I think our lbs will improve this season just like I believe Tanny will on O. People talk about the horrible play but the defense had us in every game this season except the Saints.

If the offense controls the ball more that will take some pressure of the D.

More blitz packages instead of depending on the front 4 for pressure.

Jordan show signs of what he can do just like Vernon did in 2012. Some people were calling him a bust his rookie year.

Our young dbs will be healthier.

Big question w/ our 2 f/a DTs but as I said before this draft is deep w/ DTs.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're right, SamSam but the problem is that if
> the top guy at O line falls to you, you're right,
> grab him because it's the worse position.
>
> That's easy.
>
>
> The problem is that if the best two o line guys
> are GONE and the top LB is there, do you take the
> third best O line guy or the best LB guy?
>
>
> I say take the best LB guy and that you can't cry
> over spilled milk.
>
> If you can solve ONE of your needs, don't go for
> second best at your top need when you can go for
> FIRST BEST at your second need.

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

I'm sure all of us on this board agree that none of us are GMs.

Saying that, in your scenario (above) Chreyn, it would depend on the Dolphins' draft board. If Miami sees that the 3rd highest rated OL is rated higher than the top LB available, then they go with the OL.

Not knowing how the Fins have their draft board, especially with a new GM, it would be very difficult to know which way Hanley would go.

We would all have our opinion, of course, after the pick as to whether or not we think he made the right decision, and naturally, since the Dolphins are our team, we would all hope that he made the correct decision.

captkoi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You're right, SamSam but the problem is that if
> > the top guy at O line falls to you, you're
> right,
> > grab him because it's the worse position.
> >
> > That's easy.
> >
> >
> > The problem is that if the best two o line guys
> > are GONE and the top LB is there, do you take
> the
> > third best O line guy or the best LB guy?
> >
> >
> > I say take the best LB guy and that you can't
> cry
> > over spilled milk.
> >
> > If you can solve ONE of your needs, don't go
> for
> > second best at your top need when you can go
> for
> > FIRST BEST at your second need.
>
> **************************************************
> ***
>
> I'm sure all of us on this board agree that none
> of us are GMs.
>
> Saying that, in your scenario (above) Chreyn, it
> would depend on the Dolphins' draft board. If
> Miami sees that the 3rd highest rated OL is rated
> higher than the top LB available, then they go
> with the OL.
>
> Not knowing how the Fins have their draft board,
> especially with a new GM, it would be very
> difficult to know which way Hanley would go.
>
> We would all have our opinion, of course, after
> the pick as to whether or not we think he made the
> right decision, and naturally, since the Dolphins
> are our team, we would all hope that he made the
> correct decision.

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

Oops....HICKEY.

take best player available. this "best player at position of need" stuff s loser talk for reaching for need. WTF that was Ireand's MO (he admitted it) and now you want to continue a philosophy that produced failed draft after failed draft

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> take best player available. this "best player at
> position of need" stuff s loser talk for reaching
> for need. WTF that was Ireand's MO (he admitted
> it) and now you want to continue a philosophy that
> produced failed draft after failed draft


Call me crazy, but Dion Jordan, was certainly not best player at position of need for our team last year.. All while ignoring the oline with the pick, which was the position of need.. While Jordan might be great one day, our team really suffered from the worst oline in football last year... If better players on the boards are always ahead of the oline, do we not pick any Olinemen? That seems more like what Ireland did last year.... Didn't work out for him...

A couple years back, Pouncey was a best player at position of need pick, and that has worked out pretty well...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

yes dion jordan was an odd pick and an outlier for Ireland. too early to say whether it was a bad pick, though, he could still be a good one
but for the most part Ireland drafted for need and admitted as much---b/c that is basically what BPA at position of need is (obviously if you are going to be picking for need, you are going to take the guy at the top of your board at that position, duh!)

