Home
THIS SITE
  About Phins.com
  Contact Us
TEAM NEWS
  Team Info
  Twitter Feeds
  News Wire
  Phins RSS Feed
GAMES
  Schedule
PERSONNEL
  Roster
  Depth Chart
FOR THE FANS
  Forums
  Places To Watch
HISTORY
  Team History
  1972 Tribute
 
-- Advertisement --
Privacy Policy at Phins.com
 
  Phins.com Phorums
    News Wire | Roster | Depth Chart | Last/Next Game | Schedule | Links  
          draft theory
Miami Dolphins Civilized Discussion :  Phins.com Phorums The fastest message board... ever.
This is a moderated phorum for the CIVILIZED discussion of the Miami Dolphins. In this phorum, there are rules and moderators to make sure you abide by the rules. The moderators for this phorum are JC and Colonel
draft theory
Posted by: realist ()
Date: March 13, 2009 07:00AM

I love to speculate about what is 'really' going on beyond appearances. Sometimes I am way off (I can admitt it), but, sometimes I feel like I am right.

I am wondering to what extent the Green signing was an attempt to make it look like we DON'T need a Corner in the draft?

Then I remembered how certain the experts were that we were going to draft a center...then we signed Grove.

With all of the talk about us needing a big fast WR...up pops the edited practice footage of Brandon London looking fast and promising.


I think the FO is looking at moves that Could address a starting need, or could be depth BUT appears to address the need and changing the draft picture for outsiders.

We could still draft just about anything. IN fact the more it looks like WR is our most glaring need? I think the less likely we are to draft one with our 1st pick.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: draft theory
Posted by: grooves12 ()
Date: March 13, 2009 09:51AM

I think Parcells/Ireland have shown that they are not going to be pigeonholed into drafting any single position. They always try to draft the best player available... and to do that you have to have the bodies to make up your roster without being forced to pick up a guy or two in the draft.

Look at last year... did we NEED Jake Long?? I don't think we did. Carey had performed adequately as a LT, and we really didn't have a QB. They weren't sure on the top QBs being ready and thought Long was the best guy there, so they took him and moved Carey over. Where Merling and Langford were taken they weren't really needs either... but they were very good players that fell farther down the boards than expected, so they took them and they worked out quite well.

Personally, I like the philosophy... you fill NEEDS (as in bodies, not necessarilly stars) through free agency, and then take the best player available regardless of position and hope you can upgrade at a few spots through the draft.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: draft theory
Posted by: Miami Reppa ()
Date: March 13, 2009 10:15AM

I think your theory of throwing off other teams applies to teams in the top 5-8. You have teams behind you trying to guess what these teams will pick and who should be available and if they need to move ahead of someone to get their guy. When you pick #25 it is impossible to gage who we will pick since no one can know who will be available. When our time comes maybe if a stud is around that lost stock it may apply but until then I agree they just dont want to reach for player to fit a square hole but only triangles are left...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: draft theory
Posted by: tsstamper ()
Date: March 13, 2009 11:03AM

I agree that, specific to the draft, it appears that they are probably trying to cause teams not to know who or what position they're targeting.

This fits into the overall strategy that I think they have implemented, which is to improve the entire roster from the top to the bottom. I, and probably many others like me, love to think about how talented our OL starters are, for instance. I.e. "Those five would give us a beast of a line." I think they think more about every single player rather than being as biased toward starters as I am. I think it is a very smart approach, and one that, as a byproduct, allows them flexibility to take BPA in the draft.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: draft theory
Posted by: Northeast Fin Fan ()
Date: March 13, 2009 11:18AM

Draft the best player available. That is THE best long-term approach.

Personally, I don't see the glaring need at WR, unless Camarillo is not expected to be ready for the start of the season. There are several positions that concern me more than WR (where we have 4 up and coming players).

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: draft theory
Posted by: toko34 ()
Date: March 13, 2009 11:40AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: draft theory
Posted by: DolphinSam ()
Date: March 14, 2009 04:34AM

I agree with grooves. Ireland said he didn't plan to pick up those players last year, they were just available, and I believe him. So we can expect the same thing in this draft. Although, I think the picks have to be in the ballpark of our need. We didn't NEED Jake at LT, but we certainly did need to bolster the line, that's what they focused on, the lines. And they didn't want to risk a QB pick at that time.

