Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jlyell13 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If we take Tannehill don't be surprised if we
> take
> > Jeff Fuller in the 3rd or fourth. He could be
> like
> > Antoine Bolden or Marshall. Doesn't have the
> > blazing spedd but holds on to the ball
>
>
> &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
> Fuller probably wont be picked before the 6th
> round. He had a very bad Senior season where he
> was passed over as the go-to-guy by Ryan Swope. He
> also had a bad combine, and Pro-Day.

Fuller stinks. Bad hands. Not sure he's all that bright.

Reminds me of limas sweed.

I wouldn't even have him on my draft board.

Going to be happy if we get one of mcnutt or givens. Going to be thrilled beyond belief if we get both.

with our 2d and 2 3ds I think we can come away with 2 very good WRs and another player at a need position. This is why I am so against trading up from 8 to get Tannehill. We'd basically come out of this draft with only 1 player who won't be able to contribute till next year at most. Tannehill at 8, 2 good WRs and the rest of the draft on D and OL I could live with that for sure.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> with our 2d and 2 3ds I think we can come away
> with 2 very good WRs and another player at a need
> position. This is why I am so against trading up
> from 8 to get Tannehill. We'd basically come out
> of this draft with only 1 player who won't be able
> to contribute till next year at most. Tannehill at
> 8, 2 good WRs and the rest of the draft on D and
> OL I could live with that for sure.


I agree. I'd take Tannehill at 8 but I wouldn't trade up for him.

This is a deep draft at most of our positions of need (pass rusher, WR, oline, qb). I'm not in favor of trading up.

In fact if Tannehill is gone I'd rather trade down.

Dropping 10-15 spots and adding a 2nd rounder would be awesome.

Heck, I'd even trade with the pats for 28, 31 and a 3rd.

Here's the problem with VALUE. It's an illusion. It's all about getting talented players at the position you're picking. We need a QB and the ONLY way we will get one is to draft one.

EVERYONE, including me, wants the best players at every position but that's just not reality. We have to also factor in team needs as well. That means taking talented guys, that we want, when we are on the clock...passing on a guy that will help the team in the future because we don't think he's a good pick where we are slotted is crazy...within reason that is.

IMHO, Staying within reason is not taking it to the extreme as in a third or fourth round prospect in the first round. Just because we like him...because a guy like that will be there later.

Tannehill, this year however, isn't in that boat. He simply WON'T be there at #42 so We have to take him at #8 IF we want him, that is...just a fact.

We can argue this until the cows come home but the coaches and the GM are the one's deciding if we want him enough, or not.

I'd personally take him in a hot second at #8...but that's not my choice.

If Tannehil is gone it means an impact player is pushed down to us (Claiborne, Blackmon, Richardson) which would make a trade down all the more possible. Which is why we should not panic that someone ahead of us takes Tannehill. If he's gone, that could be good news for us; if he's there, fine, take him at 8. Talk of trade up is absurd

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

I agree, Tannehill at 8, then adding three of the following WR/DE/LB/S/OL in the second and third rounds is a great plan for adding youth, talent, speed, and great potential to the roster.

A&O said

"Fuller probably wont be picked before the 6th round. He had a very bad Senior season where he was passed over as the go-to-guy by Ryan Swope. He also had a bad combine, and Pro-Day."


Yeah but remember we love to reach! if we can get him in 5 or 6 that could be good value.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Tannehil is gone it means an impact player is
> pushed down to us (Claiborne, Blackmon,
> Richardson) which would make a trade down all the
> more possible. Which is why we should not panic
> that someone ahead of us takes Tannehill. If he's
> gone, that could be good news for us; if he's
> there, fine, take him at 8. Talk of trade up is
> absurd


RE: If he's taken before we pick then we just have to deal with it and take another position, then take Weeden in the second...that won't be the end of the world even though not as good as getting Tannehill would have been because of the drop off in athletic ability.

Ken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's the problem with VALUE. It's an illusion.
> It's all about getting talented players at the
> position you're picking. We need a QB and the ONLY
> way we will get one is to draft one.

Amen!

Value is the most irrelevant term tossed around this time of year.


>
> EVERYONE, including me, wants the best players at
> every position but that's just not reality. We
> have to also factor in team needs as well. That
> means taking talented guys, that we want, when we
> are on the clock...passing on a guy that will help
> the team in the future because we don't think he's
> a good pick where we are slotted is crazy...within
> reason that is.

Absolutely correct. But I'd add this. If you are a smart gm, need has been factored into the rankings on your draft board looooong before you are actually on the clock.

So if you are a smart gm you just stick to your board.


>
> IMHO, Staying within reason is not taking it to
> the extreme as in a third or fourth round prospect
> in the first round. Just because we like
> him...because a guy like that will be there later.

