Colbert Indicates Dupree Likely To Play Under 5th-Year Option In 2019 Worth $9.232 Million

[Mojouw]

An average OLB for cheaper than $9+ million.



Saying keep an average OLB for $9+ million ignores the realities of NFL roster construction. You're replacing 42 tackles and 5.5 sacks with another player who can do the same, but for less money. I wouldn't say Chickillo couldn't put up those stats if he played the same amount of snaps.

Dupree played in 869 defensive snaps: 42 tackles, 5.5 sacks. That comes out to a tackle every 20.69 snaps. Every 158 snaps he gets a sack.

Chickillo played in 295 defensive snaps: 24 tackles, 2 sacks. That comes out to a tackle every 12.29 snaps. Every 147.5 snaps he gets a sack. So if Chickillo received 869 snaps he would average out to 70 tackles/5.5 sacks

Chickillo would be far cheaper and you wouldn't have any drop-off. I am not saying Chickillo is the answer, but from a cost and performance standpoint he appears to be a better choice than Dupree. From watching the games I never saw Dupree standout much or do anything extraordinary. There is nothing special about him. He is just average at best.


Now my math could be wrong because I spent the morning trying to figure out my daughter's common core math that has infected the education system.

That's an interesting approach. The only counter I have to it is that when I watch Chickillo play, I see a guy who is really stiff and appears very uncomfortable and slow to move in space. That would be my biggest concern, the off-the line of scrimmage parts of OLB in the Steelers system. Frankly it is my concern with any of the guys that would be below Bud on the FA market.

FA market is going to cost you between 3-6 million. So, I guess, the real question is can anyone in the Steelers FO be confident that for a cap savings of 3-6 million dollars that "random" FA is a "lock" to come in and replicate Dupree's tackles, sacks, pressures/hurries, and whatever he does in coverage? I honestly don't know because the easiest stat to compare is sacks.

I would be seriously interested in the guy that got squeezed off Denver's roster. At worst he comes here and fills Chick-filet's job. At best he pushes Dupree for snaps.

[steelreserve]

An average OLB for cheaper than $9+ million.



Saying keep an average OLB for $9+ million ignores the realities of NFL roster construction. You're replacing 42 tackles and 5.5 sacks with another player who can do the same, but for less money. I wouldn't say Chickillo couldn't put up those stats if he played the same amount of snaps.

Dupree played in 869 defensive snaps: 42 tackles, 5.5 sacks. That comes out to a tackle every 20.69 snaps. Every 158 snaps he gets a sack.

Chickillo played in 295 defensive snaps: 24 tackles, 2 sacks. That comes out to a tackle every 12.29 snaps. Every 147.5 snaps he gets a sack. So if Chickillo received 869 snaps he would average out to 70 tackles/5.5 sacks

Chickillo would be far cheaper and you wouldn't have any drop-off. I am not saying Chickillo is the answer, but from a cost and performance standpoint he appears to be a better choice than Dupree. From watching the games I never saw Dupree standout much or do anything extraordinary. There is nothing special about him. He is just average at best.

The way I see it is this. Any dumbass who shows up to play OLB is going to get about 4 sacks a season - maybe 5 or 6 if they're lucky - and minimum 40-50 tackles. That's just what you get by standing in that place on the field. Any less and it probably means you were playing badly enough that you got benched. The "best" OLBs only have slightly better stats in the overall scheme of things, like 10-15 sacks and a few more tackles. And that's as far as stats go.

How much are 5 extra sacks a year worth? Not a hell of a lot, it's only 5 plays, and maybe half of them even stop a drive. Big fuckin deal. What matters are the 20 other plays for each of those sacks where he messed up the play and had no stats to show for it. On average, you ought to get a sack every once in a while if you're constantly disrupting plays and causing trouble for the offense - but then again, you might not if you were unlucky. And the crappy guy who's not affecting the play at all *coughjasonworildscough* might get almost as many sacks as you if he had better than average luck.

So really we're left with sacks being WAY overrated for telling how good a pass rusher is, and back to the eye test. How much impact is he having on your average play? Is he causing disruption, or sort of holding his ground where he is? (or getting blown off the ball / running himself out of the play, benching-level performance?) Is he stopping people from running to his side? Is he generally in a place where he can make a play - in other words, does the offense have to deal with HIM, or does he have to deal with the offense?

