Offseason upgrade options on defense

[gkekoa]

Rak 7 sacks, 51 tackles, 1 forced fumble six tackles for loss, 5 passes defensed and on kick blocked

Gallett Sat at home rehabbing for one 10th the price....

Now which one was actually WORTH more.

I swear dude, you are tighter than Scrooge in the Christmas store with Dan Snyders money.

Galette was. We drafted Smith and the position RAK manned accounted for 11.5 sacks and cost less than half of what he cost. I don't care about Dan's money. I care about the cap's money.

 

[Sharkinva]

Galette was. We drafted Smith and the position RAK manned accounted for 11.5 sacks and cost less than half of what he cost. I don't care about Dan's money. I care about the cap's money.

Yes... his replacements accounted for 11.5 sacks.. and yet one of our primary needs going into THIS offseason is STILL OLB. So what should that tell you?? And again, Gallett wasnt an option when we let Rak walk. So the plan was.. let Murphy and a rookie fight it out. You are quick to bring up the Pats and how they do business. But in reality, Belicheck dont let a soul out of the building unless he knows, not thinks, but KNOWS he has a rock solid replacement.

 

[gkekoa]

First off... why would they cut him after the year he had.

Secondly its always a calculated risk. Again why are you so torqued about money that MIGHT be a bad signing?? BUt I will play. Lets say he had even close to that year for us, and we cut him and eat 4 MIllion in dead space.

If Im not mistaken have you not been saying we need to cut either Garcon or Jackson?? Cutting either of them would cost $2.5 million in dead money. Hatcher $4.5 million. So where do we draw the line?? Is it about the cap cost, or the players you feel we should hold onto??

Dead cap money is a part of the process these days. You are looking at how much it would cost to gut the player. I on the other hand am looking at

1. If the player would have helped on the field
2. If he doesnt produce, does it cost us more to cut him than keep him??

In case #1, he would likely have made our defense better.
In case # 2, cutting him cost less than keeping him. So you take the calculated risk and if it doesnt work out, well thats the cost of doing business in todays NFL. And its much smarter than going into a season saying well we will either start this guy who isnt ready, or hope to fuck we can find a starter in the draft because we are so worried about how we MIGHT over pay the guy we know is capable of producing for us because we have seen it HERE.


Oh and we were follish because after all that work to save a few million, we are actually no better off at the position than we were this time last year... but it saved us $3.5 million on the 2015 cap. so whoopdefrakindoo.

Dude...the year he had? More than a million per sack and he didn't do much. I haven't said to cut DJ once. Garçon yes because replacement costs would yield greater results and we have a good bit of talent behind him. That being said, I want to keep Garçon because our QB wants to keep him.

Never said to cut Hatcher either. He is likely going to retire though.

Was RAK worth the money we paid him? Between injury and play...nope. End of story.

We are much better off at the position today than we would have been resigning RAK. PS is a better player...Murphy is better against the run than RAK but less of a pass rusher. We will now likely get Galette who is better than RAK. All this while saving us likely 5 million against the 2016 cap.

 

[gkekoa]

Yes... his replacements accounted for 11.5 sacks.. and yet one of our primary needs going into THIS offseason is STILL OLB. So what should that tell you?? And again, Gallett wasnt an option when we let Rak walk. So the plan was.. let Murphy and a rookie fight it out. You are quick to bring up the Pats and how they do business. But in reality, Belicheck dont let a soul out of the building unless he knows, not thinks, but KNOWS he has a rock solid replacement.

You are flat wrong on Patriot business. You don't make desperate business deals...you always lose.

 

[Sharkinva]

You are flat wrong on Patriot business. You don't make desperate business deals...you always lose.

Name me the last time the Patriots cut some one for cap reasons without a solid plan in place for a replacement??

They dont. Bill might cut a guy i f he isnt producing and his cap number doesnt warrant him being around. But he has never gone into a season HOPING a rookie and a second year guy will get it done.

 

[gkekoa]

Name me the last time the Patriots cut some one for cap reasons without a solid plan in place for a replacement??

They dont. Bill might cut a guy i f he isnt producing and his cap number doesnt warrant him being around. But he has never gone into a season HOPING a rookie and a second year guy will get it done.

Exactly...RAK isn't producing and we let him go. He wasn't producing to the point of 8 mil each season. He will cut them and know he needs a FA or young player to come in.

 

[Sharkinva]

Exactly...RAK isn't producing and we let him go. He wasn't producing to the point of 8 mil each season. He will cut them and know he needs a FA or young player to come in.

Sorry dude, but do the math, RAK averaged 6.6 sacks a year for us even when you factor in time missed to injury. When healthy he averaged just under 10 sacks and 56 tackles a season for us. Just because the cereal is cheaper and takes up the same amount of space in the bowl doesnt mean you actually got a better deal in the end.

And Bilicheck does NOT go into the season simply hoping a 2 year play and a rookie can COVER for the production he loses by releasing a veteran.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Rak 7 sacks, 51 tackles, 1 forced fumble six tackles for loss, 5 passes defensed and on kick blocked

Gallett Sat at home rehabbing for one 10th the price....

