samsam3738 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The jets will win at least 10 games and the pats
> more.
>
The Pats may win 10 or more, but the Jets are on the verge of self destructing. Sparano will slow their offense down to a crawl. Unless their FG kicker has the best year of any kicker in the history of the league, then I predict the jets will struggle to go 8-8.

Edited to delete double post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2012 08:41AM by ChyrenB.

samsam3738 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I say if we can get a second rounder for matt more
> go for it. Do not think about it for a second.
>
> It wouldnt be that bad if we pick 3rd or 4th
> overall next year even if we cannot get barkley it
> doesnt matter.
>
> Its not like we are going to the playoffs this
> year.
>
> Hopefully we pick real high in every round next
> year and get a few more weapons for tannehill.

SamSam, I'm going to return the compliment and say to you that someone would have to be "crazy" to believe that Matt Barkley is an option for us next year. I can in NO WAY see us drafting Matt Barkley next year regardless of our record.

The only way would be that Ryan Tannehill would have to prove himself to be an ABSOLUTE disaster.

I don't think that will happen for the following reasons:

1. Most likely he will not get enough playing time for him to prove himself to be a disaster.

2. Even if he does, Tannehill is probably too TALENTED to be a disaster.

3. If 1 or 2 above is true, then we clearly need help in other areas and drafting Matt Barkley would make less sense than Washington did by drafting Cousins after drafting RGIII.

At least Washington can say, "Hey, they're both rookies. Who can be sure how good RGIII is or what might happen to him."

We would not be able to say that! People would say, "what the hell are you going to do? Draft a top quarterback every year."

Now, that's "crazy."

samsam3738 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> truth incoming PM.


Back at ya Sam.

Chren read again i think you misunderstood what i said about barkley...I said it doent matter if we draft him or not anymore.

if we end up with the #1 overall pick in the draft (highly doubtful) and Barkley ends up being as highly rated as Luck, I could see a situtation where we trade RT and draft Barkley, though also could see us trading the pick for a boatload of picks and keeping RT (as Rams did at #2 this year keeping Bradshaw)

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Guys also let the record show i was never ready to toss out dan marino because we didnt win the superbowl....

Its only my believe that matt moore was a year wonder.....And he will not amount to anything in the NFL.

I wish i was wrong though. I have nothing against him as far as the person.

Also chren you said you were returning the favor....Let the record show i called myself a nut....and nobody else.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if we end up with the #1 overall pick in the draft
> (highly doubtful) and Barkley ends up being as
> highly rated as Luck, I could see a situtation
> where we trade RT and draft Barkley, though also
> could see us trading the pick for a boatload of
> picks and keeping RT (as Rams did at #2 this year
> keeping Bradshaw)


I see your logic, berk and we would indeed trade RT and draft Barkley.

However, we would not get much for RT for reasons that every other team would have all the bargaining power over us since we would HAVE TO get rid of RT if we were going to draft Barkley.

Now, if we were going to do the opposite and trade that number 1 spot, THEN I could see us getting a boatload of picks for the right to draft Barkley.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if we end up with the #1 overall pick in the draft
> (highly doubtful) and Barkley ends up being as
> highly rated as Luck, I could see a situtation
> where we trade RT and draft Barkley, though also
> could see us trading the pick for a boatload of
> picks and keeping RT (as Rams did at #2 this year
> keeping Bradshaw)

Can't see us trading Tannehill at that point.

First off, every team we talked to would low ball us on him arguing that if we are giving up on him he cant do the job. And they'd be right to argue that since many pundits say if Barkely was in this draft he'd be no better than the 4th best prospect BEHIND Tannehill.

Secondly, Tannehill will just be getting ready to play at that point. He'll gave another year of experience under his belt. Nobody knows how long it would take Barkely to learn our offense and be ready to play. You'd just be punting the problem down the road for another year.

Lastly, the top pick will be worth WAAAY more to someone than a former #8 pick we are giving up on.


If we ended up with that pick, its possible we stay there if there's a once in a generation defensive player, but its more likely we trade down and take the additional picks.

Frankly, if you gave me the choice this season between 8-8 or 1-15 and the top pick...I'd take the top pick.

i agree with both chyren and truth. never thought I'd type those words!

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Where could a out of the loop guy like me go online to see the Phins salary cap figures and contracts for guys on the team?

There is no way we would trade Tannehill. We would trade the pick for a boatload of picks.