Well, for the first three years, Dupree was borderline benching-level at all of that; any decent OT could play him like a fiddle and just block him right out of the play to the outside. Last year he was sometimes in the second category. SOMETIMES. A lot of that likely had to do with offenses being more concerned about Watt, so the first thing they'd look to do with TEs, RBs and double-teams was to deal with him, not Dupree. It was a little better I guess, but overall, I was not too impressed. Anyone could have done that.

I also don't think Chickillo is the answer; he fails the eye test pretty hard and only had marginally better stats that could also have to do with luck. He's no worse, though.

A big part of the problem is that I think we had so many assclowns and declining older players that the fans forgot what a good OLB looks like. Then got Watt and thought "well, a decent one only comes around once every 10 years and three or four first-round draft picks," when in reality the problem is that we have just been exceptionally bad at it by way of overdrafting flawed players who we are too dumb to fix. A recurring theme with several positions, I might add.

Or the tl;dr version - can't pay shitty players 10 million dollars. If the best argument is "he isnt a huge problem" ... well, you just made it into one by using one of your star-salary slots on it for nothing.

[zulater]

They have to overpay because there’s nothing else at the position...

Yep. He wasn't as bad as some think. He actually played the run fairly well. And while his sack total was not what you'd hope he got quite a few pressures. Bottom line is they're bad at too many positions to worry about upgrading one they're mediocre at.

[steelreserve]

Yep. He wasn't as bad as some think. He actually played the run fairly well. And while his sack total was not what you'd hope he got quite a few pressures. Bottom line is they're bad at too many positions to worry about upgrading one they're mediocre at.

On the other hand, they're bad at too many positions to pay a random average to below-average player like a star. That actually creates one more problem without solving anything.

[Mojouw]

The way I see it is this. Any dumbass who shows up to play OLB is going to get about 4 sacks a season - maybe 5 or 6 if they're lucky - and minimum 40-50 tackles. That's just what you get by standing in that place on the field. Any less and it probably means you were playing badly enough that you got benched. The "best" OLBs only have slightly better stats in the overall scheme of things, like 10-15 sacks and a few more tackles. And that's as far as stats go.

How much are 5 extra sacks a year worth? Not a hell of a lot, it's only 5 plays, and maybe half of them even stop a drive. Big fuckin deal. What matters are the 20 other plays for each of those sacks where he messed up the play and had no stats to show for it. On average, you ought to get a sack every once in a while if you're constantly disrupting plays and causing trouble for the offense - but then again, you might not if you were unlucky. And the crappy guy who's not affecting the play at all *coughjasonworildscough* might get almost as many sacks as you if he had better than average luck.

So really we're left with sacks being WAY overrated for telling how good a pass rusher is, and back to the eye test. How much impact is he having on your average play? Is he causing disruption, or sort of holding his ground where he is? (or getting blown off the ball / running himself out of the play, benching-level performance?) Is he stopping people from running to his side? Is he generally in a place where he can make a play - in other words, does the offense have to deal with HIM, or does he have to deal with the offense?

Well, for the first three years, Dupree was borderline benching-level at all of that; any decent OT could play him like a fiddle and just block him right out of the play to the outside. Last year he was sometimes in the second category. SOMETIMES. A lot of that likely had to do with offenses being more concerned about Watt, so the first thing they'd look to do with TEs, RBs and double-teams was to deal with him, not Dupree. It was a little better I guess, but overall, I was not too impressed. Anyone could have done that.

I also don't think Chickillo is the answer; he fails the eye test pretty hard and only had marginally better stats that could also have to do with luck. He's no worse, though.

A big part of the problem is that I think we had so many assclowns and declining older players that the fans forgot what a good OLB looks like. Then got Watt and thought "well, a decent one only comes around once every 10 years and three or four first-round draft picks," when in reality the problem is that we have just been exceptionally bad at it by way of overdrafting flawed players who we are too dumb to fix. A recurring theme with several positions, I might add.

Or the tl;dr version - can't pay shitty players 10 million dollars. If the best argument is "he isnt a huge problem" ... well, you just made it into one by using one of your star-salary slots on it for nothing.

This is an excellent argument in a vacuum. It is a great objective evaluation of how to establish player evaluation criteria and contract valuation. But it does nothing to account for supply and demand.

The demand for quality OLB/EDGE players so dramatically outweighs the supply it is comical. The situation is such that if Dupree hit the open market he would be ranked as one of the 5-10 best options out there.