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Miami sees that the 3rd highest rated OL is
> rated higher than the top LB available, then they
> go with the OL.
>
> Hmmmm. I'm not sure one can compare apples and
> oranges like that unless of course LOL, one of
> them is rotten.
>
> But that's not what we're talking about, a bad one
> versus a good one of another position.
>
> So I would have to respectfully disagree. Even if
> the 3rd best Olineman grades out in some time of
> eesti-like PFF figure higher at his position than
> the linebacker who ranked better than all other
> linebackers, I say take the linebacker and thereby
> "solve" that position.
>
> Then I'd go looking for "diamonds in the rough" in
> the O line availables.
>
> My thinking is that when you have two problems,
> I'd rather solve one than take a stab at solving
> both when that stab represents what I would
> consider to be less than the best player in the
> draft at that position.
>
> Of course if the best lb is also gone then you
> have to again take the better of the two at his
> position.

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

You may disagree, Chreyn, but it's like I said in my post....if that's what the Fins draft board indicates, then....

I would have to say, tho, in my humble opinion, that picking at 19, a top notch OL (especially a OT) won't be there, so more than likely, in your scenario, the LB would be taken with that pick.

if we go in NEEDING an OL at all costs in the 1st round, then you get what we did a few years back, trading up (a 4th rounder) to move up one spot so we could take Vernon Carey, allowing the Pats to get Vince Wilfork.

Take the best player on the board in the 1st and let the chips fall

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

But berk, what would you do if the best player available was NOT a position of need?

Say like Quarterback.

Let's say for example we all agree (* and I know we don't but stay with me for this hypothetical) that Tannehill is all we want him to be.

Let's then say that the draft gurus all agree that Teddy Bridgewater is the best player available and he falls to us?

Do we draft Teddy Bridgewater just because he's the best player available?

I know you wouldn't go that far but that starts the slippery slope.

At some point, you have to go for the 4th best guy at a position of need before you go for the 3rd best guy in an area that is solid.

Like I said, when you have two positions of need, then I'm not going to argue with you as to you taking the 3rd best guy here or the 2nd best guy there.

But you have to satisfy your needs. You can't just go grabbing the best players available when you've already got good players in that position ........particularly when your team sucks overall and it's because of other positions.

QB is a possible exception b/c you can only play one so if you feel good about your starter you shouldn't take a QB if he's the top guy on your board---but of course it rarely happens that a QB will be there anyway past the top 10 since everyone reaches for those, but if it did happen that's when you trade down

any other position, I say take the guy who is clearly higher than the next person on the board (if it's essentially a toss up and the #1A guy is at a need position than fine take him). So if, say, that WR from Clemson somehow falls to us at 19, or the NC TE Ebron is there, or a stud LB, I say take him over the #4 OT and I don't think twice.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Well, I differ. I wouldn't look at TEs or WRs with my top pick this year but LBs are a different story because we suck at defending the run.

Jonathan Martin was a best player available pick, he was rated much higher then we drafted him in most boards or mocks... He was thought to be a steal in the 2nd rd, and at the time not really a position of need so he was BPA according to Irelands board so we took him... Sometimes a guys falls and looks like BPA, but in reality he isn't, you just didn't scout him as well as others, which is why he is still available...

I think all things being relatively equal you take the position of need obviously... But you don't pass on a stud or what you perceive as a sure thing at one position to take a risk at a position of need.... But just drafting BPA regardless of your needs or roster can be just as foolish IMO... Taking Dion Jordan and Jamar Taylor got Ireland fired IMO... Had he drafted players on the Oline with those picks, he probably still has a job and we make the play offs last year...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2014 05:07PM by Crowder52.