That's where judging value is an art form and not a science. It's not about assessing talent, it's about judging how other teams view players.

Getting too fancy with that is very risky. It only takes one other gm who likes a prospect to mess up your plans.




>
>
> Tannehill, this year however, isn't in that boat.
> He simply WON'T be there at #42 so We have to take
> him at #8 IF we want him, that is...just a fact.


Tru dat!


>
> We can argue this until the cows come home but the
> coaches and the GM are the one's deciding if we
> want him enough, or not.
>
> I'd personally take him in a hot second at
> #8...but that's not my choice.

I'd be happy with the pick as well.

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mizzou15 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I believe in taking the higher rated O-lineman.
> It
> > has worked for us w/ Long and Pouncey and Jerry
> is
> > entering his 3rd year and should be ready to
> > contribute. W/ that I say we draft DeCastro.
> >
> > If Tannehill is there in the second maybe we
> can
> > trade our 2 #3 to St Louis and move up to get
> him.
>
>
> How has it worked????????, we've had three 7-9
> seasons in a row.

Dude you cannot blame 7-9 on drafting Long, Pouncey and Jerry. Pull your head out. Things would be worse w/ out them. I would rather solidify our O-line by adding Decastro than getting a qb who will sit this year. Crap w/ the improvements the Bills alone are making we are going to need a solid line next year.

so the solution is to take a Guard #8 overall? great.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Hell yes. Bringing in DeCastro would upgrade each position on Offense.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> true mark, but often experts have opposite views
> on the same player, or get them completely wrong,
> so it's not like you can just take what any one
> "expert" says as gospel. If that were the case Gil
> Brandt and Polian wouldn't have missed on players
> when they were in the league.

Precisely!

TreasurecoastPhinsfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Overdrafting is kind of a "Grey area" term.

Agreed.



If
> the Dolphins really need a QB and they like this
> guy drafting him anywhere isn't really a reach.


Agreed, if they feel his talent is worthy of the pick.

Is
> he RGIII or ALuck Talent? probably not , but the
> dynamic of the draft is what Team needs what
> position and where do they pick?

This is where I disagree. Think about what you are saying. You are conceding that he is probably NOT of the level of RGIII or Luck.

However you advocate taking him in the same range. Lookit, taking a guy number 8 is no different really than taking him number 1.

What is SO different about those picks when you have so many different POSITIONS on the field?

Now if RGIII or Luck are going to be HALL OF FAME Quarterbacks then it logically follows that picking someone at 8 who you concede is NOT AS GOOD AS THEM OR NOT IN THE SAME CATEGORY is still good.....still good....you know why, because that step below a Hall of Fame Quarterback is a FRANCHISE QB. So, YES, YES, if Tannehill is going to be a FRANCHISE QB, let's take him.

However,.......and here is where it gets tricky.....if you say, "Well I wouldn't go so far NOW as to guarantee that Luck and RGIII will be HALL OF FAME QBs" then you are saying that "Well, I can guarantee that Luck and RGIII will be at least FRANCHISE QBs."

But if all Luck and RGIII are are FRANCHISE QBs and Tannehill is a step below that , then you are saying that Tannehill is NOT of the level of FRanchise QBs.

If he's not that, then why do we take him at no. 8 overall?

Explain that , Treasure.

Summing up.....You said it yourself. Tannehill is not in the same class as Luck and RGIIII but they are only Franchise QBs at best and if Tannehill is not a franchise QB, why should we draft him?


If the Dolphins
> like him and think he can develop into an elite
> passer, then taking him with their #8 overall is
> not a reach.

But whether the Dolphins like him is a separate matter than what we on this board think. That is why we have the poll that there are Three positions on the matter.

you don't need to be a genius to be a shut down corner. ask dion sanders

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you don't need to be a genius to be a shut down
> corner. ask dion sanders


true, but its usually beneficial to be able to read.

dexter manley couldn't read
seriously saban's D is pretty complex, and clairborn did just fine with that

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

well being able to read and scoring a 4 on the Wonderlic are definately debateble in terms of football....

but showing up out of shape and performing bad at the combine and your Pro day are definate red flags.

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

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

The only time to reach is when you are satisfied at all the other positions that you can afford to take a chance, like Pats did with Mallet. You draft the BPA at a position of need ortrade down to shore up the other spots unless you are very sure the player is the real deal, which very few if any in sports have been this accruate.

Tannehill may be a Romo like athlete in the end, but he wasnt even drafted and still has some issues questioning if he can take the Cowboys to the next level.

LOL.


Im pretty positive that the Wonderlic is a waste of time. Never fully understood the importance of it, anyways.