I don' t think that anyone disagrees that the bang for the buck with Dupree is not good. Or that upgrades should be aggressively sought. But the idea that you look at Dupree and just say "Nope", cut him and then sign "literally" anyone else and the team is fine is just flying in the face of reality.

TLR -- the dropoff from Dupree to "other random OLB" is far steeper than many realize.

[steelreserve]

This is an excellent argument in a vacuum. It is a great objective evaluation of how to establish player evaluation criteria and contract valuation. But it does nothing to account for supply and demand.

The demand for quality OLB/EDGE players so dramatically outweighs the supply it is comical. The situation is such that if Dupree hit the open market he would be ranked as one of the 5-10 best options out there.

I don' t think that anyone disagrees that the bang for the buck with Dupree is not good. Or that upgrades should be aggressively sought. But the idea that you look at Dupree and just say "Nope", cut him and then sign "literally" anyone else and the team is fine is just flying in the face of reality.

TLR -- the dropoff from Dupree to "other random OLB" is far steeper than many realize.

That's also a convincing argument in a vacuum. But the salary cap means you've got to let guys like this go.

As far as inevitabilities in pro football, Father Time may be undefeated, but Great-Uncle Salary Cap is not far behind, and he comes over a lot more often to have his way with you.

Gross, now I creeped myself out.

[FrancoLambert]

this will be Bud Dupree's breakout season

Yeah, he’s finally going to break out of that brown paper trash bag that has restrained his talent for 4 years.

[zulater]

On the other hand, they're bad at too many positions to pay a random average to below-average player like a star. That actually creates one more problem without solving anything.

It's only for 1 more season though. Not tying down to him beyond 19.

[Mojouw]

That's also a convincing argument in a vacuum. But the salary cap means you've got to let guys like this go.

As far as inevitabilities in pro football, Father Time may be undefeated, but Great-Uncle Salary Cap is not far behind, and he comes over a lot more often to have his way with you.

Gross, now I creeped myself out.

That did take a creepy but hilarious turn!

I can see that, but until they have something to spend the cap dollars on, I don't see the point of having space.

It would be one thing if "Obvious FA Solution to One of the Major Roster Problems" unexpectedly showed up on the FA or trade market and the Steelers were like "Nope! We can't find the $3 million dollars we would need to go get that guy because we gotta keep Dupree."

I think it is just so hard to predict and it is too bad that the 5th year option can't be a bit more flexible to allow for a quick look at FA's.

[steelreserve]

That did take a creepy but hilarious turn!

I can see that, but until they have something to spend the cap dollars on, I don't see the point of having space.

It would be one thing if "Obvious FA Solution to One of the Major Roster Problems" unexpectedly showed up on the FA or trade market and the Steelers were like "Nope! We can't find the $3 million dollars we would need to go get that guy because we gotta keep Dupree."

I think it is just so hard to predict and it is too bad that the 5th year option can't be a bit more flexible to allow for a quick look at FA's.

$10 million can get you a pretty good WR, a good ILB, a decent DB ... heck, it would've gone two-thirds of the way to signing MLK at running back.

I agree the options for what we would use the money on are not crystal clear at this point, but - we have enough issues that at least a handful of intriguing options will present themselves, whether it's a straight FA deal, a trade, a late surprise cut ... it happens every year.

I would also say that even the under-the-radar, Vance-McDonald-slash-Mike-Mitchell-level FAs we tend to sign for $5-6 million (or less) tend to be as productive on average as Dupree if not more, for less money. So even doing that would be more productive for the overall state of the team. Yeah, you get some who don't work out that way too, but they don't cost $10 million either.

[Mojouw]

$10 million can get you a pretty good WR, a good ILB, a decent DB ... heck, it would've gone two-thirds of the way to signing MLK at running back.

I agree the options for what we would use the money on are not crystal clear at this point, but - we have enough issues that at least a handful of intriguing options will present themselves, whether it's a straight FA deal, a trade, a late surprise cut ... it happens every year.

I would also say that even the under-the-radar, Vance-McDonald-slash-Mike-Mitchell-level FAs we tend to sign for $5-6 million (or less) tend to be as productive on average as Dupree if not more, for less money. So even doing that would be more productive for the overall state of the team. Yeah, you get some who don't work out that way too, but they don't cost $10 million either.

