermind.

I'm not disagreeing about undervaluing the Guard position, however what you're advocating for here IMO is OVER paying, and valuing the Guard position. If we were one player or two players away... Sure. I get it. If we had $100m in cap space and were about to likely bring in a rookie at QB like the Browns. Sure. We're just not in a position to throw that kind of money around. The better approach here is to find some bargain guys who can play, clearly the FO think's they're doing that, and draft someone to play the position effectively, and cheap.

As for the Cap, we have approx. $20m from what I see. Tie up about 7 to draft picks that leaves you 13ish. They probably want to carry some over to next year with Landry's deal looming, you need to leave yourself a buffer as well for other moves you may need to, or want to make due to injuries and cuts etc. So how exactly are you planning on adding a 8-10 million cap hit either now, or in the future? It likely would be smaller this year based on structure of the deal, but how do you absorb that in the future?

There's a lot more to consider than just the here and now with this, I'm not sure you're factoring that all in. It's not as easy as that.

"Finster wrote:

The problem though is our crappy draft picks this year, we only have 2 normal picks in the first 4 rounds, a late 1st, a late 2nd and 1 comp pick in the 3rd, after all other teams 3rd round picks, then we don't draft again until late in the 5th.

So basically there are 2-3 picks we expect to become starters this year, we certainly can't count on any of the remaining picks, not to say we won't get a gem or 2, but we can't count on those picks as potential starters.

So with the lack of bodies on D, can we really even commit 1 of those first 3 picks on a G?

I guess it's just a pick your poison type deal, but I would have liked to see them get a real OG through FA.

All fair points too IMO. I think they're just really hamstrung though right now by the cap and being able to afford those top tier Guards.

Personally, I'm not so sure about the defensive holes. I'd be willing to bet they keep Misi at this point unless a LB they really love is there at 22. You can work with Misi, Alonso & Timmons. It's by far better than what we had last year, especially since Misi was hurt. That's the problem with him though, he's an injury concern just getting out of bed. I think they risk it though.

I think they'll be fine with their CB's.

I'd think they have a concern at Safety. I hope Nate Allen isn't their answer there, but they gave him a decent chunk of cash if I'm not mistaken. That didn't look like a backup deal to me.

Our defense was pretty decimated last year simply because of injuries. The entire back end was out basically. The entire LB corps were basically out. However, keep in mind. We're essentially adding Jones, Misi, Timmons, and now Allen to the defense. Those guys missed considerable time, or they weren't here last year and their spots were filled by guys like Bacarri Rambo, Walt Aikens, Michael Thomas, Spencer Paysinger, Mike Hull, etc, etc... need I go on with the list of depth guys, that had to start?

The defense appeared to have a lot of holes last year mostly due to injury. The DL needs a depth/rotational guy at DT, probably another DE for depth too. On the roster, if Misi stays you have 3 starting LB's basically. They seemed satisfied with their CB play even though there were rumors of acquiring one. You get Jones back. You're essentially getting starting caliber guys at each spot. Now, I get it, they're not all elite, and some are still injury concerns. You cant fix the whole roster and it's years and years worth of problems that fast. You've got to roll with some of these guys regardless.

I'd be shocked if we don't used those 5's and 7's either to get back up and pick earlier for a guy they covet.

There's a lot of options IMO.

Would you folks on here take Jermin Bushrod as a starter over Dallas Thomas? I sure as hell would.

"TheOne wrote:

Would you folks on here take Jermin Bushrod as a starter over Dallas Thomas? I sure as hell would.

I would. 100%...

"TheOne wrote:

Would you folks on here take Jermin Bushrod as a starter over Dallas Thomas? I sure as hell would.

Yes, but saying he is better than Dallas Thomas isn't saying much. Dallas is out of the league, doesn't make bushrod a quality starter at guard. He would be a backup on most teams, so would Larsen.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

I see this as very, very simple. On offense, we're set ( or as set as any NFL team can expect) at QB, WR, RB, TE, OT and C if you take a leap of faith on a healthy/productive Pouncey. Question marks at OG. That's 2 holes out of 11

On a defense ranked 29th in yds allowed, you're set at 3DT, 1DT, DE w Branch, CB with Howard, Lippett, McCain and Maxwell, one safety in Jones, and one LB in Kiko. Throw in one of Wake and/or Timmons who are ancient and we should expect one (if not both) to fall off. That's 4 holes out of 11. Add to that this group was not terribly good last year to start with, Jones is coming off serious injury, Phillips is flashing but still a question mark, Timmons is on the decline, Wake is bound to slide sometime and you always rotate a minimum of 6 guys on the DL and it's very easy to see why they're not throwing all their Salary cap chips at offense.

Compared to Dallas Thomas pretty much every warm body looks like Will Shields. Bushrod is still a guy we could improve on and was mulling retirement so thinking he could be a down grade from last season is legitimate, unfortunately we were never in the market with the current salaries. We will likely try to scoop up some cheap guys with a hint of upside, the main issue in the OL is still IF pouncey can recover from his hip problem. With him full strength everything is better

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

"hitman8 wrote:

Yes, but saying he is better than Dallas Thomas isn't saying much. Dallas is out of the league, doesn't make bushrod a quality starter at guard. He would be a backup on most teams, so would Larsen.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk

Dallas is an Eagle.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

Dallas is an Eagle.

Didn't know that, I don't really keep up with dallas's career. Anyway he still sucks and saying bushrod is better tham him is not saying much at all.

Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk