Burkhead Making A Strong Impression in New England

[Shake n Blake]

(06-15-2017, 09:39 AM)Wyche Wrote: This too.  If your plan was to get Mixon all along (and let's face it, not many other teams wanted him), then get rid of Hill.  Or, as I said earlier, why keep Peerman over Rex?

I never bought that report that only 4-5 teams had Mixon on their board. Maybe in the 1st or 2nd round...but if he kept slipping (I doubt he would've slipped much further), I have a feeling he suddenly would've magically reappeared on plenty of boards. It didn't benefit teams in any way to admit interest, with all the pre-draft negative press he was getting.

(06-15-2017, 10:11 AM)Au165 Wrote: Too many assets tied up in one position. You'd have two guys on 2nd contracts plus a high draft pick. You wouldn't get enough return from all three to justify it. In a cap league you have to use draft picks and cap judiciously in order to sustain a solid roster top to bottom. We would have had Gio, Hill, and Burkhead already for the year. You can't also spend a 2nd round draft pick on that position, you have too many other needs at that point and the 3rd and 4th back will never get enough touches to justify it.

Not about favorites it's about smart roster management. Your not paying two guys "big" money plus bringing in a high draft pick so each one can touch the ball 10 times a game, that is a waste of resources. That is forgetting that you still have Jeremy Hill for the year on a "nothing" contract and he is one of the best redzone/goaline backs in the league.

Pretty much this. Hill has a cap hit of 1.19 million this year, compared to 3.15 million for Burkhead. Why pay that much for Rex when (a) Mixon is clearly the future "bell cow" and (b) Rex won't be taking Gio's job as primary ball catcher out of the backfield? Hill is good enough to serve a placeholder or depth this year, and he comes much cheaper.

Now with all that said, I think we have somewhere around $16 million in cap space. So while in theory it's smart to not throw so much money into one position, not spending that money at all kinda makes it not matter.

(06-15-2017, 11:02 AM)Wyche Wrote: I get that, and it makes good sense.  That said, they always preach the future, and the future is this:  Hill is a turd, most likely gone after this season, and Peerman is getting old, and he's a one trick pony.  In my opinion, you spend a little this year, then next year, Hill is gone, and Rex steps in to replace him AND Peerman, and your savings at the position work out.  You have a more dynamic utility guy behind two good backs, that can play on teams......and step in at WR in a pinch if need be.  Neither Peerman nor Hill can do that.

You'll have to refresh my memory, what are they paying Peerman?

EDIT:  To be fair, I always found Rex to be vastly overrated on here.....but he wound up better than I gave him credit for.  Still not as good as some have touted, but better than I thought, nonetheless.

Peerman has a cap hit of 1.09 million this year. Assuming Rex would've taken a multi-year deal (he signed a 1 year deal) at around the same price, we'd be paying $1 million more for 1 less player. We typically carry 4 RB's though....

Fwiw, I'm with you on Rex being better than I thought but still not as good as some claim.