what I thought was a BBI-myth, he took a hometown discount.
Quote:
“This was a dream (come) true,” Irvin told ESPN’s Vaughn McClure after news of his signing broke. “The Patriots and Steelers offered more money, but being able to play for my city and my people, you just can’t put a price on that.”
as he was a possible free agent option for us in 2016 when we opted for Vernon instead. A comparison of their cost and performance since 2016 (stats from Pro Football Reference):
as he was a possible free agent option for us in 2016 when we opted for Vernon instead. A comparison of their cost and performance since 2016 (stats from Pro Football Reference):
I gotta hand it to you. You can make anything into a point of emphasis as to why you think you were right in a past argument. The fact that you'd go research Bruce Irvin's stats and post them in comparison to Vernon's when this thread has nothing to do with Vernon - during a work day no less - is amazing. Your insatiable need for vindication in pretty much any argument you've ever had on here is truly remarkable.
as he was a possible free agent option for us in 2016 when we opted for Vernon instead. A comparison of their cost and performance since 2016 (stats from Pro Football Reference):
Raiders fans believe that his performance was a by-product of Mack, and that once he was gone and Irvin was left to be the man there, his production fell off a cliff.
Haven't seen enough Raiders games to know, but either he mentally checked out once Mack was gone or they were right.
by not claiming him. They had an 8 week tryout. If he is effective, then keep him and move OV this Spring. If the Giants feel hell-bent on paying OV $15.5M next year, then flip Irvin for a pick. For all I care, flip them both for picks. The Giants were given a draft pick and they chose to not take it.
by not claiming him. They had an 8 week tryout. If he is effective, then keep him and move OV this Spring. If the Giants feel hell-bent on paying OV $15.5M next year, then flip Irvin for a pick. For all I care, flip them both for picks. The Giants were given a draft pick and they chose to not take it.
Why do you feel that the Raiders, in full fire sale mode, were unable to get a pick for him, but the Giants would somehow get something in return for him a season older in 2019?
more fair to see their stats for the 3 years before they got their deals in 2016.
Vernon: 25.5 sacks, 165 tackles, 65 QB hits
Irvin: 14 sacks, 126 tackles, 30 QB hits
That's why Vernon got a better deal.
I'd just as soon not overpay for past performance. There were concerns about that contract at the time - it raised eyebrows with a lot of people that cover the NFL.
jcn's point above about Irvin playing with Mack is a fair one. I'm sure being paired with Mack was a huge advantage and helped make him a more productive player. But he still had that production, and the Raiders got a pretty good return for him.
Contrast that with what we did when we signed Vernon, a guy who it could be argued received a similar boost to Irvin by playing with Cameron Wake. We paid Vernon like he was Wake...a top shelf pass rusher. The Raiders paid Irvin like he was Irvin - a guy whose game would be elevated to a good level by playing with a top shelf pass rusher.
One team got a good bang for the buck, and the other team was the Giants.
There are going to be instances in the near future where it will be possible to make the same type of mistake. Shit, we already did with Solder.
If the Giants want to right the ship there are a lot of things that need to change. One of them is to stop paying A+ money to B players.
by not claiming him. They had an 8 week tryout. If he is effective, then keep him and move OV this Spring. If the Giants feel hell-bent on paying OV $15.5M next year, then flip Irvin for a pick. For all I care, flip them both for picks. The Giants were given a draft pick and they chose to not take it.
Why do you feel that the Raiders, in full fire sale mode, were unable to get a pick for him, but the Giants would somehow get something in return for him a season older in 2019?
There were unsubstantiated rumors that Irvin and Chucky had a vocal escalation where Irvin had shoved Chucky. I didn't post the rumor until another poster had said something similar on the Irvin waived thread. This all occurred after the deadline.
The Giants haven't gotten a good return on Vernon in 2017 and 2018 because of injury. They got fantastic return in 2016.
They overpaid no doubt, and in retrospect it was a bad decision, because in sum the organizational chaos and numerous bad decisions all over the place have landed the team in a very bad place.
There's not a single decision that is beyond reproach when you are looking at consecutive 13 loss seasons.
It's not a tragedy to overpay a few players if you have stable of young talent, an efficient and articulated plan, and a staff and management that is performing.
as he was a possible free agent option for us in 2016 when we opted for Vernon instead. A comparison of their cost and performance since 2016 (stats from Pro Football Reference):
I gotta hand it to you. You can make anything into a point of emphasis as to why you think you were right in a past argument. The fact that you'd go research Bruce Irvin's stats and post them in comparison to Vernon's when this thread has nothing to do with Vernon - during a work day no less - is amazing. Your insatiable need for vindication in pretty much any argument you've ever had on here is truly remarkable.