Most pundits feel that Tannehill has a much higher ceiling than Barkley. Namely, I specifically heard McShay, Brandt, AND Mayock say that.

Our coaching staff is in love with RT and would trade the pick, would not trade RT.

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

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

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i agree with both chyren and truth. never thought
> I'd type those words!


No one would ever think those words COULD BE typed.

dolfanmark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't think that there is much of a chance
> that
> > either
> >
> > 1) We give up Moore
> >
> > or
> >
> > 2) that Garrard beats him out.
> >
> >
> > Those who don't agree basically take that
> position
> > because they cannot see why, otherwise, we got
> > Garrard in the first place.
> >
> > I have a two word answer to that question. Pat
> > Devlin.
>
> Matt Moore is not a quick decision maker. He holds
> on to the ball too long. His accuracy is
> inconsistent. He is very poor at sensing the pass
> rush, and he is not particularly good on the run.
> Moore was signed because of his familiarity with
> the New England offense that Daboll ran (and Moore
> was used to under Jeff Davidson in Carolina). He
> is not a good fit in the WCO. Garrard is a much
> more proven and consistent talent. He gets rid of
> the ball quickly, is more accurate, and is better
> with his mobility.
>
> Moore is given way too much credit. We were 6-7 in
> the games where he was the primary QB. We did not
> beat a single team with a winning record. The
> defensive turnaround is the main reason we won
> those 6 games. He is a decent backup, but that is
> it. I really do believe he will be traded to a
> team in need of a backup. We have just enough
> money to sign our rookies, and not enough money to
> bring in any additional veterans (unless they take
> minimum deals), and not enough money to sign Cam
> Wake to an extension. The players that we would
> get the most cap savings from are:
>
> Reggie Bush, $4.7M
> Randy Starks, 3.8M
> Richie Incognito, 2.7M
> Anthony Fasano, 3.7M
> Tony McDaniel, 3.0M
> Matt Moore, 3.0M
>
> So, any cap savings are going to come from that
> list of players. The only other way to significant
> savings would be to extend Dansby and give him
> more guaranteed money in future years. But, Dansby
> has no real incentive to give up the guaranteed
> $12M he gets this year. And I don't believe the
> Fins have any interest in extending Dansby, and in
> fact would love to unload him. If Garrard is
> healthy, Moore is the most expendable player on
> that list.


I disagree, the most cap savings could come with Fasano. We added enough at TE position to live just fine without Fasano and get a decent draft pick or two in the trade. We might really need Moore this year and maybe next, extend him if you can. Wait and see before you get rid of Moore, if you wanna save some money Fasano is the guy on this list that would hurt the least to let go. IMHO

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sam Sam, on your first post, I must have misread
> you. I thought you were saying that we should be
> angling to draft Barkley next year.
>
> As to your second post, I put "crazy" in quotes
> for a reason. I was referring to your post in
> another thread wherein you agreed with A & O, that
> anyone who thought RT would be used IN SPOT
> SITUATIONS next year as a WR was "crazy."
>
> I was just returning the compliment and applying
> it to what I thought you were saying about
> drafting Barkley.


Ok so you mean its ok to play tannehill at WR?....You lost me

My spanish "EDIT" to english translating capabilities are not understanding...LOL



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2012 04:28AM by samsam3738.

Never mind chren....I got it ....

you mean both things would be ridiculus .....Playing RT at the WR position and drafting barkley next year...

I think i got it right this time.

Ok maybe not..

fasano is the only TE have who can block. I am not in favor of dumping him OR Matt Moore. Neither would give us much in the way of cap savings, at least not enough to pay Wake.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Why would we trade tannehill if we havent even given him a shot....?

Put me down for keeping tannehill even if we end up with the number one pick next year and drafting a receiver with the first pick overall..

The best receiver on the board. Hopefully there is another keyshawn johnson type or even better available.

Give tannehill some good weapons to start out with in his career.

The more i see this guy on film the more i believe he can make it in this league. He can make some tight throws.

I wouldnt mind if we go all offense in next years draft and improve the defense through free agency..

Because we are never winning a championship without a great offense great qb great OL and receivers.

Keyshawn Johnson??!! With the #1 pick, I'd MUCH rather have another Jerry Rice.

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keyshawn Johnson??!! With the #1 pick, I'd MUCH
> rather have another Jerry Rice.


I would had liked to see keyshawn play along side joe montana. Nasty.

Id settle for either.

