montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> berkeley223 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > at #2 overall, absolutely
> > a RB taken in the top 10 better be Adrian
> > Peterson. Brown didn't even start on his own
> > college team.
>
> Almost the entire 1st round of that draft was a
> bust. Remember, Alex Smith was #1 and Braylon
> Edwards was #3. Would you have rather we took one
> of those guys? Sure Aaron Rodgers was in that
> draft, but he was flying WAY below the radar. We
> would have been raked over the coals if we took
> him at #2.

not really true. almost up to the minute Smith was picked, there was talk about Rogers going #1. So if we took him at #2 there wouldn't have been an uproar. Rogers falling as far as he did was a huge story of that draft, no one thought he'd fall out of the top 10.
but yes, that was a horrible draft. except for rogers and merriman and maybe another player or 2 I forget, there was really nothing. doesn't make the pick of Brown at #2 a good one, though.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> berk, do you really call Ronnie Brown a bust?

*****************************************************

I don't know if Berk would call Brown a bust, but if we look at the NFL definition of the word, then yes, Brown was a bust. He was a good player, but when you are the 2nd pick in the draft, you better be more than "good." Ronnie Brown wasn't.

agreed. he wasn't curtis enis horrible, but he wasn't anything near what a RB taken that high should be. Even Rashaan Sallaam (or however you spell it) had one 1000 yards season in the pros, and he was a bust too

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

If you are saying because of his injury, I would say yes. If you were saying that when he was playing at his peak, I would strongly disagree that he was anything NEAR a bust but in fact was one of the league's leading rushers.

ChyrenB Wrote:
> RESPONSE: I don't know how old you are but you
> are wrong historically. I became a fan of this
> team in 1967 when Bob Griese was drafted out of
> Purdue.
>
> Nothing could be farther from the truth. Dan
> Marino destroyed all of the national passing
> records while at Pittsburgh.
>
> He was mentioned in competition with Elway out of
> Stanford for being the number one pick.
>
> He began to fall on the board as the draft
> neared.
>
> Todd Blackledge became the first Ryan Leaf and
> John Beck because he was a giant of a QB and
> scouts became enamored with him.
>
> I can't remember what the concerns were about
> Marino but the pack mentality caused him to drop
> to us at the end.

I'm three years younger than Dan and my grandparents lived in his town The 'issue' was a 'character' one resulting from an arrest while in High school. Yes, he set NCAA records so did Colt Brennen and David Klingler. Jim Kelly, Tony Eason and Ken O'brien were also taken before Marino. Thats at least 5 teams looking for a QB who chose someone else. But thats neither here nor there, my point was the draft is a gamble so you do what you can to increase the favorable odds. i.e. pick the players you need in the higher rounds.

> RESPONSE: No, I did not because I remember sitting
> in the Rose Bowl watching David Woodley not be
> able to make a first down passing in the ENTIRE
> SECOND HALF. It was painfully obvious that we
> needed a QB that next April.
>

Then SURELY you have seen for the last 10 years 'We need a QB next April'? Yet we steadfastly refuse to get one where the odds say we have the best chance of finding an elite one, The first round of the draft. Should Shula have given up and taken a Guard because Elway and Blackledge were taken???

> RESPONSE: But a cup with a hole in it is like
> having no cup at all.

And not having a QB is like not having a mouth to drink whatever is in the cup with. The cup does no good. Isn't it amazing how the 1999 Rams line suddenly looked so spectacular when Trent Greene got Hurt. Or how the 1984 Dolphins line WAS so much better than 1983 Dolphins line WITHOUT 8 years of drafting 1st round linemen. Of course you need a good line but the best one can't give the QB more than a few seconds. Either you focus on finding, signing and keeping 5-6 elite linemen to make one avg QB look better or focus on finding and signing 1 elite QB who makes the whole team look better.

> RESPONSE: You don't "hang your hat" on a late
> round draft QB. You are not drafting him
> CONVINCED AND PUTTING ALL YOUR HOPES THAT he will
> be a Franchise QB.
>
> That's not your mindset.
>
> Your mindset is that with your earlier picks where
> you strengthen your team, then maybe THE YEARS
> AFTERWARDS YOU GET A FRANCHISE QB. However, you
> take that 4th rounder thinking, "Well,
> maybe........" But you don't RELY on it.
>

> Using your rent money on Luck or RGIII is NOT
> DOING THAT!!!
>
> What you have to convince me is that using the
> rent money on Tannehill is THE SAME AS USING THE
> RENT MONEY ON LUCK OR RGIII.
>
> That's not a wise gamble because the chance to get
> an IMPACT WR, OL, DL is too good to pass up on
> someone who has risen in the draft JUST BECAUSE
> PEOPLE (AND WRITERS) FEEL THAT WE NEED a qb.