I also like how he assumes he Irvin was a target for us, and NYG opted for Vernon over him.
Maybe - just maybe - NYG talked to his agent and his agent said he wasn't interested?
Here's a stat for you Terps:
QB hurries for 2016 - Vernon had 37, which was 2nd in the league. Irvin had 14, good for a whopping 71st. Unfortunately, I can't find 2017 stats.
I"m sure you'll dismiss the validity of that stat, since it doesn't fit your argument...
Convenient that you couldn't find 2017 or 2018 stats on hurries - a stat which by the way I haven't seen a good definition for anywhere. I'm honestly asking: where did you find the 2016 number? Pro Football Reference doesn't track them as far as I can tell.
I do have anecdotal evidence from 2016: I remember Al Michaels questioning the Vernon contract on SNF after Aaron Rodgers had his umpteenth 6 second pocket of the evening. I also have BBI's game previews and reviews - they paint a picture of Vernon being very good in some games and being completely invisible in others (including the playoff game in Green Bay).
And here's some more stats on Vernon since he's been here. Check out Spotrac's Value Rankings tool for individual players (linked below). According to the site, the Value Rankings provide "An up-to-date look at the value rankings of all active NFL players based on a mathematical comparison of their current average salary against their cumulative "production points". These points are made up of major statistical categories relevant to that player's position. From there, we generate a z-score for each player among their position, to rank them with a "value"."
Here are Vernon's and Irvin's scores and rankings amongst players at their positions since they each got their 2016 pay day. Note that in 2016-2017 Vernon is scored as a DE. In 2018 he is scored as an OLB. Irvin is scored as an OLB all 3 years:
2016: Vernon - 8.64, 57th amongst DEs, Irvin - 50.24, 30th amongst OLBs
2017: Vernon - 8.82, 67th amongst DEs, Irvin - 47.34, 38th amongst OLBs
2018: Vernon - 13.61, 51st amongst OLBs, Irvin - not scored as he hasn't played 50% of possible snaps
I'll concede Spotrac is just one of many possible tools, but their Value Rankings data is pretty compelling. Incidentally they don't appear to consider hurries - I can't find that data anywhere.
I suppose Spotrac could be wildly wrong in their evaluation, but if they aren't then Vernon has consistently been one of the worst values in the league since we signed him. Link - ( New Window )
shove his head coach, I assume the Giants wouldn't be interested. Why couldn't Oakland get something for him before the trade deadline?
I presume you didn't read or comprehend what was wrote. The alleged incident happened after the deadline. If that is too confusing, let me spell it out. The trade deadline passes at 4PM on Tuesday. The alleged incident happened sometime between Weds. - Sat. Oakland informs Bruce that they intend to waive him on Sat. First order of business on Monday, the Raiders waive Bruce. Tuesday, Bruce passes through waivers.
Now the matter of the Giants not wanting him due to the alleged incident likely is true. But the point remains, Bruce is a proven pass rusher in the league who was placed on waivers. Our cost would have been $3.7M to try him out for the remaining games.
The alleged incident doesn't seem to have been covered Â
The actual football part of it, however - says that his snaps were shrinking up to the deadline because Gruden was prepping to trade him.
Think of it another way - the Giants are one of 31 other teams who didn't claim him. That's because nobody wanted him at that salary. Occam's Razor - nobody was getting a free pick for Irvin when his own team couldn't manage one before the trade deadline.
RE: The alleged incident doesn't seem to have been covered Â
The actual football part of it, however - says that his snaps were shrinking up to the deadline because Gruden was prepping to trade him.
Think of it another way - the Giants are one of 31 other teams who didn't claim him. That's because nobody wanted him at that salary. Occam's Razor - nobody was getting a free pick for Irvin when his own team couldn't manage one before the trade deadline.
That is fair. But even if we weren't playing money ball and flipping players for picks. We were still presented with a low-risk opportunity to acquire a proven pass rusher. A team that is desperate to find a pass rush deems a proven player as not worth it. Now, maybe $3.7M was too much and little benefit in the current lost season. But $9M next year is considerably less than OV's $15.5M for the same production. For those that are claiming Irvin wasn't worth it, then I fully expect those to remain consistent and state that OV is undeserving of the remaining 2 years of his contract at $15.5M for each year.
