If you look at our 1st, 2nd & 3rd rounders over the past two years, only is Pouncey someone I would truly have to think hard about. Odrick, Misi and Jerry? I like Odrick, but we're strong on the DL even without him. Misi may not even have a starting position next year. Daniel Thomas? I like his potential a lot, but RBs can come from any round and have near-immediate impacts.

To be honest, I'm pretty close to "all in" for RGIII at this point. I would trade those 5 for the #2 pick right now (sorry guys). Frankly, I don't think we'll be able to land the pick with just draft picks...I think it will take a combination of picks and a player(s).

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ken Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Look, I simply think the draft picks
> collectively
> > are worth much, much, more than ANY one player
> is
> > worth...there are zero guarantee's that RGIII
> will
> > be a francise guy, same as all of the other
> > options. It's a sizeable risk no matter which
> way
> > we go but at least Flynn (my personal choice)
> has
> > shown that he can do it in the pro's, and would
> be
> > up to speed and comfortable, from day one.
>
>
> Ken,
>
> I get it. If you don't think RG3 is a franchise
> QB that's fine. Only time will tell who is right
> or wrong on that score.

RE: No you don't. I NEVER said anywhere that RGIII isn't a franchise QB. I never said anywhere either that I thought he wasn't. RGIII would be the guy I'd take in a hot second if we could get him with our pick, or in a reasonable trade up scenario...I don't think the prick just to get into talks with St. Louis (2, 1st's, a 2nd, and a 3rd is reasonable...because those picks are more valuable to the team than a single player will be...and BTW, those picks won't seal the deal. It'll take more than that to get him. The price is too high...enter Tannehill at #8 if we want a similar QB.
>
> But the notion that all positions are created
> equal in the NFL is as off base as the idea that
> we should never raise taxes.

RE: I agree. They are not.
>
> If you think the price is to steep for RG3 that is
> one thing. If you think the price is too steep
> for a franchise QB (Marino, etc) that's an
> entirely different issue.

RE: Here's the thing, great as Marino was what did he get us...winning seasons and usually home in January. One player does not a team make especially when that player has yet to prove ANYTHING in the big leagues.
>
> Here are the 1st, 2nd and 3rd round picks over the
> last 2 years for the last two Super Bowl winners:
>
> GB: 2011 - Derek Sherrod (1), Randall Cobb (2),
> Alex Green (3)
> 2010 - Brian Bualaga (1), Mike Neal (2),
> Morgan Burnett (3)
>
> NYG: 2011 - Prince Amukamura (1), Marvin Austin
> (2), Jerrel Jernigan (3)
> 2010 - Jason Pierre-Paul (1), Linval Joseph
> (2).
>
> Those are two of the BEST/DEEPEST rosters in the
> NFL today. Outside of Pierre Paul there isn't a
> great player among them.
>
> There probably isn't a GM in the league that
> wouldn't trade all 11 of them, let alone 5 of
> them, for and elite/franchise/HOF QB like Marino
> or Rodgers or Manning if they didn't already have
> one.

RE: Taking a gamble is all fine and dandy...but you can't make a TEAM without a good OVERALL roster...we are not there yet and won't be next season, RGIII or no RGIII.
>
> There are a LOT of ways to build depth on a team.
> Its not just about your 1st and 2nd round picks.

RE: The problem is that the Phins don't just need depth...they need quality depth...and some very high quality starters, right now we don't have them. If we trade away a boat load of picks we will continue in that mold.
>
> I think you grossly over value those picks and
> just as badly undervalue the importance of an
> elite QB.