Ok. But you need to set aside 5-6 million of the 9 to sign Dupree s replacement.

So you have 3-4 million to spend on the open market.

Team can free that up other places without opening a hole on the defense.

[steelreserve]

It's only for 1 more season though. Not tying down to him beyond 19.

Well then, what's the point at all?

Really - he has a mediocre or shitty season, we wasted a ton of money. He finally has a breakout season, and we get to bid top dollar for him against other teams as a UFA.

We've struggled enough with this fucked that it would be time to give it up soon even if money was not an issue. Since money IS an issue, that makes it a no-brainer.

Now excuse me, I have to go clean up my table from all the soda that went shooting out my nose while I was typing "breakout season."

[steelreserve]

Ok. But you need to set aside 5-6 million of the 9 to sign Dupree s replacement.

So you have 3-4 million to spend on the open market.

Team can free that up other places without opening a hole on the defense.

We're not opening a hole, though, the dude still mostly sucks.

Either way, for $5-6 million to fill the roster spot with someone acceptable, we get an extra $3-4 million that we didn't have before, and then we can free up other money on top of that if we want.

Or just keep the whole $9 million and throw a medium draft pick at it, or even Chickillo for a season, I don't care, it won't get too much worse. "It's only for one year."

Maybe the thing about it that is difficult to explain, is that signing a guy like this, for the amount that it'll cost us - just FEELS like a loser's move. It's signing Willie Colon to a big contract in 2011. It's using the tag on Jason Worilds (or for that matter, drafting Jason Worilds in the second round to begin with). It's refusing to move on from Steve McLendon, or bringing back Dan McCullers last year. Only for more money. You know you're getting a shitty deal that won't help you, but you do it anyway. It's like announcing you're settling for 8th place before the race even started. Sucks!

[86WARD]

We're not opening a hole, though, the dude still mostly sucks.

Steel. Stay on topic. This isn’t a Tom Brady/Robert Kraft thread.

[steelreserve]

Steel. Stay on topic. This isn’t a Tom Brady/Robert Kraft thread.

Agreed, the Patriots would make an excellent landing spot for him.

[teegre]

An average OLB for cheaper than $9+ million.



Saying keep an average OLB for $9+ million ignores the realities of NFL roster construction. You're replacing 42 tackles and 5.5 sacks with another player who can do the same, but for less money. I wouldn't say Chickillo couldn't put up those stats if he played the same amount of snaps.

Dupree played in 869 defensive snaps: 42 tackles, 5.5 sacks. That comes out to a tackle every 20.69 snaps. Every 158 snaps he gets a sack.

Chickillo played in 295 defensive snaps: 24 tackles, 2 sacks. That comes out to a tackle every 12.29 snaps. Every 147.5 snaps he gets a sack. So if Chickillo received 869 snaps he would average out to 70 tackles/5.5 sacks

Chickillo would be far cheaper and you wouldn't have any drop-off. I am not saying Chickillo is the answer, but from a cost and performance standpoint he appears to be a better choice than Dupree. From watching the games I never saw Dupree standout much or do anything extraordinary. There is nothing special about him. He is just average at best.


Now my math could be wrong because I spent the morning trying to figure out my daughter's common core math that has infected the education system.

Well-thought-out post.

Really.

An interesting tidbit is that you actually just used Common Core math in order to create that (excellent) post. You took a “real world” problem, located the crucial numbers, analyzed the raw data, synthesized the data, and presented your results... in order to justify for your stance. THAT is Common Core.

[Mojouw]

Well-thought-out post.

Really.

An interesting tidbit is that you actually just used Common Core math in order to create that (excellent) post. You took a “real world” problem, located the crucial numbers, analyzed the raw data, synthesized the data, and presented your results... in order to justify for your stance. THAT is Common Core.

I don't have to teach common core directly, but I've seen some of the stuff behind it. It seems that it is an attempt to teach "math" by not just rote memorization of basic arithmetic operations, but the meanings of numbers and how they work (number theory?).

For instance I saw one that broke down how to add 35 to 53 and it was all about realizing you have 8 tens and 8 ones. The exercise was overly involved writing all that out and it seemed like a poor way to teach a 5th grader math or whatever...but that is how i do it in my head as an adult. I break whatever the operation I have to do down to things that are easier to do and and then integrate them for the final answer.

