NewEra Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 Miller's no JJ Watt... He's not. But he had 2.5 sacks and the game winning forced fumble to win the super bowl. Not to mention 2.5 sacks in the afc championship. You can say he's a product of a good defense. I say he's the difference maker on a great defense. He's not a good pass rusher. He's a great pass rusher. Without him, I don't think they make the playoffs this year with the Chiefs and raiders breathing down their back. With him, I think they have a good chance. Just my opinion. Night all.
QCity Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 He's not. But he had 2.5 sacks and the game winning forced fumble to win the super bowl. Not to mention 2.5 sacks in the afc championship. You can say he's a product of a good defense. I say he's the difference maker on a great defense. He's not a good pass rusher. He's a great pass rusher. Without him, I don't think they make the playoffs this year with the Chiefs and raiders breathing down their back. With him, I think they have a good chance. Just my opinion. Night all. They certainly don't win a Lombardi without him.
NoSaint Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) They certainly don't win a Lombardi without him. You don't think with, say, Hughes and a well performing 8-10m player (or upgrading 3-4 positions from middle of the pack to very good) they would be likewise very competitive? Because that's kind of the debate for going forward. He played great in that matchup, no doubt. He played great often last year. But I think it's silly to act like a single pass rusher was the only reason they won despite him being a difference maker. They needed to sign him but if offered a good vet and a couple high picks it's a worthwhile discussion regarding value. Edited July 16, 2016 by NoSaint
aristocrat Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 You don't think with, say, Hughes and a well performing 8-10m player (or upgrading 3-4 positions from middle of the pawoulck to very good) they would be likewise very competitive? Because that's kind of the debate for going forward. He played great in that matchup, no doubt. He played great often last year. But I think it's silly to act like a single pass rusher was the only reason they won despite him being a difference maker. They needed to sign him but if offered a good vet and a couple high picks it's a worthwhile discussion regarding value. they would be competitive as they have a lot of other very good pieces but would they be elite? miller was unblockable at times.
BarleyNY Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 He had a great game--so did Trevathan and Ward. Classic GM error--rewarding a player for past performance with massive future money. should have franchised him, no question. "A great game?" You must've missed the rest of his career. He is an exceptional player at a premium position who is just coming into his prime and he got rewarded with the huge deal that he earned. That's not a mistake. The mistakes Denver/Elway are making center around their QB position.
Mr. WEO Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 You don't think with, say, Hughes and a well performing 8-10m player (or upgrading 3-4 positions from middle of the pack to very good) they would be likewise very competitive? Because that's kind of the debate for going forward. He played great in that matchup, no doubt. He played great often last year. But I think it's silly to act like a single pass rusher was the only reason they won despite him being a difference maker. They needed to sign him but if offered a good vet and a couple high picks it's a worthwhile discussion regarding value. "A great game?" You must've missed the rest of his career. He is an exceptional player at a premium position who is just coming into his prime and he got rewarded with the huge deal that he earned. That's not a mistake. The mistakes Denver/Elway are making center around their QB position. NoSaint answers your post better than I can.
NoSaint Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 "A great game?" You must've missed the rest of his career. He is an exceptional player at a premium position who is just coming into his prime and he got rewarded with the huge deal that he earned. That's not a mistake. The mistakes Denver/Elway are making center around their QB position. I think Weo was specifically referencing that game because several posters were saying that game is why you must pay him. Not that he was trying to say it was his only good one.
QCity Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 You don't think with, say, Hughes and a well performing 8-10m player (or upgrading 3-4 positions from middle of the pack to very good) they would be likewise very competitive? Because that's kind of the debate for going forward. He played great in that matchup, no doubt. He played great often last year. But I think it's silly to act like a single pass rusher was the only reason they won despite him being a difference maker. I think they would still be very competitive. Do they win a title in your scenario? Doubtful. I'm certainly not saying he's the only reason they won, I'm saying he was the difference between a deep playoff run and a Lombardi. On-field performance aside, if anything gave me pause it would be his torn ACL.
machine gun kelly Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 I understand people can't relate to these monster contracts that keep going up, but he is an elite player at one of most sought after positions besides QB. He's demonstrated that consistently throughout his rookie deal. He cleaned up his substance abuse issue early, and been a model player on the team. The Broncos needed him so they paid him top non-QB $. I can understand as I had sticker shock when I heard the Watt, Mario Williams, Suh, McCoy deals. With the cap as a moving target, the players are going to keep going up as part of the CBA. How teams divvy up the pot is up to them. It is interesting these last two CBA agreements keeps rookie deals low, stars make a pot of $, and role players as well as serviceable veterans get screwed. Definitely haves and have nots. I can't came Miller though for negotiating this contract. What's crazy to me is a guy like Sam Bradford (aka - the other Mr. Glass) will end up making more money by the time he retires than a stud like Miller.