Now which one was actually WORTH more.

I swear dude, you are tighter than Scrooge in the Christmas store with Dan Snyders money.

You are comparing Rak with a guy who got hurt and wasn't abke to play? Now that is a strange argument. I've been a big Rak supporter, most because he got too much hate, but I guarantee you only 7 sacks was not what the Titans signed up for when they offered Rak that deal.

 

[gkekoa]

Sorry dude, but do the math, RAK averaged 6.6 sacks a year for us even when you factor in time missed to injury. When healthy he averaged just under 10 sacks and 56 tackles a season for us. Just because the cereal is cheaper and takes up the same amount of space in the bowl doesnt mean you actually got a better deal in the end.

And Bilicheck does NOT go into the season simply hoping a 2 year play and a rookie can COVER for the production he loses by releasing a veteran.

He basically did at CB this season.

 

[Sharkinva]

You are comparing Rak with a guy who got hurt and wasn't abke to play? Now that is a strange argument. I've been a big Rak supporter, most because he got too much hate, but I guarantee you only 7 sacks was not what the Titans signed up for when they offered Rak that deal.

Actually I was mentioning the fact that Rak got signed for basically what he was asking for. Some folks are under the assumption he would have been over paid at his going rate. It was also mentioned that we didnt sign Rak because we got Gallett, to which I called BUllshit because RAK signed with the Titans in March, we signed Gillette in JUly and at the time of not signing Rak, we had no idea Gillette would be released.


I guess bottom line is, Im tired of hearing the Bullshit of yes sure we should sign our own.... provided they are willing to sign for 70% of the going rate at their position or less. If not we can find a better replacement, although names are rarely given. And the few that are tend to be a complete shot in the dark.

 

[gkekoa]

Actually I was mentioning the fact that Rak got signed for basically what he was asking for. Some folks are under the assumption he would have been over paid at his going rate. It was also mentioned that we didnt sign Rak because we got Gallett, to which I called BUllshit because RAK signed with the Titans in March, we signed Gillette in JUly and at the time of not signing Rak, we had no idea Gillette would be released.


I guess bottom line is, Im tired of hearing the Bullshit of yes sure we should sign our own.... provided they are willing to sign for 70% of the going rate at their position or less. If not we can find a better replacement, although names are rarely given. And the few that are tend to be a complete shot in the dark.

Did he earn his contract this past season for Tennessee? Nope...so was he overpaid? Yep.

 

[Sharkinva]

Did he earn his contract this past season for Tennessee? Nope...so was he overpaid? Yep.

Thats your biased opinion dude which I will say is based on the fact that you

1. Didnt want to pay him the going rate
2. Possibly thought we could replace him on the cheap

Here is an opinion from some one that actually follows that team

Brian Orakpo gives Titans healthy return on investment

 

[Sharkinva]

Bonus... .what would he have had to produce in your opinion in order to EARN that contract, or rather... what would his stats have needed to be for him to not have been OVER Paid in your opinion??

 

[gkekoa]

Thats your biased opinion dude which I will say is based on the fact that you

1. Didnt want to pay him the going rate
2. Possibly thought we could replace him on the cheap

Here is an opinion from some one that actually follows that team

Brian Orakpo gives Titans healthy return on investment

Your very article was written after nine games where he had 6 sacks...according to your article. Truth be told he had five at this time.

He finished with two sacks over the last 7 games.

So, if you want to talk bias, the reporter showed his bias by not getting the facts and you showed yours by not realizing this was a mid season article.

Also, he admitted to changing his thinking with regard to working out. Maybe if he had done this earlier in his career, he wouldn't be so injury prone.

1- there is no bias in my statement he didn't earn his 8 mil per season. Ask the Titans if they expected 7 sacks for that amount of money.

2- we did replace him cheaply and got more production from the position even with the Galette injury. We had Murphy's contract, Smith's contract, and Galette's contract at about half the cost of RAK.

 

[Sharkinva]

Your very article was written after nine games where he had 6 sacks...according to your article. Truth be told he had five at this time.

He finished with two sacks over the last 7 games.

So, if you want to talk bias, the reporter showed his bias by not getting the facts and you showed yours by not realizing this was a mid season article.

Also, he admitted to changing his thinking with regard to working out. Maybe if he had done this earlier in his career, he wouldn't be so injury prone.

1- there is no bias in my statement he didn't earn his 8 mil per season. Ask the Titans if they expected 7 sacks for that amount of money.

2- we did replace him cheaply and got more production from the position even with the Galette injury. We had Murphy's contract, Smith's contract, and Galette's contract at about half the cost of RAK.