RE: I do value draft picks quite a bit, but you have to pick the right players...giving away those picks only makes it much harder to find them. I'm all for us getting a franchise guy, just not all for mortaging the future to get him.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I mean let's say for instance that we add Flynn
> > and stick with Moore as the backup. Then we add
> a
> > Dominate RG in Rd 1, and a big play TE in Rd 2.
> > Then next year we add a Dominate RT in Rd 1 and
> a
> > big play S in Rd 3...the team is much better
> off
> > than it would be with RGIII along with a 3rd and
> a
> > 2nd.
>
> There's more than one way to skin a cat for sure.
> Flynn could be a steal at QB and if he only cost
> money then you are ahead of the game.
>
> But you have a lot of "if's" when it comes to our
> drafting success in that scenario.
>
> Even at the best of positions we have roughly a
> 50/50 shot at whiffing on our first round pick.
> Just look at the list above from the Giants and
> Packers. Nobody hits home runs all the time.
> Even the best teams miss.
>
> Heck, "what if" RG3 turns out to be the greatest
> QB of all time? You still don't want him?
>
>
> >
> > But drafting Tannehill hedges our bets at
> > QB...same as Wheeden would in the 2nd. The big
> > difference is this, RGIII had better be ready
> to
> > play at a high level from day one, even if he
> has
> > to sit on the bench for a little while due to
> an
> > interim veteran guy starting.
>
> You'll never get me to agree on Tannehill.
> Drafting a developmental guy witht he 8th overall
> pick a mere 5 weeks after signing a guy you had in
> your system for 4 years to franchise money is
> dysfunctional and an appalling waste of
> resources.
>
> Wheeden in round 2 makes FAR more sense if as a GM
> you are so concerned with your ability to judge
> talent that you feel the need to hedge your bet.
>
> RG3 will be ready when he's ready. There is no
> requirement that he come in and break Cam Newton's
> records for Rookie QB's. If it takes him 3 years
> like it did Aaron Rodgers...so be it. Everyone
> develops at their own rate. Putting the pressure
> of your own preconceptions on him or any player is
> a disservice to that player...especially if you
> are calling shots as the GM/coach.

Panteraize Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ken Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > > RGIII, well the latest guess is that St.
> Louis
> > is
> > > asking for a 1st and 2nd this year, and a 1st
> > and
> > > 3rd next year...as an preliminary entry level
> > > offer...no thanks. Even Marino, great as he
> > was,
> > > was not worth that much.
>
>
>
> > If you wouldn't trade a pair of #1's, a #2 and
> a
> > #3 over a 2 year span for a Hall of Fame QB
> you
> > need to start watching another sport.
>
>
>
> Was that a serious statement????? Were you
> actually being serious?
>
> Ok lets see here, two 1st round picks, one 2nd
> round pick, and one 3rd round pick. Let's refer
> back to our draft history and see how that shakes
> out.....
>
> ......Ok got it:
>
> Yeah the best passer of all time is definitely not
> worth 1)Jared Odrick, 3)John Jerry, 1)Vontae
> Davis, and 2)Pat White. Or Jason Allen, Derek
> Hagan, Teg Ginn Jr., and John Beck. Yeah those
> guys are IRRE-FREAKIN-PLACEABLE!! Seriously, how
> can you say that a lousy small handful of picks is
> more valuable than Dan Marino? DAN MARINO! I mean
> really! In fact, even if those picks were all
> STUDS, I STILL would do the trade to get Dan
> Marino in a nanosecond!
>
> I mean, thats got to be the silliest thing I've
> ever read on this website (Miami Thunder's full
> resume' included)
>
> An elite, PROLIFIC franchise Quarterback will
> always be worth more than a really good corner, a
> pro-bowl guard, a good receiver, and a solid DE.
> ALWAYS!


RE: How the Phins have drafted in the past with similar picks means nothing...

Worth more huh? Tell that to the list of non franchise QB's that have won superbowls. Guy's, I do get the point here a franchise guy is a very desirable thing to have especially in todays NFL. They don't grow on trees and if we can get one we should. However I simply think the price of moving up will be too great versus the reward of a single player...especially since there are ZERO gurantee's the one we choose is going to be great. I'd be much more comfortable going into 2012 with Flynn, Moore, and Tannehill, than I would be with Moore, Griffin, and JP Losman or Devlin, or ?

