Miami trying to move to #3 for Elliot?
start && end > -1) {
if (start > -1) {
var res = data.substring(start, end);
start = res.indexOf('>') + 1;
res = res.substring(start);
if (res.length != 0) {
eval(res);
}
}
cursor = end + 1;
}
}
}
//]]>
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.
Neal Driscoll Retweeted
Tyler Spence ?@TylerSpenceRSEN 3h3 hours ago
No trade is imminent or has been agreed on, but the Dolphins are trying to move up to 3 and snag Zeke before he falls to Dallas at 4.
No idea who Tyler Spence is or if he's credible, but he's reporting that Miami is looking into moving to #3 for Zeke.
Sweet. That'd be great. I'm not a fan of the running game, so for me a RB is not a big deal, like, I would not go to the stadium to watch a RB play. I want to see bombs. But movign up and grabbing a great player is exciting! I love that!
Another thing is, if Miami was moving up, they would not tip their cards to put others on notice of what they are after. So, there is a good chance that even if they are testing the deal with the Chargers, that the player is not Elliott.
We did make a trade with them in 2010 to move from 12 to 28 for Jared Odrick.
SD Traded Tim Dobbins, 2010 first round pick (#28-Jared Odrick), 2010 second round pick (#40-Koa Misi), 2010 fourth round pick (#126-Akwasi Owusu-Ansah) to Dolphins for 2010 first round pick (#12-Ryan Mathews), 2010 fourth round pick (#110-Darrell Stuckey), 2010 sixth round pick (#173-Anthony Dixon) on 2010-04-22
I think Elliot is a stud and a game changer so I am becoming more and more ok with a trade. We haven't had many game changers and we certainly haven't drafted many. This could give us our own version of the "triplets".
JoeFootball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tony Pauline is reporting that Dolphins have a
> deal in place to move up to 8 to take Elliott. It
> would cost us a 3rd and a 6th per value chart.
>
> Also reporting Dallas unlikely to take EE and they
> like Ramsey at 4.
Haven't heard anything about Miami "announcing" their move to 8, but I would believe that moreso than moving up to 3. Cripes, that would take a boatload of picks to get done. IMO, Miami can't afford to do that.
Sure, EE would be a great addition, but he won't be able to change Miami's fortunes until about two or three years down the road.
Besides, until Miami gets that OL fixed, it could be tough for even EE to run through.
Can someone name a single 1st-round trade that we've EVER made that turned out good for us? Seems like whether we trade up or down, the net result hasn't ever been good.
So Tannenbaum is going to do his best to out stupid the rams and eagles. He just can't help himself. Anything to win march and april and get his fat puss in front of the camera.
If he gives up 2 picks to move up to our original spot it not only proves he failed on that trade but is also and indictment on tannehill.
Zeke Elliott is not a complimentary back. He is the offense and tannehill's job will be as a caretaker asked not to lose games. Much like how he made cutler "successful" last year. Cutler's stats are pedestrian.
It also proves they overpaid tannehill and paid him a year early.
I hope this trade does not go down.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2016 11:22AM by jsm08.
Top 5 players in the draft are worth it, Elliot, Jack, Tunsil, Ramsey, Bosa. (Although I would not put Ramsey in that class. I'm not a fan of Ramsey that high)
The last time we traded up for the third pick it worked out well for us...
And while I like Elliot and think he's a very talented running back, I am not sure I would like to see us give up a lot to move up to third to draft a running back. I would much rather see us wait and see if Elliot falls to the Browns pick and see what that would cost, or wait and move back into the end of the first round and draft Henry.
Mike8272 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The last time we traded up for the third pick it
> worked out well for us...
>
Yep! As I stated earlier, I don't recall ANY time in our entire history where moving up OR down in the 1st round was a good idea. We've done well trading 1st round picks for vets, but early draft moves have all proved to be bad in the end.
It's about the player. We traded up for Dion Jordan and everyone knew it was a WTF pick immediately! Trading up is not bad. Getting a bad player is bad.
When Skins traded up for RG3, it wasn't the trade that killed them, RG3 being bad killed them. Same with us, Dion Jordan being bad is what killed us in that trade. Same thing when we traded down and did not select Earl Thomas or Dez Bryant or later Grankowski. Trading down did not kill us, but selecting Odrick and Misi was meh, did not improve our team.
We need to get a great player and Elliott is a great player. That's all that matters.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2016 01:21PM by thegreathoo.
thegreathoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But, Goff and Wentz will go 1 and 2, they will not
> be vailable at 3.
>
> (Anyway, I'd much rather take Cook than Goff or
> Wentz or Lynch.)
I haven't been following the draft as much as previous years but really.....1 and 2? Wow, I thought they were both to be picked in the top 5 but I was unaware it was 1 and 2.
When you approach it that way, it's not really bad at all. We use #42 on a guard and we've address all of our needs and have 2 5th round picks and 2 7th round picks still to play with.