Mr. WEO Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 I understand people can't relate to these monster contracts that keep going up, but he is an elite player at one of most sought after positions besides QB. He's demonstrated that consistently throughout his rookie deal. He cleaned up his substance abuse issue early, and been a model player on the team. The Broncos needed him so they paid him top non-QB $. I can understand as I had sticker shock when I heard the Watt, Mario Williams, Suh, McCoy deals. With the cap as a moving target, the players are going to keep going up as part of the CBA. How teams divvy up the pot is up to them. It is interesting these last two CBA agreements keeps rookie deals low, stars make a pot of $, and role players as well as serviceable veterans get screwed. Definitely haves and have nots. I can't came Miller though for negotiating this contract. What's crazy to me is a guy like Sam Bradford (aka - the other Mr. Glass) will end up making more money by the time he retires than a stud like Miller. Well that's why the new CBA rookie pay scale is so much better--this will never happen again. Vets get paid--even serviceable ones, because there is so much more money to pay them now. But for a team like the Broncos to invest so much in a non-QB is not going to prove a sound investment--any more than paying Suh, Mario, Haynesworth (and Revis, Josh Norman, Asomugha, etc) have.
YoloinOhio Posted July 16, 2016 Author Posted July 16, 2016 Why Von Millers production justifies record-setting deal from Denver https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-why-von-millers-production-justifies-record-setting-deal-from-denver/
BarleyNY Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) NoSaint answers your post better than I can. You don't think with, say, Hughes and a well performing 8-10m player (or upgrading 3-4 positions from middle of the pack to very good) they would be likewise very competitive? Because that's kind of the debate for going forward. He played great in that matchup, no doubt. He played great often last year. But I think it's silly to act like a single pass rusher was the only reason they won despite him being a difference maker. They needed to sign him but if offered a good vet and a couple high picks it's a worthwhile discussion regarding value. I disagree on several points. You can't compare a contract from 2 years ago with one this offseason. Hughes would have gotten a fair bit more than $9M a year if that deal was done today. It'd probably push $11M a season. It'd certainly be over $10M. They'd have another $8M-$9M left to spend, but the combined production of upgrades from that wouldn't come close to touching the impact of Von Miller had over what Hughes has had. They aren't remotely comparable in terms of impact.Nobody said Von Miller was the only reason the Broncos won the Super Bowl. But he was the single player that did the most to get the Broncos that championship. And it really wasn't even close. The article that Yolo posted explains it better than I can: Why Von Millers production justifies record-setting deal from Denver https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-why-von-millers-production-justifies-record-setting-deal-from-denver/ Edited July 16, 2016 by BarleyNY
Mr. WEO Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 (edited) No one knows what a player "deserves". We are talking about whether it was wise to commit all that money to a defensive player when they could have franchised him, and, if the Broncos didn't do nearly as well as last season (with key player losses and....Sanchez), his value would have dropped by the end of the year. Why buy on the bubble? Edited July 17, 2016 by Mr. WEO
NoSaint Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 I disagree on several points. You can't compare a contract from 2 years ago with one this offseason. Hughes would have gotten a fair bit more than $9M a year if that deal was done today. It'd probably push $11M a season. It'd certainly be over $10M. They'd have another $8M-$9M left to spend, but the combined production of upgrades from that wouldn't come close to touching the impact of Von Miller had over what Hughes has had. They aren't remotely comparable in terms of impact. Nobody said Von Miller was the only reason the Broncos won the Super Bowl. But he was the single player that did the most to get the Broncos that championship. And it really wasn't even close. The article that Yolo posted explains it better than I can: Well, I'll say it's a perfectly valid opinion, and I don't strongly disagree. I would've signed him. But the numbers you ran were pretty much exactly what I said after strongly disagreeing with what I had thrown out as math. I said Hughes plus 8-10 and you came up with 8-9
QCity Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 Well, I'll say it's a perfectly valid opinion, and I don't strongly disagree. I would've signed him. But the numbers you ran were pretty much exactly what I said after strongly disagreeing with what I had thrown out as math. I said Hughes plus 8-10 and you came up with 8-9 Look at it this way -- he's their Dareus. Sure, he has $10M more in guaranteed money, but his AAV is $19M compared to Dareus' $16M AAV. I don't want to sidetrack the discussion about who's better, and I won't dismiss $3M, but is that 3 mil that much more burdensome? On one hand Dareus' contract is praised, and on the other Miller's panned over $3M per year? I believe he's one of the top-3 defensive players in the game right now. If he can repeat what he did the last 5 years, they'll get their money's worth. If not, they can get away from that contract with little pain after 4 years, and it's a certainty that he'll never see that 6th year. For more perspective, Mo Wilkerson's deal pays him $17.2M AAV, only $1.8M off of what Miller just got. Could you imagine suggesting that we let Dareus walk, sign another DT for $8-9M, and use the leftover money to improve other positions? That thread would probably reach 50+ pages. On the other hand, if he hurts his ACL again, the team is screwed. As evidenced by New England (C.Jones), there are certainly teams not willing to make that investment, and I can see that side of the argument too.