Super Bowl XV - Jim Plunkett
Super Bowl XVIII - Jim Plunkett
Super Bowl XX - Jim McMahon
Super Bowl XXI - Phil Simms
Super Bowl XXII - Doug Williams
Super Bowl XXV - Jeff Hostetler
Super Bowl XXVI - Mark Rypien
Super Bowl XXXIV - Kurt Warner
Super Bowl XXXV - Trent Dilfer
Super Bowl XXXVII - Brad Johnson

> Super Bowl XV - Jim Plunkett
> Super Bowl XVIII - Jim Plunkett
> Super Bowl XX - Jim McMahon
> Super Bowl XXI - Phil Simms
> Super Bowl XXII - Doug Williams
> Super Bowl XXV - Jeff Hostetler
> Super Bowl XXVI - Mark Rypien
> Super Bowl XXXIV - Kurt Warner
> Super Bowl XXXV - Trent Dilfer
> Super Bowl XXXVII - Brad Johnson

Kurt Warner and Phil Simms are both border line Hall of Fame QB's.

They are clearly "franchise" or (especially) in Warner's case even "elite" Qb's.

Kurt Warner and Jim Plunkett I would consider franchise and hall of fame qb's. Simms belongs w/ the other guys on the list. Any capable qb could have guided those NY teams to S Bowl wins.

THE Truth Wrote:

You'll never get me to agree on Tannehill.
> Drafting a developmental guy witht he 8th overall
> pick a mere 5 weeks after signing a guy you had in
> your system for 4 years to franchise money is
> dysfunctional and an appalling waste of
> resources.

RE: I'm not asking you to agree with me here. Tannehill isn't a developmental guy IMHO. The reason for taking Tannehill at #8 after signing Flynn is that we need options at the position and it's called drafting for the future and having a fall back position if the worst happens...Flynn and Moore (and whoose to say we keep him) could very easilly get hurt, then we are out of options.
>
> Wheeden in round 2 makes FAR more sense if as a GM
> you are so concerned with your ability to judge
> talent that you feel the need to hedge your bet.

RE: I agree Wheeden makes sense in Rd. 2. If he's there and we have not taken a QB earlier I'd take him in a hot second. We are in a position where we need a QB and our pick is #8...we either take one there, (Tannehill might still be there) trade up, (bet the farm) or trade down (might not get him at all). Those are the options, I happen to think Tanehill will be a good pro, just like I think RGIII will be...i just think the asking price for RGIII is too steep and will get even steeper in the next few weeks. Tannehill is a risk, but one that I take if I'm the GM. RGIII is too but he's one I wouldn't take based soley on the sticker price. (nothing to do with his play or his potential)

"IF" we sign Flynn I would be perfectly happy with waiting on Wheeden and passing on Tannehill...but, if we take a QB with our #1 then Tannehill's my guy based on his familiarity with our OC, our system, his talent, his accuracy, his athletisim, arm, and his great deep ball.

>
> RG3 will be ready when he's ready. There is no
> requirement that he come in and break Cam Newton's
> records for Rookie QB's. If it takes him 3 years
> like it did Aaron Rodgers...so be it. Everyone
> develops at their own rate. Putting the pressure
> of your own preconceptions on him or any player is
> a disservice to that player...especially if you
> are calling shots as the GM/coach.

RE: Yes, but there will be ALOT of pressure for RGIII to play right away...and he will play because of it, ready or not. Breaking records I agree should not even enter the discussion. If we trade up for him, I believe we pass on Manning, and Flynn...if we sign one of them AND then trade up for RGIII then I will be truly shocked.