I think we'll go BPA, but it's way likely to be a defensive player, and probably a linebacker. Although, it concerns me a lot we struggled at offense, and we need better players there. We can't run the ball. I would be happy, actually, to see us surprise pick someone like Duke Robinson or Max Unger, put him next to Carey, and you're guaranteed a running game. Funny how the talk has died down about the O line...wouldn't it be something if we went that way, picked an O lineman for the 2nd year in a row? lol. What if Oher is there? Well, it won't happen.

After our stud OLB pick, I guess we'll all look to the 2nd round for the picks we really do need. We do need a corner, receiver, O lineman, and inside linebacker to stop the run. Then there's talk of grooming a NT, so there might go a pick. I'm going to be pretty nervous watching the 2nd round.

smiling bouncing smiley

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: draft theory
Posted by: Anonymous User ()
Date: March 15, 2009 07:59AM

I think the FO will take BPA. If there are a bunch of players tied as BPA, then they go position of need. In short, if our pick comes up and CB is the BPA, we will have a brand new rookie CB in a phins uniform.

Sanity is a nice thing... but it confounds the prognosticators and drafniks when it comes to predictions.

Looking at most of the Mock drafts, Larry English looks to me like the player well take. But I have no illusions... those Mock drafts assume a lot regarding how the other picks ahead of us will go. There is a good chance that a better player will slip down to us, and most of the know nothing knuckleheads that said will will pick this guy or that guy will be blown away. Some will admit their mistakes only to repeat them next year. Other will bag on the guy we ended up drafting only because he wasn't their pick, yet they will still be considered fans.

It is why draft prognostication by wannabe GMs on a fan message board disgust me.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: draft theory
Posted by: DaytonaDolfan13 ()
Date: March 15, 2009 12:44PM

disgusting........

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: draft theory-DT?
Posted by: dolphan4545 ()
Date: March 15, 2009 01:25PM

BPA seems to be the best strategy to me, but I disagree that we didn't NEED to draft Jake Long last year. Having the first pick in the draft tells me that the Trifecta, having their pick of ANY player in the draft, decided to take Jake because not only was he one of three or four players that were considered to be very close in talent (REGARDLESS of what we know now) in last year's draft, but he also filled a well-documented Parcells need to improve the O-line, which he undeniably did. I think this will continue in the later rounds this year.
I don't have any idea -and I don't think anybody else does either, regardless of how much of an expert they claim to be or what "inside" info they claim to have- what the Trifecta will do in the first round this year, but I think we can count on Bill to do some first day work on the defensive line. We need a nose tackle, so I'm thinking Ron Brace of BC has the size and quickness to be on the radar. Could this guy be had in the late second, or maybe in the third? I'm not enough of a draftnik to know if this is a viable idea at these spots or not. Opinions?

Rick



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2009 01:26PM by dolphan4545.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: draft theory
Posted by: DolphinSam ()
Date: March 15, 2009 02:49PM

Brace will go in the 1st or 2nd. He won't be there in the 3rd at all. He's one of only two premium NT's in this draft, and afterwards there's a big drop. We might be able to get him at 44, but that's probably a 50/50 chance imo. If we do use one of our 2nd round picks, that probably means say goodbye to the WR's we like.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: draft theory
Posted by: DaytonaDolfan13 ()
Date: March 15, 2009 06:10PM

I think we've already scouted out a late round monster from somewhere for our NT project.

I liked Brace till I saw him running at his pro day... his boobies were bouncing. It was NASTEY, didn't look very athletic. Especially next to RAJI.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: draft theory
Posted by: dolphan4545 ()
Date: March 16, 2009 05:40PM

What, you don't like big-breasted NT's?

Rick

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: draft theory
Posted by: dolfanmark ()
Date: March 17, 2009 02:20AM

I think there's a good chance we take Hakeem Nicks with our first pick. When you look at what teams need a WR, and then you look at guys who have #1 WR potential, there's good reason to think that #44 will be too late to take one. There could be a run on WR late in the 1st round and early in the 2nd. With Robiskie climbing the charts, he may not even be available at #44, and he's really considered a safe pick as a #2 WR not really a potential #1 guy.

Options: ReplyQuote


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
   
Home Curt Fennell
Contact Us
DOLFAN in New England
TOP
   
© Phins.com. No portion of this site may be reproduced without
the express permission of the author, Curt Fennell. All rights reserved.