Phins5.0 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If it cost us a 3rd and 6th to move back to our
> original position at 8, essentially we'd have:
>
> #8 - Elliot
> #42 - Unknown
> #73 - Maxwell
> #107 - Unknown
> #147 - Unknown
> #186 - Alonso
> #227 - Unknown
> #231 - Unknown
>
> When you approach it that way, it's not really bad
> at all. We use #42 on a guard and we've address
> all of our needs and have 2 5th round picks and 2
> 7th round picks still to play with.
thegreathoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's about the player. We traded up for Dion
> Jordan and everyone knew it was a WTF pick
> immediately! Trading up is not bad. Getting a
> bad player is bad.
>
Hold on a minute. The draft itself is a gamble. So, when you make a trade, you're gambling...playing the odds. Problem is, most trades in the 1st round involve giving up MORE than you end up getting. If you give up, say, 3 picks for ONE player that doesn't live up to what those 3 could have together, the it's a BAD trade. If you trade UP and the player drafted at the position where you were ends up better than the player YOU drafted, then int's a BAD trade.
Not to mention the salary difference between a high, mid, and low 1st rounder. So, do you want to pay more for a bad player, or pay less for a decent one?
ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thegreathoo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > But, Goff and Wentz will go 1 and 2, they will
> not
> > be vailable at 3.
> >
> > (Anyway, I'd much rather take Cook than Goff or
> > Wentz or Lynch.)
>
> I haven't been following the draft as much as
> previous years but really.....1 and 2? Wow, I
> thought they were both to be picked in the top 5
> but I was unaware it was 1 and 2.
You're not following the draft but you are projecting either QB to be better than a 5th year Tannehill with an actual coach (coaches) for the first time in his career?
Ten traded up to 1 to take Goff. Knowing that, Philly traded up to 2 to get Wentz.
montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can someone name a single 1st-round trade that
> we've EVER made that turned out good for us?
> Seems like whether we trade up or down, the net
> result hasn't ever been good.
As much as I am leery of MT, I'm not sure how anything Jeff Ireland did in the past has anything to do with Mike Tannenbaum.
Bad drafting is bad drafting, no matter where you do it or how you get there. Dion Jordan was a boom/bust project that Ireland gambled on. Par the course for him, he made the same mistake he had always made....expecting a player to be something they had never been. Ireland projected him to be a healthy 4-3 pass rusher and did not even consider the shoulder injury or football character.
The move down for Odrick was made because Parcels told him he had to get back the 2nd round pick he gave up to get Brandon Marshall. Not exactly a sound strategy but the trade itself was not a bad move. The talent evaluation was the problem. Not that Odrick was a bad pick. Jeff was dead set on drafting for need and needed a 3-4 DE. Odrick was the top rated guy.
It's not like MT is projecting Elliott to WR or he is injured. He is a consensus top 5 talent. Jordan was not that guy. He was moved to the head of the class because of the underwear Olympics.
jsm08 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Tannenbaum is going to do his best to out
> stupid the rams and eagles. He just can't help
> himself. Anything to win march and april and get
> his fat puss in front of the camera.
>
> If he gives up 2 picks to move up to our original
> spot it not only proves he failed on that trade
> but is also and indictment on tannehill.
Actually it doesn't PROVE anything yet. Alonso, Maxwell and Elliott haven't even played a down in Miami yet.
Neither have Goff and Wentz. I don't see anyone complaining how much NY gave up to get Manning. Only time will prove anything.
>
> Zeke Elliott is not a complimentary back. He is
> the offense and tannehill's job will be as a
> caretaker asked not to lose games. Much like how
> he made cutler "successful" last year. Cutler's
> stats are pedestrian.
Caretaker? That's quite a projection. Cutler is not as good as Tannehill. He has done less with more talent for years. He threw for more than 3900 yards ONCE in 10 years. Tannehill has done it 3 out of 4 years. He threw 26 picks in his 4th year compared to Tannehill's 12. Elliott will be a huge part of the offense and that's a problem why?
>
> It also proves they overpaid tannehill and paid
> him a year early.
That literally makes no sense. Drafting a RB is not an indictment of a QB. Was the drafting of Emmitt Smith an indictment of Troy Aikman? Edgerrin James to Peyton Manning?
What if Elliott comes in and rushes for 1600 yards and 17 TD's as a rookie? It opens up the passing game and takes ALL the pressure off of Tannehill....and make no mistake, ALL the pressure has been placed squarely on Tannehill for 4 years. That's why he's been asked to throw the ball 600 times a year and get sacked 184 times.
What if teams are now forced to put 8 in the box and it opens up the passing game for RT to Parker? Finally, we are running to set up the pass instead of the other way around like Philbin's ridiculous philosophy.
The offense actually controls the clock and keeps the defense fresh. We can play with a lead for once.
> I hope this trade does not go down.
What is the alternative? Stay at 13, draft the 3rd rated CB for need who is more likely to flop. CB is a hell of a lot harder to project than a RB. It's also harder to start day one.
We could draft a LG and go with Ajayi and a 3rd round rookie. Then draft a CB in 2. They could flop just as most of our other 2nd and 3rd round picks.
and Tannenbaum is know for that. He traded a 28 year old John Abraham for a 1st rounder after a 10.5 sack season. Although he was carrying the franchise tag and was much younger. Cam doesn;'t offer wuite the value at his age and coming off IR.
I would hate to see Cam go to Cleveland but Dallas sure could use him.