Hello all, well i am back from my trip to weston, were i met Dan the Man, and yes i am still on cloud 9. I dont really know what Ireland is going to do, nor can i even guess. This managment is beyone anything i can relate too! I still cant figure out for the life of me why they havent restructered deals to get cap space!. I dont think tannehill or weeden is a big upgrade, i honestly dont. I think we need to give moore a chance with some Legitimate help. We need a wr and a te. I hope they get a wr with the number 8 pick then get a TE. I dont think the newest meadowlark lemon is worth crap. Here is the problem in my opinion we have nobody to help Moore, except Bush and by the time we establish the help, he will be gone too. So i say get a wr, a te and lets cut this thing loose, and for gods sake no more OL I mean what do we have ? 37 gazillion dollars already invested in these 350lb losers?? cut em and get new crap at least it will save money to get better people lmao. sorry had to throw some anger in there!! Thursday will be fun wont it??

Fiedlerhater, you've got some catching up to do. Don't you realize that Ryan Tannehill IS the new Dan Marino and we can't afford to pass up the chance to draft him at number 8 to do something so mundane as to cure the numerous OTHER deficiencies in our lineup?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2012 07:56PM by ChyrenB.

I'm telling ya, Trade down with New England for Mallet and their 1st & 2 round pick. West Coast City......

I just cant wrap my head around this team right now. The moves that the FO are making , are to me an absolute mystery. I mean david garrard???? what the hell is he going to do, eat the scraps left over from team dinners so Ireland can fire the 5.00 per hr waiter?? Hell should of gotten jeff george instead!!!

for gods sake no more OL I mean what do we have ? 37 gazillion dollars already invested in these 350lb losers?? cut em and get new crap at least it will save money to get better people lmao.

You do realize that without an excellent Offensive line, your "talent" position players will end up face down in the mud sacked or blindsided? While I believe in prudence and getting the best deal you can, spending money on the o-line isn't a bad theology. It's the core of everything.

Odenn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You do realize that without an excellent Offensive
> line, your "talent" position players will end up
> face down in the mud sacked or blindsided? While I
> believe in prudence and getting the best deal you
> can, spending money on the o-line isn't a bad
> theology. It's the core of everything.

Is your real name Bill Parcells?

While I agree that we need a good O-Line, I can't help but look back at the lines we had with Hudson Houck. He put together solid O-Lines that could run and pass block effectively at a MUCH lower cost. We weren't necessarily blowing D-Linemen off the line, but we were FAR more consistent than we've been under Sparano.

The answer is NOT bringing in massive 350lb+ guys and paying them like QBs. The answer is CONTINUITY and EFFECTIVE COACHING!!! We had neither under Sparano. Sparano seemed to run the team like we were in a fantasy league, changing players and moving them around like chess pieces. I'm sorry...this is FOOTBALL not chess!! It's going to be humorous to see how he destroys the Jets this coming season!

The NFL.com sportswriter's Mock draft has us taking Coples at #8.
no one took Tanny through the 24th pick(didn't have the final 8 picks of round 1.

Could we possibly trade back, up to 8-10 spots, and still get RT and additional picks?
That would be pretty slick IMO.

Peter King guaranteed that Seattle will take Tannehill at #12 if he is there. Trading back and expecting to get him would be a huge risk.

socalphin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The NFL.com sportswriter's Mock draft has us
> taking Coples at #8.
> no one took Tanny through the 24th pick(didn't
> have the final 8 picks of round 1.
>
> Could we possibly trade back, up to 8-10 spots,
> and still get RT and additional picks?
> That would be pretty slick IMO.


While this would be great in theory, it would signal to me that they're not really sold on Tannehill (taking the risk of losing him that is), thus making me not really sold on Tannehill. If they pass at 8, i'd just soon they go in another direction.

dolfanmark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Peter King guaranteed that Seattle will take
> Tannehill at #12 if he is there. Trading back and
> expecting to get him would be a huge risk.

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

Is Seattle really that solid of a team that they can already have T. Jackson on their roster, then sign M. Flynn, and still draft Tanney? Makes no sense. That's a lot of money tied up on one position, and the last time I looked, the 'Hawks weren't that good of a team. They still have holes they need to fill. Drafting ANOTHER QB is not going to fill those holes.

There is talk also of KC being interested in Tanney. I can (sorta) understand that as Cassell hasn't done that great a job, especially considering what they had to pay for him.

Odenn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> for gods sake no more OL I mean what do we have ?
> 37 gazillion dollars already invested in these
> 350lb losers?? cut em and get new crap at least it
> will save money to get better people lmao.
>
> You do realize that without an excellent Offensive
> line, your "talent" position players will end up
> face down in the mud sacked or blindsided? While I
> believe in prudence and getting the best deal you
> can, spending money on the o-line isn't a bad
> theology. It's the core of everything.

B.S. This is 1960 'double wing' thinking. 3 first round picks on OL in 8 years and we are sub .500 during that time. Offense may start with the OL but in todays NFL it ENDS with the QB. Period. NO QB = No Success in the NFL regardless of ANYTHING else.