NESN - ( New Window )
Auto correct thinks so.
Raiders fans seemed to believe he had checked out, and that worsened after Mack was traded and it was obvious the Raiders were in rebuild mode.
Vernon: 5 yrs., $85M, $52.5M guaranteed
31 games, 16 sacks, 3 forced fumbles, 40 QB hits
Irvin: 4 yrs., $37M, $19M guaranteed
40 games, 18 sacks, 11 forced fumbles, 41 QB hits
Vernon: 5 yrs., $85M, $52.5M guaranteed
31 games, 16 sacks, 3 forced fumbles, 40 QB hits
Irvin: 4 yrs., $37M, $19M guaranteed
40 games, 18 sacks, 11 forced fumbles, 41 QB hits
I gotta hand it to you. You can make anything into a point of emphasis as to why you think you were right in a past argument. The fact that you'd go research Bruce Irvin's stats and post them in comparison to Vernon's when this thread has nothing to do with Vernon - during a work day no less - is amazing. Your insatiable need for vindication in pretty much any argument you've ever had on here is truly remarkable.
This team is shit, man. I want to know why it's shit.
Vernon: 5 yrs., $85M, $52.5M guaranteed
31 games, 16 sacks, 3 forced fumbles, 40 QB hits
Irvin: 4 yrs., $37M, $19M guaranteed
40 games, 18 sacks, 11 forced fumbles, 41 QB hits
Raiders fans believe that his performance was a by-product of Mack, and that once he was gone and Irvin was left to be the man there, his production fell off a cliff.
Haven't seen enough Raiders games to know, but either he mentally checked out once Mack was gone or they were right.
This team is shit, man. I want to know why it's shit.
Then you should send your questions and concerns to the Giants.
Vernon: 25.5 sacks, 165 tackles, 65 QB hits
Irvin: 14 sacks, 126 tackles, 30 QB hits
That's why Vernon got a better deal.
Why do you feel that the Raiders, in full fire sale mode, were unable to get a pick for him, but the Giants would somehow get something in return for him a season older in 2019?
Vernon: 25.5 sacks, 165 tackles, 65 QB hits
Irvin: 14 sacks, 126 tackles, 30 QB hits
That's why Vernon got a better deal.
I'd just as soon not overpay for past performance. There were concerns about that contract at the time - it raised eyebrows with a lot of people that cover the NFL.
jcn's point above about Irvin playing with Mack is a fair one. I'm sure being paired with Mack was a huge advantage and helped make him a more productive player. But he still had that production, and the Raiders got a pretty good return for him.
Contrast that with what we did when we signed Vernon, a guy who it could be argued received a similar boost to Irvin by playing with Cameron Wake. We paid Vernon like he was Wake...a top shelf pass rusher. The Raiders paid Irvin like he was Irvin - a guy whose game would be elevated to a good level by playing with a top shelf pass rusher.
One team got a good bang for the buck, and the other team was the Giants.
There are going to be instances in the near future where it will be possible to make the same type of mistake. Shit, we already did with Solder.
If the Giants want to right the ship there are a lot of things that need to change. One of them is to stop paying A+ money to B players.
Quote:
by not claiming him. They had an 8 week tryout. If he is effective, then keep him and move OV this Spring. If the Giants feel hell-bent on paying OV $15.5M next year, then flip Irvin for a pick. For all I care, flip them both for picks. The Giants were given a draft pick and they chose to not take it.
Why do you feel that the Raiders, in full fire sale mode, were unable to get a pick for him, but the Giants would somehow get something in return for him a season older in 2019?
There were unsubstantiated rumors that Irvin and Chucky had a vocal escalation where Irvin had shoved Chucky. I didn't post the rumor until another poster had said something similar on the Irvin waived thread. This all occurred after the deadline.
They overpaid no doubt, and in retrospect it was a bad decision, because in sum the organizational chaos and numerous bad decisions all over the place have landed the team in a very bad place.
There's not a single decision that is beyond reproach when you are looking at consecutive 13 loss seasons.
It's not a tragedy to overpay a few players if you have stable of young talent, an efficient and articulated plan, and a staff and management that is performing.