Who can look at this team over the last 10 years and think we don't need a QB??? Come on buddy! I'm not 'CONVINCED' Tannehill or Luck or anyone will be a franchise QB but the but I increase my chances of finding one by drafting higher rated prospects.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are saying because of his injury, I would
> say yes. If you were saying that when he was
> playing at his peak, I would strongly disagree
> that he was anything NEAR a bust but in fact was
> one of the league's leading rushers.


the only time he really looked good was the 1/2 season with CamMoron before he got hurt. If that was his true ability and his injury robbed him of that, then I'd say he could've lived up to his draft billing. But we'll never know, and he wasn't anything incredible in college either (he was the backup to Cadillac Williams)

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>Way to much to keep quoting so I'll summarize.

I never said or meant to say that NO ONE thought Marino wouldn't be any good, only that NO KNEW he would turn out to be what he did or 5 other QB's wouldn't have been drafted before him.

Name solid QB's we could have drafted. Brees, Rodgers, Ryan.

I didn't limit my 'class' to Tannehill and Luck. The third parameter was ANYONE. WHen they are drafted they are ALL in the same class, the class of UNKNOWN results. No one KNOWS who will bust or who will pan out not me not you . But I know two things.

1.) Statistically over the long run better players come from the higher rounds. Tannehill is a first round QB prospect who may be available when we pick.

2.) Having a good/elite QB doesn't assure long term franchise success but it makes it much more likely. AND NOT having one makes success nearly impossible ie. US over the last 10 years 70-90 (.435).

In that time we have spent 1st round picks on OL, WR, DB, RB, DE, LB. In a word on almost EVERY position BUT the most important player on the field. I say roll the dice HOW can it be worse?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2012 12:25PM by KB.

CrynB your argument is mute and void on the simple fact of your logic, Tannehill being the third overall taken QB in this draft.

Reason why your argument is "voided", well Marino was taken third overall in that draft.

Heck if anything your argument should be supportive of this team drafting Tannehill.

Why don't you like him?

His only nock is inexperiance, which results in shakey over the middle pass's, and with experiance doing that will raise his comfort level and reduce his second guessin on that type of pass resulting in better completion's.

I'm usually against trading up for a player, but if we have too, then I am 100% up for it to draft this guy.

Who else you wana take at 8th?? No one that you can't really draft by trading down.

Sure Blackman MAYBE, but cmon he does not have the speed and size to be a true numberone.

GodAlmightyDolphinsRule Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CrynB your argument is mute

"mute" means silent. My argument is "silent?" That curious. Oh, you mean "moot." Moot means that the issue has already been decided by operation of other occurrences.

In this case, that would mean that the draft has already occurred and we either took or didn't take Tannehill and he is no longer available for us to draft him.

and void on the simple
> fact of your logic, Tannehill being the third
> overall taken QB in this draft.

??????????? Has he already been taken? What, pray tell do you mean, Thunder....err GADR.
>
> Reason why your argument is "voided", well Marino
> was taken third overall in that draft.

No, he was taken in the twenties not number 3 and he wasn't even the 3rd QB taken in the first round. He was the Sixth QB taken in the first round.

>
> Heck if anything your argument should be
> supportive of this team drafting Tannehill.

I don't understand that but then I don't understand a lot you have said over the years.

> Why don't you like him?

You know, when the season ended I had my eyes on him as a good possible pick up in the 4th or 5th round before I saw Weeden play and when I thought we would not get RGIII or Luck.


>
> His only nock is inexperiance, which results in
> shakey over the middle pass's, and with experiance
> doing that will raise his comfort level and reduce
> his second guessin on that type of pass resulting
> in better completion's.

Hmmmmm. You've convinced me! How silly of me to not want to use a top 10 draft choice in the Professional league on a QB that even lacks full experience playing QB IN COLLEGE.

>
> I'm usually against trading up for a player, but
> if we have too, then I am 100% up for it to draft
> this guy.

LOL, and you would even TRADE UP TO GET HIM.

Lucky for us 1) you're not the GM and 2) we don't have to even if we want him.


>
> Who else you wana take at 8th??

Plenty of WRs, OLs, DLs top picks will be left by then with still the possibility that LATER we could get Weeden.

No one that you
> can't really draft by trading down.
>
> Sure Blackman MAYBE, but cmon he does not have the
> speed and size to be a true numberone.

We'll see in so many years who has the bigger name in Pro Football. Ryan Tannehill or Justin Blackmon.

So what your saying is that you don't have a logical reason, or well ok.

You have one reason that prohibit's the thought in your mind, that it is a horrible idea to draft Tannehill in the top ten.

The rest of your argument is filth and personal attack.

