Yes, the Bengals could save approx $16M by cutting Dalton; but, IMO, I still say the chances are slim they cut him. While it's fun to discuss it, it doesn't matter what any of us think on how Burrows should be handled (start/sit) ... what's the Bengal's approach, and who is making that decision? And what all should be considered in that decision?
Some seem to contend (out of frustration with Dalton, he's the goat) cut him, get him as far away from this organization like right now! Retaining him is seen as "getting in the way" of Burrow's debut. We don't need him.
JMO. Basically "dumping" veteran Dalton and betting the pot on a highly talented, but still yet unproven QB, carries risk. How great is the level of that risk? You don't know.
To the Browns (Bengals) - what, if any, are the advantages of retaining Dalton for '20? Yeah. The "disadvantage" is you have to pay him. IMO, regardless of how "frugal" the Browns are, it may not weigh too heavily (drop in the bucket really).
Advantages of retaining Dalton ....
- who backs Burrows up in case he struggles, gets banged up (injured), whatever? If, God forbid, anything happens to Burrows, and you have no capable back-up, your season is shot. Sign somebody? You not only got "somebody", but he's under contract, and who better to backup and even mentor this rookie then someone who has been in, and knows, the system, the players, etc? Having Dalton on that sideline, even if the decision is made to start Burrows, is far more advantageous (IMO) for Bengals/Burrows then not having him there.
And having Dalton in training camp/pre-season raises the level of competition, and also tells Burrows he still has to prove himself. It takes some of the pressure off Burrows too. A lot of stuff, like injuries, go down in the pre-season, and teams all of a sudden need a QB. A situation the Browns would love to be in.
I think there are more advantages to retaining Dalton then dumping him.