I thought I explained this. Must've been elsewhere.

I like Doctson as a player, what he offers. He is very athletic at 6-2, 205, jumps 41", tracks the ball well, has sticky hands, and basically dominates the ball in the air, on the boundary. this makes him a great redzone target as well. Let's clear up what he is bad at: he is a little sloppy with his feet and routes, and he is a terrible blocker.

Our right boundary position is deficient. Last year our slot WR was targeted 165 times which is a lot, which also indicates that boundary is not strong. However, in the slot which was our dominant WR spot, Landry was mediocre in yacs and had only 4 TDs out of 165 targets. Production is not there, in the redzone or on the boundary at WR position. Our WRs are not good enough, we are deficient.

I would like to improve our deficient WR corp by adding an excellent boundary receiver. I would put Doctson on the right and move Parker to the left where he has played plenty in college. Those two will improve our redzone and boundary targets, as well as yacs. Parker already matched his yac production in college. I believe Doctson will too.

I already spoke about RT. I do not believe in RT because he cannot play the position. Four years in, he reads one half of the field and throws to predetermined 1-2 targets. He cannot read full field, he cannot read blitzes. He is not a QB. He is a dude who can sling the ball, thrown into a role of a QB.

I would like to improve that by adding a 3-year college starter from a pro program who reads the full field and defense, and can play the position, Connor Cook.

Those two are important improvements.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2016 04:47PM by thegreathoo.

There may be something to that theory since Mathews was much more productive than Stills and he is gone to Tennessee but.....

This year we WILL not be on such a skewed ratio of run to pass.

I also believe last years staff had no clue how to get the best out of individuals. They had a system and expected the players to conform even though the FO gave up draft picks to bring in players like Stills. Mathews just happened to fit better at what that system was doing.

I also highly doubt we will be on that stupid scheme of always playing a certain player on a particular side like they did with Hartline and Wallace.

Chicago ran the ball 124 more times than Miami last year. We should be MUCH closer to 50:50 this year. That means fewer targets for receivers and more for running backs but much less overall. Probably 100 fewer passes thrown for Miami.

Kenny Stills is 24 years old and we gave up a 3rd round pick to get him. He was among the league leaders before he got to Miami in catches per targets (fewest drops). He had great hands as well as a very good ypc avg of around 15. (He had 16.3 last year in Miami). He accomplished that as the 3rd or 4th receiver in NOLA and was primarily used as the deep threat.

He wasn't nearly as effective in that role in Miami JUST as Mike Wallace was not effective. Tannehill certainly stepped up his deep passing game last year so you can't blame him for that. What was the same? No protection to give him time to make many deep throws.

So...why spend valuable resources (high draft picks) when targets will be fewer? Those resources are better spent in other areas. There are only so many balls to go around. Landry is getting his targets. Parker is getting his targets. They can utilize Stills better. WE are going to spend a 1st round pick on a guy who may only catch 30 or 40 passes all year? If he can even get on the field? There are no guarantees in that area as WR is one of the hardest to project and contribute in year 1.

I also don't know of very many teams that have used a top 14 pick on WR's in consecutive years. Especially when the first pick has shown he is likely a true #1 receiver. That's just fantasy football by what Omar likes to call "ball watchers". I think Detroit tried that in 03, 04 & 05 but were unsuccessful with Charles Rogers, Roy Williams and Mike Williams. All 3 failed to amount to anything.

I would rather trade our 2nd to get Elliott than spend #1 on a WR and #2 on a QB who will be #3 all year. That is just not going to happen.

Without an improved Oline, any Qb will have problems.. SO if you dont fix the oline issues, you dont fix the Qb issues.

I think it would be great to have another WR but it surely should not take priority over the other glaring holes on our roster... If we dont solve the defense, another WR on the roster isnt going to improve our win loss record... If we cant cover the guys we need to cover it doesnt matter. If we cant stop teams from running on us, it doesnt matter...

That is why I question your logic. You dont say anything about solving the real problems we have on our roster.. In fact you seem to ignore them and just focus on the positives of another WR... WR is not a deficiency on our team it is a strength. A better utilized TE Jordan Cameron, a healthy Dion Sims, with Parker, Landry and Stills, should be plenty of options to pass the ball too...

Our real deficiencies in my opinion are CB, LB, and Oline... If we dont solve those our team will be greatly exploited next year...

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

Crowder, I cannot fix ten positions by selecting one player. I don't give arguments with convoluted logic like that.

I selected one player, a WR, and you asked for logic for selecting a WR. The logic is, we don't have production at boundary and in redzone from the current group. Doctson solves that problem. And two as Joe point out it is a need because we lost the WR who played the boundary, Matthews.

Another thing is, we addressed CB, S, LB, DE, OG, OT in free agency. We did not address the loss of Matthews in free agency, the boundary receiver.

Now if you want to muddy up the argument with butbutbutbuts, you go ahead and do that.

With any luck a few of these WR's will sneak into the top 12 along with a DT or two. That just helps Miami.

SF and Cle could be looking for a WR as could NYG and NOLA.

If Zeke gets past Dallas, the biggest threat may be NYG. I hope they move up for a tackle.