Quote:
as he was a possible free agent option for us in 2016 when we opted for Vernon instead. A comparison of their cost and performance since 2016 (stats from Pro Football Reference):
Vernon: 5 yrs., $85M, $52.5M guaranteed
31 games, 16 sacks, 3 forced fumbles, 40 QB hits
Irvin: 4 yrs., $37M, $19M guaranteed
40 games, 18 sacks, 11 forced fumbles, 41 QB hits
I gotta hand it to you. You can make anything into a point of emphasis as to why you think you were right in a past argument. The fact that you'd go research Bruce Irvin's stats and post them in comparison to Vernon's when this thread has nothing to do with Vernon - during a work day no less - is amazing. Your insatiable need for vindication in pretty much any argument you've ever had on here is truly remarkable.
I also like how he assumes he Irvin was a target for us, and NYG opted for Vernon over him.
Maybe - just maybe - NYG talked to his agent and his agent said he wasn't interested?
Here's a stat for you Terps:
QB hurries for 2016 - Vernon had 37, which was 2nd in the league. Irvin had 14, good for a whopping 71st. Unfortunately, I can't find 2017 stats.
I"m sure you'll dismiss the validity of that stat, since it doesn't fit your argument...
I don't think it's ever too early to get started though
I do have anecdotal evidence from 2016: I remember Al Michaels questioning the Vernon contract on SNF after Aaron Rodgers had his umpteenth 6 second pocket of the evening. I also have BBI's game previews and reviews - they paint a picture of Vernon being very good in some games and being completely invisible in others (including the playoff game in Green Bay).
And here's some more stats on Vernon since he's been here. Check out Spotrac's Value Rankings tool for individual players (linked below). According to the site, the Value Rankings provide "An up-to-date look at the value rankings of all active NFL players based on a mathematical comparison of their current average salary against their cumulative "production points". These points are made up of major statistical categories relevant to that player's position. From there, we generate a z-score for each player among their position, to rank them with a "value"."
Here are Vernon's and Irvin's scores and rankings amongst players at their positions since they each got their 2016 pay day. Note that in 2016-2017 Vernon is scored as a DE. In 2018 he is scored as an OLB. Irvin is scored as an OLB all 3 years:
2016: Vernon - 8.64, 57th amongst DEs, Irvin - 50.24, 30th amongst OLBs
2017: Vernon - 8.82, 67th amongst DEs, Irvin - 47.34, 38th amongst OLBs
2018: Vernon - 13.61, 51st amongst OLBs, Irvin - not scored as he hasn't played 50% of possible snaps
I'll concede Spotrac is just one of many possible tools, but their Value Rankings data is pretty compelling. Incidentally they don't appear to consider hurries - I can't find that data anywhere.
I suppose Spotrac could be wildly wrong in their evaluation, but if they aren't then Vernon has consistently been one of the worst values in the league since we signed him.
Link - ( New Window )
I presume you didn't read or comprehend what was wrote. The alleged incident happened after the deadline. If that is too confusing, let me spell it out. The trade deadline passes at 4PM on Tuesday. The alleged incident happened sometime between Weds. - Sat. Oakland informs Bruce that they intend to waive him on Sat. First order of business on Monday, the Raiders waive Bruce. Tuesday, Bruce passes through waivers.
Now the matter of the Giants not wanting him due to the alleged incident likely is true. But the point remains, Bruce is a proven pass rusher in the league who was placed on waivers. Our cost would have been $3.7M to try him out for the remaining games.
The actual football part of it, however - says that his snaps were shrinking up to the deadline because Gruden was prepping to trade him.
Think of it another way - the Giants are one of 31 other teams who didn't claim him. That's because nobody wanted him at that salary. Occam's Razor - nobody was getting a free pick for Irvin when his own team couldn't manage one before the trade deadline.
The actual football part of it, however - says that his snaps were shrinking up to the deadline because Gruden was prepping to trade him.
Think of it another way - the Giants are one of 31 other teams who didn't claim him. That's because nobody wanted him at that salary. Occam's Razor - nobody was getting a free pick for Irvin when his own team couldn't manage one before the trade deadline.
That is fair. But even if we weren't playing money ball and flipping players for picks. We were still presented with a low-risk opportunity to acquire a proven pass rusher. A team that is desperate to find a pass rush deems a proven player as not worth it. Now, maybe $3.7M was too much and little benefit in the current lost season. But $9M next year is considerably less than OV's $15.5M for the same production. For those that are claiming Irvin wasn't worth it, then I fully expect those to remain consistent and state that OV is undeserving of the remaining 2 years of his contract at $15.5M for each year.