You say that Blackmon will have a longer lasting NFL name than Tannehill ok that statement alone tell's me all I need to know about why the true hate on Tannehill.

Is it because we didnt trade up for RG111?

Hey Chyren, just curious, you're dead set against Tannehill at #8, lets assume Blackmon and Richardson are gone, no trading partners to move down (all realistic possibilities I might add) Who do you deem worthy of the #8 pick for our beloved?

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Chyren, just curious, you're dead set against
> Tannehill at #8, lets assume Blackmon and
> Richardson are gone, no trading partners to move
> down (all realistic possibilities I might add) Who
> do you deem worthy of the #8 pick for our beloved?


Okay I'll play but answer this question at the end.

Justin Blackmon
Michael Floyd
Melvin Ingram
Riley Reiff
David DeCastro
Quinton Coples


Now, what are you going to do? Argue the deficiencies of each of these and/or argue how Tannehill has more potential for success OR MAKE THAT TIRED OLD ARGUMENT THAT "But we really NEED a QB?"

But then the question becomes, how is that any different than what I am doing?

We are discussing drafting Tannehill at no. 8. We are not discussing drafting anyone else and if we do discuss drafting someone in particular as opposed to a position like OL or Def. pass rusher, then we could have that discussion on any potential draftee in 2012.

HOWEVER, when you discuss an Andrew Luck, and RGIII, and a Tannehill at number 8, you DO discuss whether they WILL IN FACT BE WHAT YOU DESIRE, and that is a franchise quarterback.

Why don't I have a right to dissent?

What is so great about Tannehill that calls on people to HAVE TO BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY their opinion that he should NOT BE DRAFTED AT NO. 8?????

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GodAlmightyDolphinsRule Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------


> >
Mia1 wote > Reason why your argument is "voided", well
> Marino
> > was taken third overall in that draft.


ChrenB wrote No, he was taken in the twenties not number 3 and
> he wasn't even the 3rd QB taken in the first
> round. He was the Sixth QB taken in the first
> round.


School your boy chren.....I mean school the boy.


Mia1s brain and the brain of a fruit fly have a lot in common.

What dolphin fan does not know that dan marino was drafted in the 20th range?

And do not say he was the 3rd qb taken either...There was elway kelly obrian and the marino. he wasnt the third taken.


Think there were a couple more...

The last two picks were to become hall of famers dan and darrel green. Incredible.

I think darrel green is in the hall of fame? He has to be!

Yeah, samsam, he was even off on that. Marino was the SIXTH quarterback taken after, not necessarily in order, Elway, Blackledge, Kelly, Eason and O'Brien.

Thus those screaming that we can't get anywhere by not taking what the pundits anoint as one of the top three QBs are not helped by this example.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dolphaholic Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm not arguing anything, it's beyond you
> talking
> > me out of wanting Tannehill and me talking you
> > into it, just curious who you do want. In your
> > list though, I said to assume Blackmon and
> > Richardson were gone already.
>
>
> Okay, I noticed after I posted that ONE GUY was
> someone you excepted. My mistake. Big deal! What
> about the others?????? Come on.


I told you, i've got no arguments, I was just curious who you were leaning towards.

No, I didn't mean that I was soliciting a comment from you on the others.

What I mean was why would you point out that you told me to ASSUME Blackmon was gone as if that was the only one or one of two names I gave you. I mean I gave you about seven names.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dolphaholic Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey Chyren, just curious, you're dead set
> against
> > Tannehill at #8, lets assume Blackmon and
> > Richardson are gone, no trading partners to
> move
> > down (all realistic possibilities I might add)
> Who
> > do you deem worthy of the #8 pick for our
> beloved?
>
>
> Okay I'll play but answer this question at the
> end.
>
> Justin Blackmon
> Michael Floyd
> Melvin Ingram
> Riley Reiff
> David DeCastro
> Quinton Coples
>
>
> Now, what are you going to do? Argue the
> deficiencies of each of these and/or argue how
> Tannehill has more potential for success OR MAKE
> THAT TIRED OLD ARGUMENT THAT "But we really NEED a
> QB?"
>
> But then the question becomes, how is that any
> different than what I am doing?
>
> We are discussing drafting Tannehill at no. 8. We
> are not discussing drafting anyone else and if we
> do discuss drafting someone in particular as
> opposed to a position like OL or Def. pass rusher,
> then we could have that discussion on any
> potential draftee in 2012.
>
> HOWEVER, when you discuss an Andrew Luck, and
> RGIII, and a Tannehill at number 8, you DO discuss
> whether they WILL IN FACT BE WHAT YOU DESIRE, and
> that is a franchise quarterback.
>
> Why don't I have a right to dissent?
>
> What is so great about Tannehill that calls on
> people to HAVE TO BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY their opinion
> that he should NOT BE DRAFTED AT NO. 8?????