BarleyNY Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 (edited) Well, I'll say it's a perfectly valid opinion, and I don't strongly disagree. I would've signed him. But the numbers you ran were pretty much exactly what I said after strongly disagreeing with what I had thrown out as math. I said Hughes plus 8-10 and you came up with 8-9 I read your post as stating Hughes had an $8M-$10M per year contract, not that there was that much left over. I was just working through the numbers for clarity. Edited July 17, 2016 by BarleyNY
NewEra Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 No one knows what a player "deserves". We are talking about whether it was wise to commit all that money to a defensive player when they could have franchised him, and, if the Broncos didn't do nearly as well as last season (with key player losses and....Sanchez), his value would have dropped by the end of the year. Why buy on the bubble? Is franchising him worth failing in 2016? If they stuck to their guns and franchised him he would've sat out. Sure, it sucks for him that he won't be getting paid but it also sucks for the Broncos, who need him this season. Losing your best player and difference maker will have an effect on the teams success. It's a true story. There is no disputing that. They couldn't have plugged that money into another player to replace him this season. They're the defending champs. They want to succeed this season. Signing Von Miller to that contract put them in the best position to succeed this season and the next couple. Sure it may be looked at as a bad contract in a couple years, but sometimes these things need to be done. They think they're the favorites to win the super bowl again. They want to succeed now. Or they could've thrown in the towel this season and franchised him and let him sit out. Could you imagine suggesting that we let Dareus walk, sign another DT for $8-9M, and use the leftover money to improve other positions? That thread would probably reach 50+ pages. Well said. Ralph is cheap?
B-Large Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 Go watch the playoff games for the Broncos, if Miller isn't held most of the playoffs he would have had 50 sacks. His performance in the SB was singularly incredible, it let Derek Wolfe, Malik Jackson and Ware have a field day on the Panthers line and interior blocking.
NoSaint Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 Look at it this way -- he's their Dareus. Sure, he has $10M more in guaranteed money, but his AAV is $19M compared to Dareus' $16M AAV. I don't want to sidetrack the discussion about who's better, and I won't dismiss $3M, but is that 3 mil that much more burdensome? On one hand Dareus' contract is praised, and on the other Miller's panned over $3M per year? I believe he's one of the top-3 defensive players in the game right now. If he can repeat what he did the last 5 years, they'll get their money's worth. If not, they can get away from that contract with little pain after 4 years, and it's a certainty that he'll never see that 6th year. For more perspective, Mo Wilkerson's deal pays him $17.2M AAV, only $1.8M off of what Miller just got. Could you imagine suggesting that we let Dareus walk, sign another DT for $8-9M, and use the leftover money to improve other positions? That thread would probably reach 50+ pages. On the other hand, if he hurts his ACL again, the team is screwed. As evidenced by New England (C.Jones), there are certainly teams not willing to make that investment, and I can see that side of the argument too. Yup. I'll keep saying that I would've signed him (barring some clear and valuable alternative). I can throw out hypotheticals about Hughes and a few other players/picks with 19m but in the end, that's not the deal they had in front of them, and you do need some game changers. It's a risk though, and he had health and off field question marks to a degree.hes excellent on the field though.
Recommended Posts