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

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

Cleveland has too many needs and a GM on the hot seat to draft a QB and wait for him to mature...IMO

Holmgren sticks with his QB almost stubbornly (when Favre struggled and with hasselbeck as well) so he will stay with Colt for now.

They will be sitting at 4 with the option of taking Trent Richardson, Morris Claiborne or Matt Kalil. All 3 would fill roles as starters at postion of dire need. I think they will take a Qb later. They have 2 first round picks and two picks in the 4th 5th and 6th rounds.

They need a RT but 4 is too high for a right side guy so they take one at 1-22 unless DeCastro is still there. Then they get another Hutchinson for Holmgren.

I think MG grabs another Alabama RB (Shaun Alexander) in Richardson.

Claiborne would make a big impact but they would have too much money tied up in CB's after taking Haden last year.

Indianapolis QB Andrew Luck
Washington QB Robert Griffin III
Minnesota WR Justin Blackmon (for Ponder to succeed)
Cleveland RB Trent Richardson
Tampa bay CB Morris Claiborne (secondary got toasted last yr)
St. Louis LT Matt Kalil (keeping Bradford healthy)
Jacksonville WR Michael Floyd (helping Gabbert)
Miami QB Ryan Tannehill

player quality drops off after these 8 are gone with exception of David DeCastro but he plays guard.

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mizzou15 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I believe in taking the higher rated O-lineman.
> It
> > has worked for us w/ Long and Pouncey and Jerry
> is
> > entering his 3rd year and should be ready to
> > contribute. W/ that I say we draft DeCastro.
> >
> > If Tannehill is there in the second maybe we
> can
> > trade our 2 #3 to St Louis and move up to get
> him.
>
>
> How has it worked????????, we've had three 7-9
> seasons in a row.

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

Mizzou, how has "it" worked for us? How many years has Miami taken OL and who is presently there? Long and Pouncey! That's it. I won't count on Jerry for anything, yet. He may not even make the team this season.

If Miami was drafting in the 20s, then I could understand drafting OL, but not at 8. At 8, a playmaker/difference maker is the ONLY choice.

Is that OLman going to make a difference in the won/loss column? Jake didn't!

Minn is not passing on Kalil if they stay at 3

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Minn is not passing on Kalil if they stay at 3



Why not?

Name me the last TWO LT's on Super Bowl winners who were 1st round draft picks...


I have a friend who is a HUGE viking fan.

He expects them to take Blackmon or Kalil. Neither would be a surprise to him.

He thinks its going to be Blackmon based on what he's heard.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2012 10:27AM by THE Truth.

Every few years or so there is a "can't miss" LT who comes out. Jake Long, Orlando Pace, Joe Thomas, etc. Those guys don't get out of the top 3. Minn has a huge need at OL and he fills that. Blackmon is NOT a Megatron type WR, so I can't see them passing on the LT to take him. I'd be shocked if I am wrong....but we'll see I guess.

Plus I hear Kalil like Turtles.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Every few years or so there is a "can't miss" LT
> who comes out. Jake Long, Orlando Pace, Joe
> Thomas, etc. Those guys don't get out of the top
> 3. Minn has a huge need at OL and he fills that.
> Blackmon is NOT a Megatron type WR, so I can't see
> them passing on the LT to take him. I'd be shocked
> if I am wrong....but we'll see I guess.
>
> Plus I hear Kalil like Turtles.


I heard Blackmon eats turtles...

I hear what you are saying on the O-line thing. But How many Super Bowls have the three guys you mentioned won? Pace got one and he's a Hall of Famer. The other guys have ZERO and what....1 playoff loss between them over the past 5 seasons?

Blackmon gives them a WR in the Chris Carter mold who catches everything. His skill set is a terrific compliment to Percy Harvin's.

I'm not suggesting that taking Kalil is a bad move. Just that he's not a guaranteed LOCK at #3.

The really can't go wrong.

I totally agree about the LT thing. I mean look at Jake Long. As has been beaten to death around here, we shoulda drafted Matt Ryan. LTs are not "difference makers." But it is a prime position and I don't think Blackmon is that kind of player either---plus there are a ton of WRs in this draft.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Matt Ryan has gone to the pro-bowl?

Matt Ryan was better than Jake Long because of injury?

Matt Ryan would have taken us to the Super Bowl WITHOUT someone like Jake Long blocking for him?

Or are you assuming that somehow we would have gotten another Jake Long?

I agree that we can't get to the Super Bowl by continually only drafting lineman with our top picks.

But it's another to take a QB who has so far only shown himself to be mediocre at best and lament that instead of taking the All Pro tackle we did, we should have taken him JUST BECAUSE HIS TITLE IS QUARTERBACK, even though he is mediocre so far.