So the Dolphins have been taking an aggressive route through FA in 2015 and a lot of people see, to be very positive about all the moves except, perhaps, the trade for Wallace. So far we've seen: Out Starks Odrick Wheeler Ellerbe Hartline Gibson Finnegan Smith 1x 3rd Round Pick 1x 7th Round Pick In/Kept Suh Stills Jordan McCain Thomas Sheppard Kovacs Francis Fox 1x 5th Round Pick Unknown Clay On the face of it we've gained an elite defensive lineman, gotten a cheaper, younger speedster, gained a bigger red-zone target, add another energetic play-maker in the secondary, locked up some cheaper promising talent and ditched some under-performing, bad contracts, including one diva receiver and some less than great talent elsewhere. A lot of this motivated, perhaps, by cap issues and restructuring. However, there might prove to be another side to this story. This whole thing could be viewed as a very risky gamble. We lost two decent defensive lineman to bring in one elite one, and that's cost us depth on the DL and might also prove to result in fines, suspensions and a media circus. In ditching Wallace we've lost arguably the best speedster deep threat in the NFL and who, for his diva attitude, didn't bring any off-field issues for a slightly lesser talent who might prove to be worse off the field. The new red-zone target will only be a red-zone target if can stay uninjured and so far, his, 100% prediction of a return to Pro-Bowl form and denial of any injury issues seem a bit premature/naive. For the cap space gain/bad contract ditching we've had a net loss of one draft pick, and we've yet to address the still problematic starting OL, OL depth, and secondary issues. In short, being pessimistic, you could say we've added better starting talent at a cost of a depth, but with added on-field and off-field risk. Now, this could all prove to be genius, or it instead, the starting signs of a fractured leadership with different ideas and a different approach - genius vs. wisdom - a battle that, as usual, will only be decided once the results are in at the end of the 2015 season.
I think of it like this: instead of keeping on with the safe route, that's had us mired in mediocrity for the last 10 years, we're actually being aggressive. You have to take chances to win.
Tannenbaum stepped up to the plate for talent and took out the underperforming/overpriced trash at the same time, I'm a fan so far. Way better than Philbin/Ireland wasting money on the toxic twins, Wheeler/Ellerbe, paying far too much money to Hartline, etc. Devil's advocate: Is Kenny Still worth a 3rd round pick? I'm thinking yes but not sure. Would it have made more sense to just cut Wallace and Ellerbe due to cost and/or attitude concerns? Were there any cap savings by trading Ellerbe as opposed to cutting him? Do we really need Charles Clay at $7 million/year? Personally I'm fine with Cameron/Sims/Arthur Lynch I like getting the high 5th in the Wallace trade, would have preferred keeping the 7th as well, but that's how it goes.
You both make good points. I'll say this much. Smart decision-making begins with good research and a conservative plan. From that basis, you can bring in risk in a strategic way. Some people bring in a lot of risk hoping to move up. Some people bring in a little because they don't need to gain much. With the way things are progressing in the NFL these days, I think the free agent market really favors the risk-takers. Free agency just isn't what it used to be, big money contracts and long-term attachment. There are loads of cheap players and short-term deals out there. The entire concept of risk just isn't what it used to be. To go one step further, signing a 9-figure contract isn't as risky as it used to be. There are a lot of players out there who are making between $15M and $20M per season so while the 6-year figure we paid for our new DT is staggering, the player is making a rather average per-year salary given his production. Teams used to avoid free agency because it meant over-paying for starting caliber players. Everyone wanted to build through the draft. Nowadays every team expects a significant degree of turnover during the off-season. starting caliber players are relatively common on the open market so every year loads of guys switch teams. For a lot of people who grew up in the 60s, 70s or 80s, they want to think of every move as being a big one, but it's not that way anymore. In reality players like Brice McCain are just the cost of doing business in today's NFL. We're always going to see some appreciable turnover so we'd better get used to it. Piggy-backing on what Resnor said, I think that removing a guy like Odrick is a huge gamble but it shows that this team doesn't want to be limited by taking a conservative approach. You might as well have that philosophy in today's NFL. So long as you don't wind up with an Albert Haynesworth or strap yourself down with an RGIII, I think you'll be fine. Maybe it will work and maybe it won't. But as long as you're somewhat smart about it (and I think the Dolphins have been thus far), you'll be fine with all these moves. The worst that can happen is that you wind up with a bad season with 5-8 wins but no one really cares about that these days. If the game has been evolved to where a team can reach the Play-offs in a one-year turnaround, it's worth it to gamble the way Miami has this off-season. At the end of the day, no one loses when the team goes 5-11. You pick up the pieces and you try again next year. We're not trying to be the most dominant team in the NFL for 10 years straight. That takes winning the lottery with Rodgers or Brady or Manning or Luck. You can't build winning the lottery into your plan of success. The best thing teams can do who don't have elite QBs is reload every year and give it their best shot. All you can do is build a team that wins enough games to get into January. In doing so you're trying to build a team that can also win those games in January. Take a look at Cincinnati and Carolina and you see teams that struggle to make deep Play-off runs. That's the second level. The Colts know they're going to be in the Play-offs so the moves they're making are aimed at winning in January. Andre Johnson and Frank Gore can help them. They obviously still need a lot of work on that defensive front however. I think the Dolphins are now conceivably a team that can get into January. Unfortunately our division is tough as nails and the AFC as a whole doesn't make life easy with all the Play-off caliber teams: Patriots, Bill, Dolphins, Bengals, Colts, Steelers, Ravens, Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs (that's 10 for anyone counting!!!). So right now I think Miami is asking themselves...what do we need to have once we get into January? To me, we'll need quality depth in the secondary, a better interior O-line and at least one more key WR. If some of those guys are rookies they aren't going to be great this year and that's fine. We're looking to build here. We're not trying to win the Super Bowl this year. We're trying to do enough to get into the Play-offs. After that the expectations will rise. What I'm looking for are the moves that will make Miami legitimate throughout the next 5-6 years.