MiaThunderStunner probably would have some comment on the name but, Plunkett was a #1 overall draft pick.

mizzou15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Super Bowl XV - Jim Plunkett
> > Super Bowl XVIII - Jim Plunkett
> > Super Bowl XX - Jim McMahon
> > Super Bowl XXI - Phil Simms
> > Super Bowl XXII - Doug Williams
> > Super Bowl XXV - Jeff Hostetler
> > Super Bowl XXVI - Mark Rypien
> > Super Bowl XXXIV - Kurt Warner
> > Super Bowl XXXV - Trent Dilfer
> > Super Bowl XXXVII - Brad Johnson
>
> Kurt Warner and Phil Simms are both border line
> Hall of Fame QB's.
>
> They are clearly "franchise" or (especially) in
> Warner's case even "elite" Qb's.
>
> Kurt Warner and Jim Plunkett I would consider
> franchise and hall of fame qb's. Simms belongs w/
> the other guys on the list. Any capable qb could
> have guided those NY teams to S Bowl wins.

Yeah....I'm not going to judge Phil Simms, or any other QB for that matter, on what someone else MIGHT have done in his place.

Simms completed 55% of his passes over 14 injury plagued years (159 starts) for 33,462 yards 199TD's and 157 Ints.


Plunkett completed 52.5% of his passes for 25,882 yards in 15 seasons (144 starts) throwing 164 TD's and 197 Ints.


The only QB n the HOF with more INT's than TD's is Joe Namath.

Sims is a borderline HOF QB based on his career.

Plunkett is not.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ken Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Panteraize Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > THE Truth Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Ken Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > RGIII, well the latest guess is that St.
> > > Louis
> > > > is
> > > > > asking for a 1st and 2nd this year, and a
> > 1st
> > > > and
> > > > > 3rd next year...as an preliminary entry
> > level
> > > > > offer...no thanks. Even Marino, great as
> he
> > > > was,
> > > > > was not worth that much.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > If you wouldn't trade a pair of #1's, a #2
> > and
> > > a
> > > > #3 over a 2 year span for a Hall of Fame
> QB
> > > you
> > > > need to start watching another sport.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Was that a serious statement????? Were you
> > > actually being serious?
> > >
> > > Ok lets see here, two 1st round picks, one
> 2nd
> > > round pick, and one 3rd round pick. Let's
> refer
> > > back to our draft history and see how that
> > shakes
> > > out.....
> > >
> > > ......Ok got it:
> > >
> > > Yeah the best passer of all time is
> definitely
> > not
> > > worth 1)Jared Odrick, 3)John Jerry, 1)Vontae
> > > Davis, and 2)Pat White. Or Jason Allen, Derek
> > > Hagan, Teg Ginn Jr., and John Beck. Yeah
> those
> > > guys are IRRE-FREAKIN-PLACEABLE!! Seriously,
> > how
> > > can you say that a lousy small handful of
> picks
> > is
> > > more valuable than Dan Marino? DAN MARINO! I
> > mean
> > > really! In fact, even if those picks were all
> > > STUDS, I STILL would do the trade to get Dan
> > > Marino in a nanosecond!
> > >
> > > I mean, thats got to be the silliest thing
> I've
> > > ever read on this website (Miami Thunder's
> full
> > > resume' included)
> > >
> > > An elite, PROLIFIC franchise Quarterback will
> > > always be worth more than a really good
> corner,
> > a
> > > pro-bowl guard, a good receiver, and a solid
> > DE.
> > > ALWAYS!
> >
> >
> > RE: How the Phins have drafted in the past with
> > similar picks means nothing...
> >
> > Worth more huh? Tell that to the list of non
> > franchise QB's that have won superbowls. Guy's,
> I
> > do get the point here a franchise guy is a very
> > desirable thing to have especially in todays
> NFL.
> > They don't grow on trees and if we can get one
> we
> > should. However I simply think the price of
> moving
> > up will be too great versus the reward of a
> single
> > player...especially since there are ZERO
> > gurantee's the one we choose is going to be
> great.
> > I'd be much more comfortable going into 2012
> with
> > Flynn, Moore, and Tannehill, than I would be
> with
> > Moore, Griffin, and JP Losman or Devlin, or ?
> >
> > Super Bowl XV - Jim Plunkett
> > Super Bowl XVIII - Jim Plunkett
> > Super Bowl XX - Jim McMahon
> > Super Bowl XXI - Phil Simms
> > Super Bowl XXII - Doug Williams
> > Super Bowl XXV - Jeff Hostetler
> > Super Bowl XXVI - Mark Rypien
> > Super Bowl XXXIV - Kurt Warner
> > Super Bowl XXXV - Trent Dilfer
> > Super Bowl XXXVII - Brad Johnson
>
> Kurt Warner and Phil Simms are both border line
> Hall of Fame QB's.