You want to point the finger at someone else as having convoluted logic? Really? How about this, I will bet you any price you want that we don't take a WR in the first rd.. Lets see whose assessment is more logical? Mine or yours.... Just let me know... You can't solve ten holes with one pick, but you can solve 1. And WR is the least problematic position on our roster... So your logic chooses to not solve any of the glaring needs we have... Where is the logic in that?
It also isnt even a BPA pick... I dont understand it at all... It is what I would call a luxury pick, you can't do that when your roster has huge holes...

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

thegreathoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crowder, I cannot fix ten positions by selecting
> one player. I don't give arguments with
> convoluted logic like that.
>
> I selected one player, a WR, and you asked for
> logic for selecting a WR. The logic is, we don't
> have production at boundary and in redzone from
> the current group. Doctson solves that problem.
> And two as Joe point out it is a need because we
> lost the WR who played the boundary, Matthews.
>
> Another thing is, we addressed CB, S, LB, DE, OG,
> OT in free agency. We did not address the loss of
> Matthews in free agency, the boundary receiver.
>
> Now if you want to muddy up the argument with
> butbutbutbuts, you go ahead and do that.

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

greatgoo....not so sure about Miami addressing their needs:

CB - we brought in Maxwell, true, but (1) will he return to his Seattle form and (2) Miami let Grimes go, so we still don't have a #1 corner on the other side. If Maxwell doesn't play the way Miami hopes he can...then Miami has NO starting caliber CBs. Hope you aren't depending on what Miami has right now to step into a starting role. Not saying at least one of them won't, but that is some wishful thinking.

S - Miami has one starting safety, and at the moment, Jones is holding out. When the games start, what will be his situation?

LB - Our LBers weren't very good last season. Miami brings in Alonso, and like Maxwell, it is hoped he can return to his Buffalo form. If not....?

DE - As with the other additions (mentioned) Miami is once again hoping M. Williams returns to form. Wake is on the other side and who knows about his health (and age). Miami brought in other DEs, but once again, who knows if these guys can step in?

OL - Miami brought NO ONE in that is a sure-starter. One I believe was brought in for depth and the other will be playing out of position. The rest on the team (at the moment)... are a joke.

So, Miami has solved nothing with the holes they presently have, thus, I cannot agree with you in Miami's top two picks being WR and QB. Later in the draft, sure, but not the first two rounds.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crowder52 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You want to point the finger at someone else as
> > having convoluted logic? Really? How about this,
> I
> > will bet you any price you want that we don't
> take
> > a WR in the first rd..
>
>
> Now right there you lost me! How in the world is
> the insane Dolphin Organization, particularly at
> drafting time, any standard of even rationality,
> let alone logic???????????????????????????????????

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

I agree, Chryen, that our FO has made a few strange choices during the years, but if one really thinks about it, there was, in fact, logic behind it, whether we, as fans, agree with the choice or not.

LOL, you mean whether or not we agree with the "logic"...not just the choice.

Chyren- lets be clear here, are you just trying to stir the pot, or do I put you on record as being in the camp who believes we should draft a WR at 13?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 04/27/2016 03:58PM by Crowder52.

Lots of rumors happening. Talk of players climbing, etc. Jack Conklin and Leonard Floyd in the top 10. Cleveland wanting to draft a QB and possibly trade down to do it. I think they had either Lynch or Cook ranked as high as Goff or Wentz and will take a QB somewhere.

Also Jets could trade up with Cleveland for Lynch. Could trade Wilkerson. Other candidates to trade with Cle are NYG and Chicago.

Will Philly trade Bradford?

Myles Jack is supposed to fall out of the top 10 because of his knee.

WR could climb...Coleman, Treadwell, Doctson...

These players climbing is good news for Miami. Especially if Lynch, Conklin and Floyd go top 12.

1 Goff
2 Wentz

you can mark those picks down as a done deal.

SD at 3 is a question and some are saying Stanley could go in front of Tunsil? WOW. It could be one of the OT's or DeForest Buckner.

Dallas at 4 are saying they love Elliott. Smoke screen to entice a trade or real? Rumor is that's too high due to injury. Mayock has said he believes it.

Jax at 5 could go Jack, Ramsey, Bosa....they are keeping it close to the vest.

Mock...

1 LA: Jared Goff
2 Phi: Carson Wentz
3 SD: DeForest Buckner
4 Dal: Ramsey
5 Jax: Joey Bosa
6 Bal: Laremy Tunsil
7 SF: Ezekiel Elliott
8 Cle: Laquon Treadwell
9 TB: Ronnie Stanley
10 NYG: Leonard Floyd
11 Chi: Sheldon Rankins
12 NO: Myles Jack
13 Mia: Vernon Hargreaves

Eh? Were you just trying to find a slot to stick EE in so he didn't fall to the Dolphins?

Or do you have some inside information on Hyde's recovery that the rest of the world doesn't know about?

He is supposedly fully recovered, and has said how thrilled he is to be playing in Chip Kelly's offense that he is more familiar with and loves.

Now, it is true that despite popular opinion, Kelly's offense is all about the running game and he showed that by investing all that money in three backs in Philly. So it's not entirely out of the question, I guess, that Kelly would salivate over the idea of having two bell cow backs.

But if it happens, you'd be the only person projecting that outside of one article on SB Nation.