And yet, we are NO better off at this time now than we were a year ago. So yes it cost us less money. But we are still counting on Gallett coming back from Injury, and two part time players. SO in stead of saying, hey we need to concentrate on ILB, D-line and Secondary... we are still wondering IF we have an every down OLB or not. I swear dude, you are tighter than a damn accountant with Dan Snyders money even if it means CONSTANTLY looking for replacements so you can save a few of Dannny's dollars. Never mind that in the end it took 4 roster spots to out perform one guy... Atleast it cost us $1/2 million less against the cap.

 

[gkekoa]

And yet, we are NO better off at this time now than we were a year ago. So yes it cost us less money. But we are still counting on Gallett coming back from Injury, and two part time players. SO in stead of saying, hey we need to concentrate on ILB, D-line and Secondary... we are still wondering IF we have an every down OLB or not. I swear dude, you are tighter than a damn accountant with Dan Snyders money even if it means CONSTANTLY looking for replacements so you can save a few of Dannny's dollars. Never mind that in the end it took 4 roster spots to out perform one guy... Atleast it cost us $1/2 million less against the cap.

I was more impressed with Preston Smith than I ever was with RAK. You seem to think having certain pieces makes you need to stop improving there. RAK is not a good every down LB anyways...and he is often injured. He didn't improve a bit from when he first got here...that should say a lot.

Again, you are usually smarter than this...saving money on one player, doesn't mean I don't want to use it elsewhere. Please, please look at how the Patriot's do business because it apparently works. Randy Moss 23 TDs, gone. Richard Seymour, perennial pro bowler and SB winner gone. Wes Welker, gone. Revis, gone. The list is continuous. Revolving door of pro bowl players that Bill lets walk or trades away.

 

[Sharkinva]

I was more impressed with Preston Smith than I ever was with RAK. You seem to think having certain pieces makes you need to stop improving there. RAK is not a good every down LB anyways...and he is often injured. He didn't improve a bit from when he first got here...that should say a lot.

Again, you are usually smarter than this...saving money on one player, doesn't mean I don't want to use it elsewhere. Please, please look at how the Patriot's do business because it apparently works. Randy Moss 23 TDs, gone. Richard Seymour, perennial pro bowler and SB winner gone. Wes Welker, gone. Revis, gone. The list is continuous. Revolving door of pro bowl players that Bill lets walk or trades away.

I never said you stop improving. But its dumb as fuck to get rid of one player who you know can perform in your system, only to have to replace him with 3-4 other players to save 1-2 million against the cap. And that is basically what we did. You endorsed this and fucking pounded the drum for us to do just this. Smart teams RARELY have to rely on a rookie either producing, or its back to the drawing board.

The Patriots more often than not HAVE a realistic replacement in house BEFORE they release guys like Moss, Welker and the like. Bottom line is, it took us 3 roster spots (Murphy, Smith and Heyward) plus an extra player on IR (Gallett) in order to replace Rak. Now had we kept him for a little more, we dont need

1. Gallett
2. Hayward

But like I said, we saved some where between .5 and 2 Million in cap space.. whoopdefuckingdoo, it only cost us 1 extra roster spot.

 

[Sharkinva]

So let me ask, if you were doing a project. And you could get one tool for $20 that would cover most of what you needed to take care of, or 4 tools for $10 but would take you twice as long and increase the odds you actually fuck up the project once or twice before you are done. And you would also likely have to replace 2 of those four tools when you were done in any case.... Which is actually the better deal??

 

[Sharkinva]

By the way, Raks Cap number was $4.75 million. SO I would say he more than lived up to that number with 7 sacks, 50 plus tackles, six of those for Loss and five passes defensed.

Now will he live up to his $8 million cap number this season?? WHo knows. But as I said two years ago, we were Dumb as fuck to franchise him instead of signing him long term. The franchise tag is a lose/lose proposition.

If the player out performs the tag, you cant afford to keep him. And if he doesnt perform to the tag, you wasted twice as much as he was worth on a one year rental.

 

[gkekoa]

I never said you stop improving. But its dumb as fuck to get rid of one player who you know can perform in your system, only to have to replace him with 3-4 other players to save 1-2 million against the cap. And that is basically what we did. You endorsed this and fucking pounded the drum for us to do just this. Smart teams RARELY have to rely on a rookie either producing, or its back to the drawing board.

The Patriots more often than not HAVE a realistic replacement in house BEFORE they release guys like Moss, Welker and the like. Bottom line is, it took us 3 roster spots (Murphy, Smith and Heyward) plus an extra player on IR (Gallett) in order to replace Rak. Now had we kept him for a little more, we dont need

1. Gallett
2. Hayward

But like I said, we saved some where between .5 and 2 Million in cap space.. whoopdefuckingdoo, it only cost us 1 extra roster spot.

You still have to have a backup for RAK. We replaced RAK with Galette is what we did. Everybody knows Galette was not available prior to the release of RAK but players were available. Murphy started last season anyways. Hayward was brought in as a STs guy and as an ILB. He is way too small for OLB.

Who was the realistic replacement for Moss?

I have no idea what your hard on for RAK is. We're we better off this year without him? Yes. Will be better off long term without him? Yes.