Originally Posted by Detoxing:
Right now the argument is being made that Breeland was a top corner weeks 10-17.
And he was in the building. He signed elsewhere, cheap.
I mean...if he was that good, then that was a royal fuck up that should not be excused.
And i know some are going, "But Detoxing, they wanted Tyrann but couldn't afford him".
Bullshit. They coulda made it work. They just didn't want it bad enough.
Yeah, I spoke directly to that one. They could've made the money work easily and had they gone ahead and given him the LTC he wanted then, they'd have saved probably $15 million over the life of the deal.
Just a massive miss on their part last season. Breeland maybe less so as they had his ass in here and clearly just struggled to get him medically cleared. I feel like they wanted him and would've paid him more than GB did had they been confident in his medicals. But they weren't.
It's a lot like the Darby situation. It's hard to beat them up too badly over that one. But not too hard to come at them for Mathieu - they just fucked that up. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
If he's healthy, Darby.
But these things aren't done in a vacuum.
A one year deal for Darby wouldn't be ideal because you may not get him until October. Then if he does hit and is healthy, he's gonna either want an extension which isn't going to help you financially, or he misses a lot of the year or isn't good and you suck.
Didn't Darby already re-sign for one year with Philly? [Reply]
I'm actually not a huge fan of the 1 year deals. I understand why the players want them, but for the teams there's just not a lot of way to get much value out of it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
I'm actually not a huge fan of the 1 year deals. I understand why the players want them, but for the teams there's just not a lot of way to get much value out of it.
The goal is to give spags a year to see what he has in the young guys and see what we can get in the draft. I prefer 2-3 year deals but especially for a deal this cheap, this is great. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
I'm actually not a huge fan of the 1 year deals. I understand why the players want them, but for the teams there's just not a lot of way to get much value out of it.
Perfect for this type of signing IMO. He’s not a long term solution by any means, if it doesn’t work out this year at least you aren’t on the hook anymore. If it does, maybe you extend him but they need young long term CBs regardless. [Reply]