RE: Simms was a slightly above average player that happened to be on a good team...if he gets in the HOF then so be it but there are a few HOF fame QB's that the term franchise does not really apply to.
>
> They are clearly "franchise" or (especially) in
> Warner's case even "elite" Qb's.

RE: I few seasons does not make you elite QB. Warner played 12 seasons and only 6 of them were good or great...and only four of those were world class efforts. Very good to be sure, but elite, bit of a stretch, IMHO.
>
> So that's 7 QB's to win Super bowls that weren't
> franchise QB's in 46 Super bowls.
>
> 2 in the last 20 years.
>
> Seems to me that argues in favor of finding a
> franchise guy no matter what the cost, not against
> it.

RE: I'm not saying we shouldn't try to find one...we should, but we shouldn't over pay for him. The point is that in the history of the superbowl there have been zero franchise QB's that won titles with an average/below average team around them. There have been a few very average QB's however that won titles.

Hooligan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MiaThunderStunner probably would have some comment
> on the name but, Plunkett was a #1 overall draft
> pick.


RE: And a Heisman trophy winner...that for most of his career was an unmitigated bust. Until he found Da Raida's

Krunk Fu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Quite the conspiracy theory you've got there.
>

Doesn't take much of a conspiracy. With a few lucky breaks, we could have been a 9-7 team.

> NFL teams don't just tank entire seasons on
> purpose. Just look at the players' reactions to
> the "suck for Luck" campaign. Current NFL players
> don't give a damn about Andrew Luck, and they're
> certainly not going to play poorly on purpose so
> that Irsay can fit Luck into his evil master plan.

So then you believe in a bigger fairy tale and that is that team management, coaches, OC, DC, cannot control a game with their decision making.

Hell, our own management does it through sheer incompetence. Running the wildcat once we got into the red zone all last year, taking the momentum away from either the running game of Ricky and Ronnie or whenever Henne did get on a hot streak.....

Playing prevent defense when you have only a 7 point lead with 5 minutes left to go in the game.............

You are very naive. If an incompetent coach can unintentionally throw a game...and it doesn't take much of a shading of a game to turn a 3 point win into a 3 point loss, why cannot a competent one.


As for the players. No, SILLY. The players are not told to go out and tank it. It's just that you don't call the best plays, you don't play the best players at the right time, you make the wrong decisions at crucial times, etc., etc., etc.

>
>
> So yes, I believe that Peyton Manning has a bigger
> impact on his team than any other player in the
> league, and I think its fairly obvious when you
> compare the Colts teams with Manning to those
> without Manning.

Isn't that what the discussion is about in the first place. I say that the Colts team was solid and that when Manning went down, the Colts higher ups starting thinking about the future.

They enjoyed a decade of success
> with him at the helm, and then fell to the worst
> team in the league in one season. Yet, you think
> its ridiculous to believe that with Peyton can
> help a 6-10 team get into the playoffs.

Whoa! Where did I ever say that! What I said is that we need to rebuild OUR team and to do so, I see the only reasonable strategies being 1) if we can't get RGIII in the first round, upgrade the team at OL, get Weeden in the 2nd round and continue to upgrade that 6-10 team or 2) get Matt Flynn and still repeat no. 1 above or 3) get RGIII.