Drafting based on need is not a good approach, and most successful teams don't do it. It often takes a player 3-4 years to develop into quality starter material, so if you draft a OL simply because it is a position of need, when there are higher rated players on the board at other positions, and you plug that rookie OL in as a starter you might not get an improved OL right away. In the meantime, your positions of strength on the team get older, and in 3-4 years are no longer positions of strength. So in 3-4 years, you have an OK but not great offensive line, and an aging, increasingly porous D-line. That's not a way to build a championship team. You want the best players on your team. Draft best play available (if it happens to be a position of need, great!), and plug immediate holes with reasonably priced FAs.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jonathan Martin was a best player available pick,
> he was rated much higher then we drafted him in
> most boards or mocks... He was thought to be a
> steal in the 2nd rd, and at the time not really a
> position of need so he was BPA according to
> Irelands board so we took him... Sometimes a guys
> falls and looks like BPA, but in reality he isn't,
> you just didn't scout him as well as others, which
> is why he is still available...
>
> I think all things being relatively equal you
> take the position of need obviously... But you
> don't pass on a stud or what you perceive as a
> sure thing at one position to take a risk at a
> position of need.... But just drafting BPA
> regardless of your needs or roster can be just as
> foolish IMO... Taking Dion Jordan and Jamar Taylor
> got Ireland fired IMO... Had he drafted players on
> the Oline with those picks, he probably still has
> a job and we make the play offs last year...


Its not the BPA strategy that is in error here Crowder. Its the guy ranking the board.

Nobody hits on all their picks. Even guys like Ozzie Newsome are only hitting 50-60% of the time.

But a better GM would have done his homework on how soft Martin was since he was a 1st round projection leading up to the draft. A better GM wouldn't have had him ranked as the Best Player on his board, if he was even on his board, but a better GM wouldn't have had him ahead of guys like Alshon Jeffrey, Bobby Wagner and Lavonte David.

There's a reason Cleveland and Buffalo took "lesser" values at OT in the 2nd round before we took Martin. Our GM just didn't see it.


Everybody has a different slant on how to build your roster but here's mine.

Use Free Agency to fill as many holes as possible with solid NFL players.

Then use the draft to bring in as many inexpensive, 4/5 year, impact guys as you can find...regardless of position. Of course, you don't overdraft a position so if you are set at QB or you have a full stable of RB's you don't waste a pick on one.

In the draft you generally go BPA but if you have a group of players with a similar grade then you break the tie based on need.

Trade down and acquire additional and future picks whenever possible.

I think that's the best way in general to approach things. But it won't work (no approach will) if the guy stacking the board can't evaluate talent.

Anemone1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Drafting based on need is not a good approach, and
> most successful teams don't do it. It often takes
> a player 3-4 years to develop into quality starter
> material, so if you draft a OL simply because it
> is a position of need, when there are higher rated
> players on the board at other positions, and you
> plug that rookie OL in as a starter you might not
> get an improved OL right away. In the meantime,
> your positions of strength on the team get older,
> and in 3-4 years are no longer positions of
> strength. So in 3-4 years, you have an OK but not
> great offensive line, and an aging, increasingly
> porous D-line. That's not a way to build a
> championship team. You want the best players on
> your team. Draft best play available (if it
> happens to be a position of need, great!), and
> plug immediate holes with reasonably priced FAs.


I agree wholeheartedly.

That's why I'm not a fan of trying to fill our 4 opening on the Oline with rookies. Maybe one spot, two if we win the lottery, but more than that is a pipe dream.

I'd sign a starting LT (Albert or Monroe?)...I'd bring back Clabo on the cheap, I'd sign a starting LG and I'd find a versatile backup Olineman.

Then I'd draft 2, maybe 3 more to develop. And I probably wouldn't take one in the 1st round.

I tend to agree that a superior defense wins championships more often, but whether the winning team has a good offense or defense the games are won or lost in the trenches. We're pretty good on the defensive side, we must concentrate on the O-line. A really good LB wouldn't be amiss, either.

Rick

All Mocks have us going with OL. I'll be glad when this is corrected so we can actually draft other good players

dolphin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All Mocks have us going with OL. I'll be glad when
> this is corrected so we can actually draft other
> good players

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

With the Dolphins drafting in the 19th slot, it is going to be extremely difficult to get a good OLman. Hopefully, Miami gets lucky.

If they don't get that OL in the 1st round, then Miami can only pray that the gods are looking down on them and whomever and however many they end up picking, that at least one of them pans out.

Miami is going to have to spend some bucks during FA to get that line shored up; highly unlikely it will happen in the draft.