I think moving down in this draft is one of the best moves we could make.

I like your Trade Idea with NE......except I'd get Mallet thrown in on the deal.

Seriously guys, NE stockpiles picks, they don't just give them away (especially to a div rival), who might be there at 8 that the Pats are gonna want bad enough? This isn't Madden or fantasy football.

I actually heard they may move up this year. Mark Barron and Michael Floyd could be targets, as could some D line guys

Thye need something at WR besides Welker and sccondary help

Mallett will never, EVER be a WCO QB.

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

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

man these people who are calling for us to trade for mallett are totally clueless. I even heard someone call sirius nfl radio today and say we need to trade our 2d and 3d to the pats for mallett. So moronic, even assuming mallett made any sense for our offense, you'd give a 2d and 3d for a player who went in the 3d last year and didn't play 1 snap? what exactly did mallett do in the past year to increase his value by a 2d round pick? so stupid---I wonder if that caller posts on here ever?

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Not only that, but Brian Hoyer outperformed him in camp last year. I guess if we are going to trade for a patsies backuP, then Hoyer is the best one.

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

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

I heard vinny Cerrato say if Phins don't take Tannehill at 8 red flags could go up and he could tumble in the 20's a more realistic range

Smart move!

Drop down with Dallas, then drop down with NE and get 2#1's, 2#2's and 3 #3's, 7 in the top 3 rounds.

That is how you rebuild(as long as you make smart picks!)

I remember reppa!The more I look at tape and his stats the more I think he makes as much sense as any and we can add picks and shore up the D, and add a lot of weapons on the offense. We could come out with 8-10 picks

Even take Weeden & Harnish!

Ireland realize this is how you rebuild, one reach won't help us. Cerrato said it will be a couple of years before Tannehill will be ready, too much for #8

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look at it this way: If Aaron Rodgers were
> available at #8 and you knew he wouldn't help you
> on the field for 3+ years but you thought he'd
> turn into a Super Bowl MVP in 4 or 5 years, are
> you seriously going to suggest that you would
> rather have Weedon and Harnish because that's too
> long to wait??
>
So Tannehill = Rodgers now? Hey Truth, what are next week's Lotto numbers?

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Look at it this way: If Aaron Rodgers were
> > available at #8 and you knew he wouldn't help
> you
> > on the field for 3+ years but you thought he'd
> > turn into a Super Bowl MVP in 4 or 5 years,
> are
> > you seriously going to suggest that you would
> > rather have Weedon and Harnish because that's
> too
> > long to wait??
> >
> So Tannehill = Rodgers now? Hey Truth, what are
> next week's Lotto numbers?

Hey monte, read it again. I didn't say he was the next Aaron Rodgers. I used Rodgers, a guy who sat for three years, as an example that's it's foolish to pass on a qb JUST because he won't contribute right away.

IF, I repeat, IF you think he's a franchise qb 3 years from now then you draft him. If you don't think he is you don't draft him.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> montequi Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > THE Truth Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Look at it this way: If Aaron Rodgers were
> > > available at #8 and you knew he wouldn't help
> > you
> > > on the field for 3+ years but you thought
> he'd
> > > turn into a Super Bowl MVP in 4 or 5 years,
> > are
> > > you seriously going to suggest that you would
> > > rather have Weedon and Harnish because that's
> > too
> > > long to wait??
> > >
> > So Tannehill = Rodgers now? Hey Truth, what
> are
> > next week's Lotto numbers?
>
> Hey monte, read it again. I didn't say he was the
> next Aaron Rodgers. I used Rodgers, a guy who
> sat for three years, as an example that's it's
> foolish to pass on a qb JUST because he won't
> contribute right away.
>
> IF, I repeat, IF you think he's a franchise qb 3
> years from now then you draft him. If you don't
> think he is you don't draft him.

Truth: How can you predict a guy will be a franchise QB in 3 years? What is the test for that? Where are the stats? I could see predicting a guy will be a franchise QB in 1 year...but 3??!!

of course it is much easy to sit a QB for 3 years when you have Brett Farve in front of him. Matt Moore? Not so much

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > montequi Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > THE Truth Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Look at it this way: If Aaron Rodgers
> were
> > > > available at #8 and you knew he wouldn't
> help
> > > you
> > > > on the field for 3+ years but you thought
> > he'd
> > > > turn into a Super Bowl MVP in 4 or 5
> years,
> > > are
> > > > you seriously going to suggest that you
> would
> > > > rather have Weedon and Harnish because
> that's
> > > too
> > > > long to wait??
> > > >
> > > So Tannehill = Rodgers now? Hey Truth, what
> > are
> > > next week's Lotto numbers?
> >
> > Hey monte, read it again. I didn't say he was
> the
> > next Aaron Rodgers. I used Rodgers, a guy who
> > sat for three years, as an example that's it's
> > foolish to pass on a qb JUST because he won't
> > contribute right away.
> >
> > IF, I repeat, IF you think he's a franchise qb
> 3
> > years from now then you draft him. If you
> don't
> > think he is you don't draft him.
>
> Truth: How can you predict a guy will be a
> franchise QB in 3 years? What is the test for
> that? Where are the stats? I could see
> predicting a guy will be a franchise QB in 1
> year...but 3??!!

