We will likely keep only 6-7. Top 3 will likely be back, others battling for maybe 3-4 spots.

Bess
Hartline
Gates

Naanee
Cunningham
Matthews
Wallace
Fuller
Moye
Moore

where's tannehill

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

lol I knew that was coming ha!!!

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> where's tannehill


Nicely done

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> where's tannehill

OK, Here is my guess....

Hartline, Cunningham, Matthews, Fuller, Nannee, Bess. Gates is on the fringe and better work on his route running.

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

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

We have the worst WR in the league. Ideal to break in a rookie QB

I dont know about "worst", but it is looking like a rather unremarkable group. I think we will end up with a bunch of sure handed recievers who aren't very flashy. It could be worse.

It would be nice if there was a "burner" either on the roster or available in FA.

thing is, WR should be one of the easiest positions to fill in the draft. If we can add a #1 next year, our group suddenly becomes pretty good. We are filled with solid #2 and #3 types, just lack a difference maker (and no I am not losing sleep over BMarshall's trade)

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thing is, WR should be one of the easiest
> positions to fill in the draft. If we can add a #1
> next year, our group suddenly becomes pretty good.
> We are filled with solid #2 and #3 types, just
> lack a difference maker (and no I am not losing
> sleep over BMarshall's trade)


Maybe one of them will develop into a deep threat.

Gates sure has speed.

sconigli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont know about "worst", but it is looking like
> a rather unremarkable group. I think we will end
> up with a bunch of sure handed recievers who
> aren't very flashy. It could be worse.
>
> It would be nice if there was a "burner" either on
> the roster or available in FA.

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

I could have sworn Gates ran a 4.3 (or so)? I would call that a burner.

Now he just has to learn how to run routes in the WCO.

BTW almost forgot ... for berkely and the others

Tannehill - 4.57 low to 4.74 for the QB reverse and becoming a receiver

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> berkeley223 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > where's tannehill
>
>
>


That's what I was thinking.

Moore is pretty fast too... I believe in the 4.4 range

Oh, that was a wicked one, stevie. LOL.

Don't forget guys,

Joe Philbin has already mentioned numerous times that Reggie Bush will line up at the WR positions a lot in this offense.

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

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

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, that was a wicked one, stevie. LOL.


What was so wicked? Did you think he was talking about Matt Moore?

Don't sell the 6th and 7th rounder short.

Chris Chambers said that he thinks Cunningham will be a good pro. He watched him live against Wisconsin and was worried about what he was doing against his Baggers. While none of us will be thrilled to hear that Charles Davis compared him to Patrick Turner,it was nice that his former college coach likened him to Muhsin Muhhamed.

As for Matthews, I recall Gil Brandt projecting as a 2nd rounder because he wowed the scouts at his pro day. He seems impressive enough to me on the videos.

I think Ireland really liked both of them and was surprised to see them there so late. He suggested that they may have not been the fastest players, but the were football players and they played fast.

Nobody knows for sure how it will work out, but I am just saying not to count them out.

Jonathan Twilley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Oh, that was a wicked one, stevie. LOL.
>
>
> What was so wicked? Did you think he was talking
> about Matt Moore?


Oops. Yes. I was wrong. I thought he was joining in on the fun.

ok after looking at those highlights someone tell me how matthews went in the 7th?

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Deepest WR draft in the history of the sport....that's how. This draft was loaded with WR's all the way through. Hopefully "we killed it"!!!!!



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

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2012 06:41PM by Aqua&Orange.

He's just one example of why I think we had a solid draft.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ok after looking at those highlights someone tell
> me how matthews went in the 7th?


He sprained his MCL in the last game of the year. And then he reaggravated it right before the combine. It led to a poor showing, running a 4.62, and not being able to cut well on his routes. Probably because of that, only about 15 teams went to his pro day. But, there, he ran a 4.44 and very crisp routes.

Guys please lets just leave tannehill as a QB......Its hard enough transition to make it in the NFL in one position.


What makes you believe he is going to make it at 2 positions.

you guys are dreaming too much. It would be great if he makes it at QB....

that would be enough for me.

Stop dreaming yall.

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> samsam3738 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Guys please lets just leave tannehill as a
> > QB......Its hard enough transition to make it
> in
> > the NFL in one position.
> >
> >
> > What makes you believe he is going to make it at
> 2
> > positions.
> >
> > you guys are dreaming too much. It would be
> great
> > if he makes it at QB....
> >
> > that would be enough for me.
> >
> > Stop dreaming yall.
>
>
> Shouldn't that be singular and not plural?


Well that goes for all that want tannehill as the next deion sanders...

that goes for present and future...Whoever thats crazy enough so say tannehill will be a double threat.

BTW Tannehill has quick feet and a fast as hell time in the 40 for a QB.

As far as been a receiver he slow. 8.7 or 4.8 is Slow for a receiver.

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> samsam3738 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Guys please lets just leave tannehill as a
> > QB......Its hard enough transition to make it
> in
> > the NFL in one position.
> >
> >
> > What makes you believe he is going to make it at
> 2
> > positions.
> >
> > you guys are dreaming too much. It would be
> great
> > if he makes it at QB....
> >
> > that would be enough for me.
> >
> > Stop dreaming yall.
>
>
> Shouldn't that be singular and not plural?

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Sam,

What Mark is saying, is that there is only 1 person on this board who even thinks Tannehill will line up at WR.

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

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