I wonder how much crap would have been said about Dan Marino. Would it have influenced where he went? Social Media has its good points and bad ones.

Even taking a QB a year after Woodley took us to the Super Bowl would of been chastised on a chat board such as this.

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even taking a QB a year after Woodley took us to
> the Super Bowl would of been chastised on a chat
> board such as this.

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

Not so sure about that.

As Shula said: "Woodley is an athlete playing QB, whereas Marino is a QB playing QB." (or something like that <g>.

Anyway, I think if anything would have been discussed on this board about Marino it would have been his (supposed) drug use.

BTW, maybe it was Shula himself that put that rumor out there <G>.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh No! Dolphaholic! NOT ME!
>
> The problem you have here is that you are dealing
> with an old person who was around ACTUALLY at that
> time.
>
> It was precisely BECAUSE WOODLEY did not complete
> a single pass in that SuperBowl in 1982 that we
> lost that I wanted THEN a new QB.
>
> That's not a good example to use to prove YOUR
> point because there we HAD ALL OF THE ELEMENTS of
> a good if not perfect team but a good QB.
>
> I wanted one of the Six QBs before the draft but
> had my eyes on one that was taken before Dan who
> was taken Sixth.
>
> I mean of course you cannot compare the choices
> confronting a team that went to the SuperBowl in
> the next draft with the choices confronting THIS
> TEAM which went 6-10 and, but for Matt Moore,
> would have probably gone 3-13.

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

I also, was around at the time.

Woodstrock could not be used in that game.

True, Woodley didn't complete any passes in the 2nd half, but what would have normally happened is that Strock would have come in to bail him out, but....

I believe there was still about 7 minutes or so left in the game -- Miami's offense (and Strock) was never able to get into the game.

Ugh!

That still made me want to draft a QB in 1983. That's the point to rebut Dolphaholic's implication that some on this board would have wanted us to pass on a QB in 1983.

I think Chyren has a man-crush on me, I can't say a word on here without him crawling up my ass to see what I had for dinner last night......I really wish the Truth would un-block him

I just wonder sometimes if too Much information is a good thing........

captkoi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Oh No! Dolphaholic! NOT ME!
> >
> > The problem you have here is that you are
> dealing
> > with an old person who was around ACTUALLY at
> that
> > time.
> >
> > It was precisely BECAUSE WOODLEY did not
> complete
> > a single pass in that SuperBowl in 1982 that we
> > lost that I wanted THEN a new QB.
> >
> > That's not a good example to use to prove YOUR
> > point because there we HAD ALL OF THE ELEMENTS
> of
> > a good if not perfect team but a good QB.
> >
> > I wanted one of the Six QBs before the draft
> but
> > had my eyes on one that was taken before Dan
> who
> > was taken Sixth.
> >
> > I mean of course you cannot compare the choices
> > confronting a team that went to the SuperBowl
> in
> > the next draft with the choices confronting
> THIS
> > TEAM which went 6-10 and, but for Matt Moore,
> > would have probably gone 3-13.
>
> **************************************************
> *
>
> I also, was around at the time.
>
> Woodstrock could not be used in that game.
>
> True, Woodley didn't complete any passes in the
> 2nd half, but what would have normally happened is
> that Strock would have come in to bail him out,
> but....
>
> I believe there was still about 7 minutes or so
> left in the game -- Miami's offense (and Strock)
> was never able to get into the game.
>
> Ugh!

The other thing that happened was that David Woodley had an excellent run in the playoffs. Well, at least the first two games, not during the monsoon against the Jets. And Strock did not play at all during the postseason up until the Super Bowl. He didn't play much in that season at all. The Wood-Strock combo was actually much more prevalent the year before.

Chyren, don't go too far Sir. trust me, I was cussed out first over the Tannehill thing.

And again, I don't care if we take him or pass on him. I just want who Ireland/Philbin want.

Could care less who the puck is. Just get us a Superstar.

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

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

Your right Chyren, i'll just go the Truth route and block ya. Later

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chyren, don't go too far Sir.

RESPONSE: ???????????????????????

I was talking about your statements that you had never before seen the board so divided as on this issue. I was agreeing with that.

What did you THINK I was talking about??????????


trust me, I was
> cussed out first over the Tannehill thing.
>
> And again, I don't care if we take him or pass on
> him. I just want who Ireland/Philbin want.
>
> Could care less who the puck is. Just get us a
> Superstar.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aqua&Orange Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Chyren, don't go too far Sir.
>
> RESPONSE: ???????????????????????
>
> I was talking about your statements that you had
> never before seen the board so divided as on this
> issue. I was agreeing with that.
>
> What did you THINK I was talking about??????????
>
>
> trust me, I was
> > cussed out first over the Tannehill thing.
> >
> > And again, I don't care if we take him or pass
> on
> > him. I just want who Ireland/Philbin want.
> >
> > Could care less who the puck is. Just get us a
> > Superstar.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&


Sorry. Read it the wrong way. THought you said the Tannehill supporters are the only ones on the attack.

My bad.

But yes, this board seems very split and on edge.

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

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

It is the internet that makes news talking heads able to "act" like they know more than others about football.

Yes you can review much more data about people due to internet, but it s the scouts that really get out there and see for themselves that are the experts.

Most media just regurgitate what they hear from their counterparts ... same goes for half of thos on forums who post and repeat what other people say or opine about candidates.

Then you have the same guys that judge politicians, and decide whether someone is going to be successful at the next level when they don't even really know them.


I love the internet ... I just hate all the clutter and misinformation that comnes with it.

Back to the original point, if the point is that the presence of the internet today (where the fan reaction can be seen and assessed more accurately than in 83 when fans only reacted by letter) may lead a front office in the NFL to make a decision that perhaps they would not have made in 1983, then that's an interesting and probably accurate observation.

I do think its why we have planes flying over the Stadium, people organizing protests , and calling each other out here more then they should.