Stills has been in off field trouble before since joining the NFL? I had no idea.... He also quit on his team because a TD pass went to somebody besides him? I had no idea....
I think a lot of people are jumping the gun here. We have to remember that free agency barely started and we still have the draft to go. We just freed up a lot of cap space by moving Wallace and, at the same time, filled his spot by bringing in Stills. We can still load up on quality depth at need positions both in FA and in the draft... I think by the end of the offseason we'll see that we actually aren't taking that big of a risk as it seems at this point in the year.
These moves were exactly what was needed to take this team to the next level. We added not only the best FA, but a genernational, future Hall of Famer in Suh, a potentially top 4 TE in Cameron and dumped a bunch of overpriced salary. Even if Stills performs at 75% of what Wallace did, we can add Clay's production and still be below Wallace and his salary. Most importantly, Wallace was all about Wallace and was stunting Tannehill's development. Think about this. We have at least 6 pro bowl caliber players on the roster. Pouncy Albert Cameron Clay Grimes Wake Tannehill Suh Add a young WR of corp of Landry and Stills, and this team finally has impact players at key positions. If McCain and Fede develop, and Aikens continues to flash, this team will have the talent to make deep playoff runs. Not only is the team getting younger, but it is getting signifincantly better across the board. We just traded for someone with nearly the same impact for 1/20th salary. This is how smart organizations develop.
you forgot that with suh's hefty contract we'll be in cap space hell for however long he is here (suh and t-hill next year will take up a ton of space)... our wr's are worse ol the same, as in, bad. db's the same lb the same, as in who knows what they'll do. our punter restructured but he's been awful, and sturgis is our kicker. but hey we got suh so....
Well debbie downer, we got a lot cheaper at the WR spot, which you fail to mention. Suh is a once in a lifetime player that changes everything about the defense whether you like to acknowledge it or not.
Stop with the cap hell bs. Wallace was supposed to put us in cap hell. We went out signed Albert. Albert & Wallace were supposed to put us in cap hell. We went out and got Suh. If you don't understand how much Suh improves the play of every other defensive player on the field, then you aren't qualified to judge this move.
so by that logic we'll cut/trade suh in 2 years and albert next year bc the players we spend too much on we trade/cut 2 years latter.
I find it funny that people on this site (not you guys in the thread) were anti-Tannebaum when he came on. Now they want to blow his whistle. We are crazy, crazy, fans.....
Cap hell? Please. It's the cost of trying to be good. You have to pay for some good players. The key is paying for guys who don't end up like Wallace/Wheeler/Ellerbe/etc, who cost far more their production warrant.
I would say that the skepticism was justified after his Jets run at GM and he has been doing great over here, good for him, us and the team.
For 10 million dollars a year, Wallace vastly underplayed. I bet you Stills puts up more yards then Wallace's pathetic 830 yards or whatever he had last year. And Stills will do it for 9 million less dollars. BTW, how can you make statements like this when we are still in the thick of Free Agency? Learn the game man. Real life football isn't Madden. You don't need 'Big Names' to win. It seems you need to step away from the video games. I'm sure Wallace got you 2,500 yards in your Madden Franchise Mode, but that doesn't mean he will do it in real life. Come back to reality.
Sure...if their production isn't worth their contract. I really don't see that happening with Suh. And I think it's very short-sighted to think that Wallace would have put up 10tds again this season. Receivers tds totals vary wildly from year to year.
Huh? By your logic, we better never draft a great all time player, because their second contract will put us in cap hell, right?
Yeah, I agree. He needed some provin' to do. While ballsy, I just hope some of these moves pan out. I am not worried about Suh. From all accounts, he does what he is suppose to do. I am a little more worried about some of the other moves. Miami needs a break, though. Keller got injured as one of these. So did Moreno. Then Albert, though he did play. It surely cannot happen three years in a row, huh? Btw, where in the hell is Dennis Hickey these days?