Id be extatic if either of the receivers we drated this year turn out as good as keyshawn.

Jerry rice is a hall of famer or whatever but his success had a lot to do with the fact that he played with one of the best qbs of alltime.

I wonder if clayton and duper would had been as good if they didnt play with dan the man.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> berkeley223 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > fasano is the only TE have who can block. I am
> not
> > in favor of dumping him OR Matt Moore. Neither
> > would give us much in the way of cap savings,
> at
> > least not enough to pay Wake.
>
>
> I'm in favor of trading any player in the last
> year of their contract if we have no intention of
> giving them a new deal.
>
> We aren't a super bowl contender this year.
> Letting them play out their deals and walk seems
> pointless.
>
> Those guys won't be part of any dolphin team that
> might be a title contender in the future, but the
> players we could get with the draft picks acquired
> by trading players like Bush, Fasano, Wake, etc
> just might be.
>
> If I'm the GM I take a hard look at my roster with
> my coaches. I figure out who I want in this
> system going forward and which of those we can
> afford to sign again.
>
> Everyone else is on the trade block.

I don't want to trade good young players just b/c they are in their last years. Fasano we wouldn't get much for anyway, maybe a 4th rounder. No other TE can block so I'd rather have him this year. I agree if we have already decided to get rid of Long we should trade him and not let him walk; however I don't think we've made that decision and I think it would be a dumb one. Wake is still pretty young, he's our only pass rusher, no way we trade him. Reggie Bush, how can we advocate dumping him off his amazing year? He won't make huge bucks anywhere given the nature of the RB positon, I say we try to extend him for another 1-2 years tops at a more cap friendly deal.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > berkeley223 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > fasano is the only TE have who can block. I
> am
> > not
> > > in favor of dumping him OR Matt Moore.
> Neither
> > > would give us much in the way of cap savings,
> > at
> > > least not enough to pay Wake.
> >
> >
> > I'm in favor of trading any player in the last
> > year of their contract if we have no intention
> of
> > giving them a new deal.
> >
> > We aren't a super bowl contender this year.
> > Letting them play out their deals and walk
> seems
> > pointless.
> >
> > Those guys won't be part of any dolphin team
> that
> > might be a title contender in the future, but
> the
> > players we could get with the draft picks
> acquired
> > by trading players like Bush, Fasano, Wake, etc
> > just might be.
> >
> > If I'm the GM I take a hard look at my roster
> with
> > my coaches. I figure out who I want in this
> > system going forward and which of those we can
> > afford to sign again.
> >
> > Everyone else is on the trade block.
>
> I don't want to trade good young players just b/c
> they are in their last years. Fasano we wouldn't
> get much for anyway, maybe a 4th rounder. No other
> TE can block so I'd rather have him this year. I
> agree if we have already decided to get rid of
> Long we should trade him and not let him walk;
> however I don't think we've made that decision and
> I think it would be a dumb one. Wake is still
> pretty young, he's our only pass rusher, no way we
> trade him. Reggie Bush, how can we advocate
> dumping him off his amazing year? He won't make
> huge bucks anywhere given the nature of the RB
> positon, I say we try to extend him for another
> 1-2 years tops at a more cap friendly deal.


I wasn't suggesting we get rid of players because they are in the last year of their contracts. I'm suggesting that we trade any player in the least year of their contract who either doesn't fit where we are going schematically or wants more money than we are willing to pay.

each case is different and should be dealt with on its own merits.

Bush is an interesting example. He's in the last year of a two year deal. We got him last year for peanuts. He went out and had a terrific season. His value will never be higher, but the issue isn't what can we get for him? Its: "does he fit into our west coast offense, and if he does, how much is it going to cost to sign him for another two years?"

And why wouldn't you trade Fasano under the same circumstances? If Philbin says "he's not what I need to make my offense work, don't re-sign him." Sure he might only bring a 4th round pick, but we just drafted Lamar Miller in the 4th round. I'd make that trade any day and twice on Sunday's...presuming of course the staff has no use for Fasano beyond this season or he's pricing himself off the team.

You weigh that against the possibility of maybe getting a compensatory pick if he walks and we dont sign any major FA's.

But if it were me, I'm getting whatever picks I can for guys that won't be on the team after this season while I can. The more picks we have, the better the chance to accelerate the rebuilding process around Tannehill.

It would be different for me if we were a contender, but we aren't. If we were, I'd say keep 'em all and make your run. But even if we squeaked into the playoffs at 9-7 we aren't likely to be the last team standing this year. So give me whatever picks I can get for those guys I'm not bringing back for the 2013 season and lets move on.

samsam3738 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> montequi Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Keyshawn Johnson??!! With the #1 pick, I'd
> MUCH
> > rather have another Jerry Rice.
>
>
> I would had liked to see keyshawn play along side
> joe montana. Nasty.
>
> Id settle for either.
>
> Id be extatic if either of the receivers we drated
> this year turn out as good as keyshawn.
>
> Jerry rice is a hall of famer or whatever but his
> success had a lot to do with the fact that he
> played with one of the best qbs of alltime.
>
> I wonder if clayton and duper would had been as
> good if they didnt play with dan the man.

I beg to differ. Rice made Steve Young look a lot better than he was. Montana was great. I give you that. But Young was overrated.

Rice was great because he has excellent physical skills and a relentless will to win (ala Michael Jordan). Keyshawn wasn't half as competitive as Rice. Rice spent every offseason working on his game, getting stronger, faster, etc.. Keyshawn wasn't that kind of guy at all.

Oh, and Clayton/Duper were nowhere near Rice.

Sam Sam, I'm not saying we drafted Tannehill to play WR.

We didn't draft him for that.

However, now follow this very carefully.

I, like most others including the pundits before the draft who said that given his brevity of QB experience (compared to other college QBs) that he would be a "project" and that he would have to "sit out the first year on the bench."

A lot of people say that.

Even in our own poll, very few people think it is wise to start Tannehill at QB right away. So that means that he doesn't play QB for the first year.

Okay, then what does he do for the first year? Yeah, most rookies in his position just sit on the bench.

But this guy is playing for Sherman who, given the exact same situation at Texas A & M played him at Wide Receiver until he moved Tannehill into the starting QB situation.

Do we have him as a starting wide receiver? HELL NO!

However, will Sherman use him in spot situations as a WR such as in 3 wide receiver sets?

I think most likely so.

Now, I'm not talking about THE WILDCAT! I'm not talking about that OR THE OPTION.

I'm just talking about the coach making a decision that when you have someone who has so much familiarity that he is explaining receiver routes to the Wide receivers themselves, that you take advantage of that on occasions.

Why? It is another way for him to get used to the speed and level of play at the pro level.

I would say that you would probably only see it about 10% of the time and it would only occur probably AFTER THE FIFTH OR SIXTH game of the season.

If you think back on it, this asset that Tannehill possesses was probably another factor that increased his draft value.

Now Aqua & Orange and other people OVERREACT to what is really a good idea because Aqua has become so emotionally invested in Tannehill that he thinks that if Tannehill plays at wide receiver and becomes good at it that somehow we will decide that Tannehill is not a quarterback at all and will permanently assign him to being a wide receiver.

But Aqua tends to lose touch with reality when it comes to quarterbacks he likes. He did the same thing with Cam Newton. And he would have done the same thing with RGIII had we been in a position to draft him and did so before Washington made the deal to move up to draft him. If you say anything that he regards as negative about them, he loses all proper perspective.

No, no one's talking about switching out Tannehill's position from QB to WR.

Now the one INTELLIGENT concern some have had is about the possibility of injury to our prize draft choice by having him play WR and getting injured doing that before we even see what he can do at QB.

However, I question whether in today's NFL where I believe that the rules protect the Wide Receiver far more than the QB, whether he is not in a greater danger playing QB in the PRE-SEASON than playing WR in spot situtations in the regular season.

Got it chren

QUOTE:However, will Sherman use him in spot situations as a WR such as in 3 wide receiver sets?

I think most likely so.


Answer I hope thats not the case chrenB...why would he use a 4.7 or 4.8 40 dash slowish receiver unproven player whos is supposed to be the future qb and risk him to injury.

Yes we have WRs that are supposedely 2nd and third stringers but they are surely 4.3.4.4.4.5.guys that are definetely faster and played wr their entire career. Why not use them instead.

I think it will be a waste of time to give tannehill another players time at the wr position.

I know we do not have superstars at the wr position but we have players with a lot of upside and a lot of speed that can become real good if given the chance.

Clydes Gates Marlon Moore and roberto wallace are three that i believe have a lot of speed and potential to become great....

then there is the rookies that we drafted

hartline and bess...

Its just too crowded...and we have some speed and talent there...