Earl Mitchell in DT Options? | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Earl Mitchell in DT Options?

So Be

So Be

Active Roster
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
16,572
Reaction score
2,216
Mitchell is a 27 year old DT who played half the snaps last year in a 3 man rotation with Starks and Odrick, and has mixed reviews from the forum. He had a good fist half and a bad second half, as did most of our D. He was better vs the pass with 2 sacks, 1 hit, and 15 hurries than the run. I though this would be reversed after seeing him some as an undersized NT in Houston the year before. Many analyst, including Pollian, thought he was a good signing, and he was yet another player changing position with a new scheme. Mitchell will cost $4.5M this year, and we save all of it if we move him.

Options:

IF we are looking at a Knighton/Williams with Odrick/Fairley, his $4.5M cap hit, along with Starks $5M savings will be needed.

We can keep him with one high priced signing, a rookie, and a young guy from within.

We can keep him with two FA signings, and go over budget at DT.

Opinions?
 
Starks is gone, period.

$5 for a rotation DT that has seen better days. No thanks.

I think Odrick is back on decent money and we target another FA DT, big plugger 'Soliai' style.

As others have said during the year, the D-line is WAY to finess. No pluggers or run stoppers.

Odrick/Mitchell are both penetrating DT's not pluggers which is needed in the run game. Wake/Vernon/Jordan, same thing.
 
Mitchell is actually not bad for what he's getting paid.
 
I give FA'a a second year to fit in, and would like to do the same with Mitchell who is being paid fairly. May not be able to do that and sign 2 FA's.
 
Square peg, round hole. If another team called, for a 3rd or higher I move him. Find a Round peg for a round hole.
 
Hustles hard, controllable salary, effective, and good locker room guy... he wont be moved, traded or cut - regardless of anyone on here's view.
 
Mitchell is a tough call. We need a new 1 tech who excels against the run, that's our biggest weakness right now. Financially it's tough for us to invest in our 3 tech, probably Odrick, as well as a big nose that would start over Mitchell. I don't think Mitchell is disruptive enough to be our starting 3 tech, so where does that leave us? If we really want to solve the 1 tech situation, there's some options on the market and it would be cheaper than signing Odrick. There's guys like Dan Williams and Cedric Thornton, Pat Sims too but on the low end of the spectrum. Williams and Thornton will likely be cheaper than Odrick. We could invest short term in a guy like Cory Redding, Henry Melton or Corey Peters, but the more I analyze FA the more I think we might need to draft a DT in the first 2 days of the draft unfortunately, it's the toughest grouping for me to find a solution to. I also don't think it's as huge a deal as others if we get improved linebacker play.

If you cut Starks and Mitchell you save $8m. Only $5m if you just cut Starks. I'm assuming that Odrick will command Arthur Jones money, which is around $6.25m annually, which is pretty rich if you ask me. Starks is replaceable after he fell off a cliff last year, but the FA is uninspiring for cheap NT's. Right now I'm probably keeping Mitchell. Bringing in a run stuffer on the cheap like Pat Sims for a rotational role and then trying to sign Odrick if he isn't ridiculously expensive.

Does anyone think Mitchell can be our 3 tech? If so I really like the idea of putting Dan Williams or Thornton at the 1 tech and bringing in a stop gap 3 tech that can rotate with Mitchell, our young guys like Johnson and a mid-round rookie.
 
Odrick just isn't that good. Let him walk and invest in a new player with upside. Odrick should be a DE in a 3-4 defense.
 
Another idea I've wrestled with, is signing a NT, so Dan Williams or Cedric Thornton. Moving Mitchell over to the 3 tech, and then bringing Starks back at a reduced rate. If I remember correctly Starks was our 1 tech and maybe that just isn't a natural spot and that explains his decline. He'd fit with Mitchell as a rotational guy at the 3 tech, and then Mitchell could kick over to the 1 tech on passing downs with Starks at the 3.

If we can get a NT in that $4-5m range and add another 3 tech for around $3m on a short term, I think we'll be in decent shape and it'll be economical.
 
NorFlaFin said:
Square peg, round hole. If another team called, for a 3rd or higher I move him. Find a Round peg for a round hole.
Click to expand...

Nobody's going to give us a 3rd for him. I don't think anybody would give us any pick for him really. Maybe a very late pick but they can find equal players for nothing in FA / cuts. I think he should be a cut. Just not very good vs. the run and we need help there. Maybe with his money and Starks' money we can get a very good DT if there is one out there.
 
Dolphin North said:
Nobody's going to give us a 3rd for him. I don't think anybody would give us any pick for him really. Maybe a very late pick but they can find equal players for nothing in FA / cuts. I think he should be a cut. Just not very good vs. the run and we need help there. Maybe with his money and Starks' money we can get a very good DT if there is one out there.
Click to expand...

Then we're replacing 3 DT's. I think he's valuable enough to warrant his salary. It's hard to replace 3 DT's at the end of the day, two is hard enough to figure out.
 
From what I remember, Starks was a 1 with Odrick, and a 3/1 with Mitchell. I'm not sure what to think of Mitchell, as he was not what I thought he would be by coaches or play, which I don't know. I think I would keep him but, so hard to say not knowing who will be here,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom