The reason I like the Albert signing | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

The reason I like the Albert signing

Heres the thing about cutting peoples before their contracts are up: we then have to replace them.

Instead of fixing the problem in a single move, we now have to go back and re-fight this same battle in another few years. Its not like we didnt have the option to really fix this thing now, we just chose not to. Thats why people are exasperated and annoyed.

Also alarming is the level of "normal" people have seemingly accepted. When did everyone start believing that 5 year deals automatically equal 2 year deals? That cutting players years before their end date is acceptable? That there are no repercussions to ripping up deals? Was it after Jake Grove? Was it after Dansby? Jeff Ireland did a superior job jading fans, thats for sure. How about we sign very good players to reasonable contracts and then, you know, let them play out that contract. Just throwing that out there.

You mean like Jake Long, John Jerry, and Richie Incog? Starks? Soliai? Carroll?
 
its funny i read people saying we shouldve kept jake long last year and he has been much, much more injury prone compared to albert. from what we've had at lt the past 3 years no one and i mean no one should complain about the albert signing. yeah it was expensive but it was needed and an excellent move.

Jake Long has missed 7 games in his career. Branden Albert has missed 11.

7 is not much much more than 11. In fact, its less
 
its funny i read people saying we shouldve kept jake long last year and he has been much, much more injury prone compared to albert. from what we've had at lt the past 3 years no one and i mean no one should complain about the albert signing. yeah it was expensive but it was needed and an excellent move.

On NFLN they were analyzing the signing and they asked Charlie Casserly if Miami should have just kept Jake Long. And his answer was, "Jake Long? Isn't he on crutches??"

Instant classic!

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 PM ----------

all the whining about how we're overpaying all the time, yet we had the 4th or 5th most cap room in the league. whatever you think ireland effed up that needed to be unfacked, it wasn't our salary cap position. you can't have it both ways either. you can't cry "stop using free agency to build the team" then say "he's 30 and he will only be here 2 or 3 years, why can't we sign a bunch of younger guys." which is it? we have to draft well and develop our own players. until then we have to spend money on free agents to hold down the positions until we get there. i could almost understand this incessant nonsense if we were strapped for money. almost.

Great post, and a PRS in the sig. This guy knows what he is talking about!
 
This will all stop when miami gets a GM capable of drafting. Miami had zero choice here. Let's say Alberts signs elsewhere. Then people would bitch and complain that we didn't do enough to secure the spot. Start actually having good drafts and we won't have to revisit the free agency crap every 3 years for key positions.
 
all the whining about how we're overpaying all the time, yet we had the 4th or 5th most cap room in the league. whatever you think ireland effed up that needed to be unfacked, it wasn't our salary cap position. you can't have it both ways either. you can't cry "stop using free agency to build the team" then say "he's 30 and he will only be here 2 or 3 years, why can't we sign a bunch of younger guys." which is it? we have to draft well and develop our own players. until then we have to spend money on free agents to hold down the positions until we get there. i could almost understand this incessant nonsense if we were strapped for money. almost.

Can I get an "AMEN"
 
My issue with Monroe (purely financial) is that we would not have gotten him for the price the Ravens paid.. It would have been the same or larger than Alberts deal imo, and that's what scared off suitors. The only reason the ravens got him so cheap is the tackle market got cleaned out really quickly and all the high bidders got their guys, so he was left with the deal the ravens had put forward the week before.. I agree, he's the safer option - but financially it would have been equal or worse bringing him in (I would lean towards it being worse given how little action he got - potentially $10m/year).

As for Veldheer.. He's got his own injury problems and less of a proven track record than Albert. He showed huge promise in 2012 no doubt, and could return to that form - but there are the same questions with him as there are with Albert, health-wise. Given the state of our o-line, and how Hickeys career could very well depend on fixing it.. I think they go for the proven guy 100% of the time in this situation. That also goes for Anthony Collins, who is largely projection for high-end starting LT at this point.

I'm not saying I think Albert was the best option at the best price, I'm just trying to show why our FO could have come to this decision..

Negotiations between agents occurred over the weekend(actually well before that but thats the line the NFL is sticking to), we could have worked out a suitable deal with Monroe or others before the market cleaned out. I dont have any reason to suspect that Monroe couldnt have been had for at least a similar deal to what he agreed to with the Ravens. Even if we would have had to outbid them(doubtful, teams really didnt do much bidding for lineman and the Ravens are the type to just move on to the next guy), we wouldnt have had to pay as much for him as we would have for Albert.
And even if he did give him Albert's deal, he would likely have earned it for the entirety of the length. It looks like we are going to have to so-to-speak "double dip" to fix that position in a few years. We'll be paying Albert, getting the cap hit when we cut him, and then having to pay another player to replace him. Financially, it doesnt make much sense no matter how the deal is structured.

Veldheer tore his tricep. Freak injuries happen to everyone, that cant be controlled or projected. What can be projected on are chronic conditions. And Albert's back problem could easily fall into that category. Back problems themselves are tricky, and in Albert's case hes apparently had "spasms" even though he considers his problem "healed". For now thats fine, but what about after another season of beating? And the year after? Again, he could be fine, but history is against him. As well, if we are going to hold Veldheer's injury against him, its worth remembering that Albert came close to blowing out his knee this year.

As for Collins, we are making the same projection for him as we are for Albert: can they continue to play at a high level for x amount of years. For Collins, there are questions about his inexperience, for Albert its his age/injuries. The difference between the two is the price tag. Id gamble on the cheaper/younger guy than the older/more expensive option.

I know why our front office made this decision: our line is atrocious, we have a plethora of cash thats only going to grow as the cap raises, and Albert fits exactly what Philbin(a former offensive line coach) is trying to do on offense. Philbin also believes hes close to pushing us over the edge and, by extension, saving his job. He'll gamble on getting 2 very good years from Albert so he can secure his position.
Other than our line being atrocious, i dont find their logic all that convincing. Schemes can adapt, spending should always be done carefully, and we should have made the best deal possible for the Miami Dolphins even if it wasnt the best deal for the current coach. Im not against signing Albert, i definitely wanted this problem fixed via free agency. What im against is signing Albert over the other options we had available. Of the top 4 choices available we chose the oldest, most expensive, and least durable. I consider that a poor choice.
 
You mean like Jake Long, John Jerry, and Richie Incog? Starks? Soliai? Carroll?

If i were to check your post history, would i find you advocating extensions for any or all of those players? :lol:

Clearly the superior option is dropping big money on a player then cutting them after a season. We are sure to compete for a Superbowl that way, it cant fail!
Step 1) Sign a big name free agent.
Step 2) Cut big name free agent.
Step 3) ???
Step 4) Profit!
 
I have no problems with getting Albert. We all recognized that we have some major holes to fill and we filled one of the most important pieces. We can argue with our differences in opinion as to who may or may not have been a better fit. We also don't really know all the dynamics involved these negotiations. As we compete with other teams, agents, and individual choices, we really don't know if Veldheer , Monroe, or Saffold wanted to come to Miami.

Now, we still need a few more positions to fill in free agency. I would still grab a LT in 1st or 2nd round and let him start at RT. Keep drafting one lineman the next couple of drafts and we will easily replace Albert. Perhaps he could stay less money as our backup LT at age 33?
 
Good signing. Cant complain about signing a pro bowler. Think about what we had there last year. We pick too low in the draft to acquire the same quality and leadership. Tannehill needs time to throw it deep.
 
He's a proven commodity. If we are only obligated to three years, we can draft a replacement for him (like the Chiefs did) and it would be much less painful if it doesn't work out in the long run or if/when we decide to move on. It's easy to second guess the signing but I agree with it in the end.
 
Instead of fixing the problem in a single move, we now have to go back and re-fight this same battle in another few years.

Just about every position on every team is re-evaluated on a year to year basis. Lame complaint.
 
can we not run with Albert @ LT and then draft his replacement in that 3rd year?

we do still get draft picks right?
 
Just about every position on every team is re-evaluated on a year to year basis. Lame complaint.

And when they do reach the decision to move on from the player when re-evaluating, rarely is it just after handing him a +$45 million contract. Lame response.
 
Back
Top Bottom