Poor example: 20 x 12 is a pain. I have to move numbers around in my head. But (20 x 10) + (20 x 2) is easier and I can do the math quicker.

Sounds like you are familiar with it....is that basically what common core is?

[teegre]

I don't have to teach common core directly, but I've seen some of the stuff behind it. It seems that it is an attempt to teach "math" by not just rote memorization of basic arithmetic operations, but the meanings of numbers and how they work (number theory?).

For instance I saw one that broke down how to add 35 to 53 and it was all about realizing you have 8 tens and 8 ones. The exercise was overly involved writing all that out and it seemed like a poor way to teach a 5th grader math or whatever...but that is how i do it in my head as an adult. I break whatever the operation I have to do down to things that are easier to do and and then integrate them for the final answer.

Poor example: 20 x 12 is a pain. I have to move numbers around in my head. But (20 x 10) + (20 x 2) is easier and I can do the math quicker.

Sounds like you are familiar with it....is that basically what common core is?

Exactly

Analyze the problem (figure out which numbers you need) and then, evaluate the easiest way to solve it.

Having a class discuss (and/or write about) why your aforementioned method is logical is where people get angry. “There’s no writing in math!!!”

[Mojouw]

Exactly

Analyze the problem (figure out which numbers you need) and then, evaluate the easiest way to solve it.

Having a class discuss (and/or write about) why your aforementioned method is logical is where people get angry. “There’s no writing in math!!!”

Ok. I feel like the approach is kinda useful. Demystify math and create a setting where students see math as a tool-kit rather than a scary unknowable thing. I've always thought the fact that we all laugh and make jokes that "math is hard" and "no actual real world people fully understand math" and "why do I need to know this" makes math waaaay harder than it has to be.

But this is taking us down a rabbit hole. And everyone reading this is like:

[Born2Steel]

Let me just say that I have zero problem with cutting Dupree and Chickillo. Use Adams and one of the PS guys in a rotation to save that $9M. But I think he gets that money now anyway.

[teegre]

Ok. I feel like the approach is kinda useful. Demystify math and create a setting where students see math as a tool-kit rather than a scary unknowable thing. I've always thought the fact that we all laugh and make jokes that "math is hard" and "no actual real world people fully understand math" and "why do I need to know this" makes math waaaay harder than it has to be.

But this is taking us down a rabbit hole. And everyone reading this is like:

NERD!!!



Not to derail this thread any longer, but for 20 x 12, my method would be to eliminate the zero from 20 making it just 2. Then, 2x12 =24. Lastly, I’d add the zero back on (x10 technically): 240.

Now... class... discuss which method makes more sense to you: mojoUW’s method or teegre’s method? Why?

[Craic]

Exactly

Analyze the problem (figure out which numbers you need) and then, evaluate the easiest way to solve it.

Having a class discuss (and/or write about) why your aforementioned method is logical is where people get angry. “There’s no writing in math!!!”

I've always thought common core (at least in the addition part of math) is basically teaching how to count out money. What's 89-34? Well. If someone gives you $34. you take a $1 and a $5 out of the register to get $40. Then, you take four $10 bills out to get to 80, a five to get to 85, and four 1s to get to 89. That means you have taken out $55.00. So, 89-34=55.

[steelreserve]

NERD!!!



Not to derail this thread any longer, but for 20 x 12, my method would be to eliminate the zero from 20 making it just 2. Then, 2x12 =24. Lastly, I’d add the zero back on (x10 technically): 240.

Now... class... discuss which method makes more sense to you: mojoUW’s method or teegre’s method? Why?

"What's 20 times 12?"

"Fuck you, ya stupid Mick!"

"Close enough."

[teegre]

I've always thought common core (at least in the addition part of math) is basically teaching how to count out money. What's 89-34? Well. If someone gives you $34. you take a $1 and a $5 out of the register to get $40. Then, you take four $10 bills out to get to 80, a five to get to 85, and four 1s to get to 89. That means you have taken out $55.00. So, 89-34=55.

Bingo!!!

Skip counting / “counting money back” is a commonly-used method by adults, which kids are starting to pick up on (because, it makes a ton of sense).

Personally, I add 1 to each problem (the difference remains the same) making the problem: 90-35. Then, I “count back the money”: You have me $90. It cost $35. So, 35 (+5) is 40 (count by 10s) 50, 60, 70, 80, 90. Voila!... your change is $55.