Is Vrabel worth $5M?

[Clonamery]

.......Thats not a good trend, and theres a very real possiblility that he will be washed up this year.

More or less than Bruschi or Jarvis Green.......slippery slope you're on.

 

[Rob0729]

Paying Vrabel makes more sense than paying Jarvis Green $5 million to be a back up.

 

[BradyManny]

Again, cut the hyperbole and actually read my posts.

You can be obviously declining and not be washed up. Hes an average to slightly below average starter, not washed up. He was elite two years ago. Thats not a good trend, and theres a very real possiblility that he will be washed up this year.

Would it make a difference to you if he was playing through a shoulder injury, as reported a few times during the season?

Mike Vrabel Stats, News, Photos - New England Patriots - ESPN

Tell me how its obvious he is declining. Aside from the year he played inside causing a higher tackle total and 07 when his sacks were up, tell me how his 08 production was wildly different than his norm as a Patriot.

 

[Synovia]

More or less than Bruschi or Jarvis Green.......slippery slope you're on.

One bad contract doesn't justify another.


The fact that Jarvis Green isn't earning his contract doesn't mean we should keep every other player who is.


Vrable is a liability in coverage now, when he used to be quite good. Hes not the pass rusher he used to be.

 

[Synovia]

Would it make a difference to you if he was playing through a shoulder injury, as reported a few times during the season?

He'll be 34 before the season starts. Even if he was injured, theres no reason to think he'll ever come back 100%. Guys past 30 generally don't.

Even if it was all injury, I'd still be looking for his replacement right now.

 

[Clonamery]

One bad contract doesn't justify another.


The fact that Jarvis Green isn't earning his contract doesn't mean we should keep every other player who is.


Vrable is a liability in coverage now, when he used to be quite good. Hes not the pass rusher he used to be.

In a vacuum your criticism may be justified as it speaks to only one point in time. I'll pass on your interpretation. Thanks.

 

[Synovia]

In a vacuum your criticism may be justified as it speaks to only one point in time. I'll pass on your interpretation. Thanks.

One point in time? I don't get your point.


Are you trying to say we should evaluate whether or not Vrable is worth $5m based on how he played a couple of years ago?

 

[DaBruinz]

Nobody said that Suggs or Dansby would only cost what Vrabel's cap hit is. They are premiere players so they are likely going to cost more. But the money that we saved from cutting him could certainly be allocated for spending on an UPGRADE to the OLB position.

That's not so hard to understand is it? Would you rather have an aging and deteriorating OLB taking up that cap space, or use his money towards acquiring an upgrade?

Additionally, there IS precedent for BB cutting the overpaid, underperforming OLB to make room for an upgrade to the position. See Colvin, Rosevelt.

One player is hardly a precedent. If you went on to mention McGinest, you might have something. However, what you don't have is the numbers to support that. The numbers were much more significant than 3.3 million in savings when they cut McGinest and Colvin.

Now, about you other dumbarse snide comments. I never said that it would only take 3.3 million to sign either Suggs or Dansby. That was only you making the assumption. The additional 3.3 million to what the Pats have currently. And there is no guarantee that Suggs or Dansby fit into the Patriots scheme, so cutting Vrabel ahead of time wouldn't be a good thing.

So, is it too hard for you to take your head out of your arse and see that no one was attacking you? Or do you always make that sort of dumb assumption and get defensive?

 

[DaBruinz]

Finally someone who sees the bottom line. And yes those over 30 players are all at very different POINTS in their careers. Vrabel is not currently worth what he is earning.

So much for you not bagging on Vrabel.

I saw the bottom line just fine. In fact, I was the one who corrected you since your numbers were wrong. But I don't expect you to admit that. Its not your style.

 

[DaBruinz]

Maybe he's not worth 5 milli, but you're going to pay him 1.5 million this season whether he plays or not, why not pay another 3+ milli to have him play? Where are you going to find a replacement? And how could you do it for 3+ million? FYI, the guy that agrees with you (Synovia) is the same guy that wants to trade or cut Brady in spite of all the dead money that would be owed to him, just to save a few money in 2010, which, as of now, would be an uncapped season anyway.

Where do you get that they are going to pay Vrabel 1.5 Million whether they cut him or not? That's a false statement.

The 1.03 million that would hit the Pats cap is money that has already been paid to Vrabel. Its only a savings of 3.36 million to cut him. Its not that much, all things considered. Could the Pats do it? Sure. Anything is possible.

 

[DaBruinz]

Paying Vrabel makes more sense than paying Jarvis Green $5 million to be a back up.

Rob - You are usually better than that. They aren't paying Jarvis Green $5 million to be a back-up. They are paying him a $2.5 million salary. We don't know whether the 1.9 million is a roster bonus or LTBE that wasn't earned or what.

Cutting Green this year would save the Pats 4.4 million, but I think its more likely that he'll be signed to an extension.

 

[Synovia]

One player is hardly a precedent. If you went on to mention McGinest, you might have something. However, what you don't have is the numbers to support that. The numbers were much more significant than 3.3 million in savings when they cut McGinest and Colvin.

Its much better to cut a player a year too early than a year too late. I'm having a hard time finding what Lawyer Milloy's salary was supposed to be in 2003, but there was still $6M worth of bonus left. They basically broke even that year, and it cost them $4m more the next year.


And thats when the cap was only 70M.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Again, cut the hyperbole and actually read my posts.