I don't see it as reasonable to get an ole man who's injured just to "make the playoffs" for a couple of years and then be ASS RIGHT BACK to where we started from at that time with no franchise QB and nothing but a couple of quick exits from the playoffs to show for it.


>
> If you think this team has a better chance of
> winning with Matt Moore than with Peyton Manning,
> then there's a deeper issue here.

Where did I say that. How does drafting RGIII, signing Flynn, or drafting Weeden get down to winning with Matt Moore.

Dude no one else the hell except YOU has said the issue is only Peyton Manning or Matt Moore.

Sure Matt Moore will stay on the team as insurance but who said anything about him being our only QB plan????????????????????????????



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 06:59PM by ChyrenB.

You are quite delusional.

Krunk Fu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are quite delusional.


Yes he is. Are you just realizing it?

There are a couple of problems with the theory that the colts were actually a solid team that decided to tank instead of a crappy team that was elevated to contender status solely by one of the greatest qb's to ever suit up.

We know that the players didn't decide to lay down on their own just based on how our own guys reacted to the "suck for luck" campaign. I don't think ANYONE is crazy enough to suggest they did it on their own.

That means the coaching staff had to make a conscious effort to sabbotage the team each week with bad play calling and decisions on who to play. Since coaches tend to focus on the short term and since Caldwell was a rookie coach it's HIGHLY unlikely that he would make a decision to throw the season for luck.

That means that for the staff to have sabbotaged the team to end up with the top pick those orders would have had to come from the GM and almost assuredly the owner would have had to have given his blessing to the whole thing.

So if that's the case, and their plan worked, how come the gm and hc were fired? If you are the owner and your guys pulled off this incredible scam why on god's green earth would you fire them and risk having them go public with the whole charade?

Of course you wouldn't. You'd reward them with extensions for pulling it off and keeping silent.

So that means the owner wasn't part of the "conspiracy" and for it to work the GM had come up with it on his own and then convince the coach to do this it. A fact that surely would have come to light when Caldwell was fired if it were true. Not to mention the fact that Polian says he was fired because he wanted to trade the pick and build around Manning.

Clearly the facts and circumstances of the colts situation DON'T support the theory that they underperformed intentionally to get the top pick.


In light of that, the only logical conclusion left to draw is that Manning was the difference between 10 wins and 2 wins.

But Fu...when you dance with the devil, logic and reason don't exist.

it is possible that even if manning was the colt's qb this year they are still just an 8-8 team. it looks like the team got old in a hurry, which happens. but it seems clear that manning probably gets them at least 6 more wins if he plays.
you can't extrapolate that and say he gets US 6 more wins and we will end up 12-4, since there is a big difference between the 9-7s of the worlds and the 12 win teams. but if he can return to form (a huge if) then we should be a playoff team

I forgot to add that the other alternative is simply what berk said and that is that the Colts got "old in a hurry."

It happens.

But that means that we should be very leery of taking their "old" QB.

Could be that the "Morale" of the Colts was just in the shitter after Peyton got hurt. Some players do make their Teams play better then they are.

I'd bet a plug nickel that at least one of those CB responses is for me...

Why don't you take a peeky-peek and see?

Oh somebody quote this so he can see it!

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why don't you take a peeky-peek and see?
>
> Oh somebody quote this so he can see it!


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
HAHAHAHAHA

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why don't you take a peeky-peek and see?
> >
> > Oh somebody quote this so he can see it!
>
>
> &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
> HAHAHAHAHA

Lol A&O....

I had too, buddy! I couldnt resist!!!!

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

Thank you, A & O.

BTW, when I said "quote this," I only meant the peeky-peek post. I want him to get hungry enough to unblock me and read the whole other post.

Wow. Stuff here actually bothers people enough to block each other? Words on a screen people. Words on a screen........

Translation: His pysch told him it would be better for him, Treasure.


-----------------------------------------------