**********************************************************

Chyren, I believe you forgot to say who it is you would draft at 8 (or is it any one from that list)?

I've already said my piece as to why I would draft Tannehill at 8 if he was still there, so....(the statements below are from the USA NFL Draft Magazine).

Floyd....doesn't have top speed and can get caught from behind. Hands are inconsistent. Looked sluggish on the field prior to his senior season. Arrested three times on alcohol-related charges.

Ingram....May not be big enough for the line on an every down basis. Needs to get better at readjusting and moving laterally in the run game. Struggled through a foot injury as a senior.

Reiff....comes from a zone blocking scheme, which hasn't translated immediately for others in the NFL. Needs to get better hand placement, especially against power ends. Arrested for public intoxication and avoiding arrest in 2008.

DeCastro....Will get upright at times and lose leverage, causing him to get pushed back in the pocket.

Coples....Struggled during his senior season, which brings about questions in his ability to fire off the snap and dip around the edge. Because of that, he may be limited to playing left end or tackle in the NFL.

Now, saying all that, DeCastro is about the only sure thing in the first 15 picks that will get the job done, right away, and would be worth a top 15 pick. However, Miami has a history of not drafting interior linemen that high. He, IMO, would be a good pick if Miami traded down and he was still there, but I really don't think Miami will do that, plus, I think he will be gone before the 15th pick.

The other guys have deficiencies. Although these statements are coming from only one magazine, I have heard similar rumblings from many other sources concerning these players. Also, will Ireland take the guys who have disciplinary issue?

So....there is no solid, sure thing among those names that should be taken at #8. Those are all guys that will be taken from the 15th pick on (if that early).

Tannehill has the potential to make a big difference with any team that drafts him. As someone else has already pointed out, we have been drafting all the positions, except QB, in round one for years and years, and where has that gotten the Dolphins? Still drafting early in the first round. That just aint gonna cut it. Miami has to take that chance that Tannehill will finally be that guy.

As I have said before, if the Miami brass doesn't have a major conviction on Tannehill, and we will only find that out on draft day, then I guess Miami will just continue looking for that franchise guy. Again, Miami may just get lucky and find him later, ala Brady.

BTW, you definitely have the right to dissent.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, I didn't mean that I was soliciting a comment
> from you on the others.
>
> What I mean was why would you point out that you
> told me to ASSUME Blackmon was gone as if that was
> the only one or one of two names I gave you. I
> mean I gave you about seven names.


Gotcha, since I dont know enough about the players, I can only comment on what positions i'd like to see filled if Tannehills not the pick;

NO to Floyd due to legal problems and not wanting to pick a WR that high in a deep WR draft

NO to either O-lineman, can't take a gaurd or RT that high IMO

Colpes and Ingram, OK I guess, if you say so........

CaptKoi, you never told us what that same Magazine said about Tannehill???????????????????????

KB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not every position is equal as far as the impact a
> 'best available player' at that position will
> make. Long is a 'STUD', Pouncey is a 'STUD' both
> first rounders. Where's that got us? 20-28 the
> last three years. There is just no way around it
> If you don't have a top tier QB in the NFL your
> chances for success as a franchise are about zip.
> WE have proved that over the last 10 years.
>
> I don't know if Tannehill is for real I haven't
> seen him play much. BUT IF THE ANALYSTS AND OUR
> TEAM CONSIDER HIM A LEGIT FIRST ROUND QB PROSPECT.
> WE BETTER TAKE HIM IF WE CAN. Yea, he might be
> another Cade Mcnown. But he also might be another
> Drew Brees, Arron Rodgers or Matt Ryan. All guys
> our genius's passed on in the draft because they
> didn't wanna reach.

MATT RYAN is overrated dick-on-toast. He went to a powerful team, and hasn't done much at all. He's not "clutch", and can't do much w/the topshelf teams.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CaptKoi, you never told us what that same Magazine
> said about Tannehill???????????????????????


*******************************************************

I wrote about Tannehill a few days ago, but I will post it once again:

STRENGTHS: Good blend of arm strength and accuracy and has a nice release. Mobility in the pocket is good. Throws well on the run. Excels on timing routes.

WEAKNESS: Release point can be inconsistent. Has a tendency to float deep passes, especially when the receiver is outside the numbers. Struggles to pick up disguised blitzes after the snap. Started at QB for only a season and a half at A&M after playing wide receiver to begin his career.

***They have him listed as the 3rd best QB, projected to be taken in the 2nd round.

BTW, Chyren, you failed to mention who you would have chosen out of that list for pick #8, or is it any of those names?

Yeah, any. If I were going to take "a flyer" i.e., a projected second round guy in the first round (although those would say Tannehill is not a projected 2nd round), it would be Coby Fleener.