I don't agree with the argument that we signed one great defensive lineman at the expense of two good ones. Starks was not good last year and wasn't worth being brought back on that contract. He had to be cut regardless. I have no problem bringing him back on a more team friendly deal looksee where he can be cut if he doesn't round back into form, but as he was last year he was just under-performing baggage. In fact, I don't see any intelligent argument against signing Suh. He is such a once in a lifetime FA opportunity and the way the cap functions in the NFL the risk isn't even as high the cap hell doomsayers profess. I do see a devil's advocate argument in the Wallace for Stills trade-off. Wallace was obviously an under-performing asset on that contract, but he was still an asset that produced 10 TDs. That's not an easy level of production to replicate. And Stills has some work ethic baggage in his history both in college and in NO. IMO it's still a net gain. Wallace was probably here no more than one year regardless and Stills is cheap and potential laden. Stills has been ridiculously productive on a per catch basis in NO with Brees. I'm curious to see if he can come continue that in Miami with RT. I don't see much downside to the Cameron signing. There's risk of course, but it seems like that's fairly mitigated as I hear we have an option after year 1. We've needed that big target for years and he's a guy with Gronk/Graham athleticism/potential if healthy. I'm also really happy we brought back Thomas S. On balance, I think it's been a good off-season thus far. There's more to do. I want to see what happens with Clay. I'd like him back (depending on the cost) and I'd love to bring back Delmas. I'd also like to see us sign or trade for a G and add another secondary player.
I think it's important to not over-glorify Wallace's TD total from last season. Highly doubtful he would have hit 10 again next year, especially if we have a red zone target. 10 was a career high for him, and I don't think it would be the norm from here on out.
this sums it up nicely: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...s-acquire-receiver-mike-wallace-from-dolphins
Isolating the yardage Stills put up bares little context on its face. Let's consider for a moment that: A: Drew Brees was throwing the ball B: He was playing under one of the most wide open offenses in football, which were ranked #2 in the league in pass attempts C: Jimmy Graham and Marques Colston drew coverage away from Stills. One could even argue Brandin Cooks did as well as the season progressed, which is what made Stills expendable. D: Stills was not drawing the opposing defense's best cover man Wallace on the other hand has proven that he can play vs. top shelf corners. Take a look at his 12 catches, 185 yards, and 2 TD's in his two appearances vs. Revis and the Pats last year. He had nearly 900 yards and 10TD's (when was the last Dolphins WR with double digit TD''s??) with almost non-existent WR support outside of Landry and an offense that couldn't take advantage of what he does best. The jury is still out on Stills. Ex-Saint wide receivers don't exactly have a great history when they leave the Big Easy. The Dolphins took a shot on potential in a young player with a similar skill set who was cheaper, but has maturity/priority issues - enough to make a QB with a pedigree like Brees want him sent away.
Moreover, despite that touchdowns are valued at 7 points apiece in the formulation, Wallace was nowhere to be found among the league's receivers in EPA (expected points added) per play, while Stills led the league by a wide margin. In other words, on a per-play basis, despite Wallace's 10 touchdowns, the plays Stills made for New Orleans did a far better job of contributing to points for his team.
Sorry but 10 TD's > 3 TD's. We don't just dismiss the count because one's EPA is higher. We look at the "whole" body of work.
Really. Then presumably all receivers who are not the focal point of defenses' attention should be efficient. Is that the case?
They have the higher "likelihood" of being efficient if they're singled up with a lower tier defender. This is inarguable. 'Tis the nature of having a matchup nightmare in Jimmy Graham playing on your team. It's why guys like Cole Beasely over there in Dallas have jobs. Disagree. You're isolating one stat to support your argument of a receiver's effectiveness.
People who are trying to make an argument saying Stills is better than Wallace are only saying that because he is on our team now. Stills play and production were not close to Wallace's. Next year people will complain about his production even if RT can't get him the ball down field. The best thing about swapping those two are Stills will save us a ton of money.
I'd be interested to see your analysis of how Stills's performance compared to that of other receivers who were likewise presumably the beneficiaries of other focal points in their offenses. Right now you're in the land of "theory" alone, while not applying it at all to Stills in particular. For all we know, Stills's production could be light years above what's expected from a receiver who benefits from other focal points in his offense. Right, and it's the stat that focuses on what wins games -- points.
It's not theory. If he was a focal point of the offense he would be in New Orleans still. This is a very similar situation I've seen countless times as a Suns fan with players who thrived on SSOL basketball. They inflated their stats, went off elsewhere and did nothing. Again, remind me what Saints receivers have gone to another team and the production remained? The Saints took an opportunity to sell their "asset" based on the increased value they created with their system and surrounding players. They drafted him in the 5th and got a 3rd in a return. And they did this knowing they had two cheeeeeap years left on his deal. That tells you something. Points win games and Wallace shouldered the load from a receiving perspective. You're also doing an extremely good job being naive to what Wallace does for the team even when he's not catching passes. The very threat of him tearing open the top of a defense allowed opportunity for other players. Dare I bring up what the offense looked like with Legadu Nanee? That's why your EPA stat isn't the end all be all.
It's completely objective. Not being objective is insinuating Wallace is less effective because of an EPA stat when it's been widely discussed how effective Wallace is WITHOUT the ball.