There are no guarantees monte. Just best guesses by gm's.

If you are right you keep your job. If you are wrong you get fired.

None of that changes the question however...

And that question is: 'do you project Tannehill as a franchise qb or not?' WHEN you project him reaching that level is irrelevant so long as he gets there before his first contract expires.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2012 07:44AM by THE Truth.

I think Tannehill could be a very good SYSTEM QB. So, if Philbin is successful with the WCO, then Tannehill could be our next franchise QB. Chances are we'll start Moore on Day 1 regardless, but if our WCO sputters and Philbin is gone in 2 years, that could spell doom for Tannehill.

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Tannehill could be a very good SYSTEM QB.
> So, if Philbin is successful with the WCO, then
> Tannehill could be our next franchise QB. Chances
> are we'll start Moore on Day 1 regardless, but if
> our WCO sputters and Philbin is gone in 2 years,
> that could spell doom for Tannehill.


If we take Tannehill, philbin isn't going anywhere before he gets a chance see if they were right about him. He's here minimum 3 years. Minimum.

I'm so glad all this draft talk will be over in a couple of days.

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

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

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm so glad all this draft talk will be over in a
> couple of days.

It's only just begun my friend

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm so glad all this draft talk will be over in a
> couple of days.


Amen.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If we take Tannehill, philbin isn't going anywhere
> before he gets a chance see if they were right
> about him. He's here minimum 3 years. Minimum.

You mean like the Tuna was here 3 years? No...maybe Saban? Cam Cameron? How many coaches have we had since Wanny was fired that made it 3 years. Oh..yeah...I forgot...Sparano (ugh!!). After whiffing on Harbaugh and Fisher, do you think Ross is going to make that mistake (of sticking with a bad coach too long) again?

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aqua&Orange Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm so glad all this draft talk will be over in
> a
> > couple of days.
>
> It's only just begun my friend


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Well the complaining about who the pick actually will be is going to get old too....

But who the pick should be (what everybody is arguing about now) is just too old.

I wished people would just relax and let Thursday get here.

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

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

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dolphaholic Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Aqua&Orange Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I'm so glad all this draft talk will be over
> in
> > a
> > > couple of days.
> >
> > It's only just begun my friend
>
>
> &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
> Well the complaining about who the pick actually
> will be is going to get old too....
>
> But who the pick should be (what everybody is
> arguing about now) is just too old.
>
> I wished people would just relax and let Thursday
> get here.

Agreed

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If we take Tannehill, philbin isn't going
> anywhere
> > before he gets a chance see if they were right
> > about him. He's here minimum 3 years.
> Minimum.
>
> You mean like the Tuna was here 3 years?
> No...maybe Saban? Cam Cameron? How many coaches
> have we had since Wanny was fired that made it 3
> years. Oh..yeah...I forgot...Sparano (ugh!!).
> After whiffing on Harbaugh and Fisher, do you
> think Ross is going to make that mistake (of
> sticking with a bad coach too long) again?

1- tuna was here for 2.75 years.

2- Sparano got four

3- thank you for highlighting my point...

What do Cameron and Saban have in common??

Neither spent a first round pick on a qb. They tied their careers to Jason Allen and Ted Ginn. Oh the irony...

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do Cameron and Saban have in common??
>
> Neither spent a first round pick on a qb. They
> tied their careers to Jason Allen and Ted Ginn.
> Oh the irony...

Wait, what? NO Phins coach since Shula has spent a first round pick on a QB. Not JJ, Not Wanny, and Not Sparano. I don't get your point.

I hope we trade down and pick up some extra talent

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What do Cameron and Saban have in common??
> >
> > Neither spent a first round pick on a qb.
> They
> > tied their careers to Jason Allen and Ted Ginn.
>
> > Oh the irony...
>
> Wait, what? NO Phins coach since Shula has spent
> a first round pick on a QB. Not JJ, Not Wanny,
> and Not Sparano. I don't get your point.

That is the point.

Who is the last successful head coach we had?

Wanny and JJ were here longer than cameron and saban but ultimately they all failed because they couldn't replace Marino.

In some cases they had some success with good defenses and journeyman QB's but at the end of the day they all failed for the sAme reason.

This is precisely why Philbin wouldn't be fired until Tannehill proves to be a good pick or a flop, and that is 3 years minimum.