You can be obviously declining and not be washed up. Hes an average to slightly below average starter, not washed up. He was elite two years ago. Thats not a good trend, and theres a very real possiblility that he will be washed up this year.

And, as they say, you can fit a line between any two points. What it comes down to is what the Patriots project out of Vrabel in 2009. It's quite likely that it is somewhere between what he did in 2007 and what he did in 2008, especially if Vrabel really was injured as a number of articles claimed.

 

[Synovia]

What it comes down to is what the Patriots project out of Vrabel in 2009.

Completely agree.

It's quite likely that it is somewhere between what he did in 2007 and what he did in 2008, especially if Vrabel really was injured as a number of articles claimed.

I would agree with that if Vrable was 26. 2007 (as far as stats go) was clearly a career year for him. He's on the wrong side of thirty, so even without any precipitous decline, you'd still expect him to be closer to 2008 than 2007. The fact that hes coming off an injury is NOT a good thing.

From what I've seen of Vrable this year, hes lost his first step. Hes just not fast enough anymore, and a healthy shoulder is not going to fix that.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Paying Vrabel makes more sense than paying Jarvis Green $5 million to be a back up.

Jarvis Green is another candidate for contract renogotiation or cutting. Thanks for bringing that up but anyways this thread was focusing mainly on Vrabel because I think that with the free agents available this offseason, that the OLB position CAN be upgraded without using draft picks.

And losing Vrabel's salary would help a great deal in offsetting the contract acquiring a new OLB would cost. Vrabel looked to be in clear decline in 2008 and he simply does not have the speed he used to have. If we can get another AD caliber player on the opposite side next year, that could be a significant step forward for the D. As somebody here mentioned, cutting a guy a year early is often better than cutting him a year late.

I know that Vrabel is a fan favorite because of what he's done for us in the past. But we have to look beyond sentimentality if we want to improve our team. An effective GM has to be a little cold and heartless when making personnel decisions. What is really the most effective use of resources and cap dollars? Could cutting Vrabel be a more effective use of cap money? It might, depending on the move following that.

 

[BradyManny]

He'll be 34 before the season starts. Even if he was injured, theres no reason to think he'll ever come back 100%. Guys past 30 generally don't.

Guys past 30 can't come back 100% from injuries? Now you're just making stuff up.

 

[BradyManny]

Where do you get that they are going to pay Vrabel 1.5 Million whether they cut him or not? That's a false statement.

The 1.03 million that would hit the Pats cap is money that has already been paid to Vrabel. Its only a savings of 3.36 million to cut him. Its not that much, all things considered. Could the Pats do it? Sure. Anything is possible.

Sorry my #s were off, I hadn't checked Miguel's page and was just ball parking.

Yes, as you say what I meant was that 1.03 milli of Vrabel's cap hit would be dead money. I agree with your assessment - the saving are not worth cutting Vrabel. He's still a good player for this team, and I have no problem with his cap hit being what it is.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Sorry my #s were off, I hadn't checked Miguel's page and was just ball parking.

Yes, as you say what I meant was that 1.03 milli of Vrabel's cap hit would be dead money. I agree with your assessment - the saving are not worth cutting Vrabel. He's still a good player for this team, and I have no problem with his cap hit being what it is.

The only problem is that it is fast looking like Vrabel is trending towards a McGinest end to his career. Both McGinest and Colvin were cut when their cap hits did not match their anticipated performance on the field.

Willie McGinest: Career Stats

McGinests numbers his last season in NE and his first 2 years in Cleveland look a lot like Vrabel's last year with the Pats. They show clear decline. And McGinest was cut after a 6 sack performance in 2005. But I'm not depending on just the numbers, from an eye test perspective, Vrabel just doesn't have the speed to pressure the QB like he used to.

Look at Colvin's numbers in his last 2 seasons before he got cut.
Rosevelt Colvin: Career Stats

Looking at Rosie and McGinest, the most similar player on the roster to them is Vrabel. There is a pattern here. Guys who are in physical decline at OLB, who aren't earning what they are currently worth have been cut in the past.

Suggs could be just the player to revive the OLB position opposite from AD. Take a look at his stat line.

Terrell Suggs: Career Stats

In 2007 he had fewer sacks but more tackles. To me that suggests that the DL was not doing as well so he probably had more responsibilities accounting for the run. In 2008 he rebounded with an 8 sack performance and his tackles normalized to career average. And this guy is still only 27 years old! Do I know if Suggs will definitely fit as a 3-4 OLB in the Pats system? No, but I know that AD who came from the same system made the transition and that a D with both Suggs and AD would likely be a huge improvent over a D featuring a declining Vrabel + AD.

Look I'm not saying Suggs is the only answer at OLB, that's not necessarily the case. But there's definitely room for improvement at OLB. And if that's the case, it may well be time to say goodbye to Vrabel and his cap hit.

 

[Synovia]

Guys past 30 can't come back 100% from injuries? Now you're just making stuff up.

Guys past 30 usually decline every year. ITs part of getting older. He COULD come back 100%, but its hardly a guarantee.

Also, its almost a guarantee that his 100% is lower than it was last year.

 

[Deus Irae]

Guys past 30 usually decline every year. ITs part of getting older. He COULD come back 100%, but its hardly a guarantee.

Also, its almost a guarantee that his 100% is lower than it was last year.

So, you must be older than 30 and coming off an internet posting injury.....?