PDA

View Full Version : Barry Jackson- Miami Dolphins might shun QB option with first-round pick



jim1
01-16-2012, 06:31 PM
BY BARRY JACKSON
bjackson@MiamiHerald.com

For weeks last season, the question wasn’t whether the Dolphins would draft a quarterback in the first round, but which one.

No longer. Several factors conspired to practically ensure that Miami will address a different position with the eighth or ninth pick of the first round, barring a trade-up with St. Louis for the No. 2 choice, and the right to select Baylor’s Robert Griffin III.

With Matt Barkley and Landry Jones deciding to remain in school, Griffin soaring up draft boards, and the Dolphins winning more games than quarterback-starved Cleveland and Washington, there is no quarterback considered worthy of selection in the Dolphins’ first-round range. And that means Miami’s best options at that spot figure to be an offensive tackle, a defensive end or a linebacker such as Boston College’s Luke Kuechley. Cornerback is not out of the question.

• Guard: Even with the potential of Vernon Carey leaving in free agency, there would be no way to justify using a top-10 pick on an interior lineman. The highest-rated, according to Kiper, are Georgia’s Cordy Glenn (“has spent time at tackle but can dominate at guard”) and Stanford’s David DeCastro. They are ranked 13th and 14th, respectively.

The draft’s top tight end, Clemson’s Dwayne Allen, is projected to go long after Miami’s first pick. Kiper ranks Allen 23rd overall and said he is “head and shoulders above the rest of his class. The NFL is craving these types right now.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/16/v-fullstory/2592477/miami-dolphins-might-shun-qb-option.html#storylink=cpy

Valandui
01-16-2012, 06:56 PM
Shocker.

PJack
01-16-2012, 07:43 PM
8296

jlfin
01-16-2012, 07:49 PM
In reality, if they can't trade up and get RG III they should take BPA (who is not an O-lineman). I'd be happy with the best defensive player on the board.
The Phins have a solid roster, but need a couple of game changers (impact players) to get to the next level.
They should then target Weeden or Tannehill in the 2nd rd.

next-year
01-16-2012, 07:49 PM
no offense to you but how is this even news worthy ?

hold that, how is anything barry jackson says news worthy?

perfect1
01-16-2012, 07:56 PM
KIPER?????? Really? Thanks for the info, but KIPER?????? Really?

jim1
01-16-2012, 08:37 PM
no offense to you but how is this even news worthy ?

hold that, how is anything barry jackson says news worthy?

Try reading the article, it's not reflective of a simple, obvious title. And if you don't think the Barry Jackson articles are news worthy- way to show your ignorance, thanks for playing.

Dogbone34
01-16-2012, 08:45 PM
Coples in Miami would be nice

Weeden/Foles/Osweiler in the 2nd

Tiko377
01-16-2012, 08:49 PM
doubt we go oline again we already have TWO first rounders there we could replace carey/colombo with jerry and sign one or two free agents.

we might go defense i wouldn't mind going after a pass rusher

dolfanduwayne63
01-16-2012, 09:11 PM
In reality, if they can't trade up and get RG III they should take BPA (who is not an O-lineman). I'd be happy with the best defensive player on the board.
The Phins have a solid roster, but need a couple of game changers (impact players) to get to the next level.
They should then target Weeden or Tannehill in the 2nd rd.Tannehill would be unlikely in the 2nd rd. Speculation is he is climbing significantly, even with a injury significant enough to keep him out of the Senior Bowl.Some teams are said to love his upside enough that he could wind up being a top 15 pick.

Thumper1016
01-16-2012, 10:42 PM
Miami pass on a first round QB.....:chuckle:

Kistner10
01-16-2012, 11:13 PM
I think he's correct IF we stay at our original drafting position. I wouldn't call it shunning the position, but we'd be unlikely to get RGIII at 8 or 9 and taking Tannehill that early would be a huge reach.

Not really news worthy imo

sinPHIN
01-17-2012, 01:04 AM
kiper is a joke. trade down to the teens pick up more picks. take floyd or decastro, hell maybe even wright. pick up tannehill in the 2nd and fleener in the 2nd.
jmo but i thinks this is the smartest way to go

ckparrothead
01-17-2012, 01:25 AM
I agree that it's difficult to justify a quarterback at #8 or #9 overall. I do not, however, see why an offensive tackle would be justified at that pick but a David DeCastro would not.

People need to adjust the way they think about draft priorities in light of the rookie wage scale. The hierarchy of position importance with respect to top 10 picks has flattened out to a much more meritocratic landscape. In other words, David DeCastro can flat out play football and make an impact on the game more so than can a Jonathan Martin or Riley Reiff, and now that you don't have to pay these guys a whole lot of money, THAT is what counts most. In the past that was clouded with the fact that you have to pay X amount of money to these guys, which would then compare with Y compensation levels which are typical for that position. Not nearly as much a factor anymore.

Hayden Fox
01-17-2012, 06:17 AM
The Fins are going to trade their 2012 #1, #2, #3 and 2013 #1, #2 for RGIII.

I am not for it. It is way too much for him, but I am convinced that is how they are going to sell tickets and get pub in South Florida.

I like RGIII, but to mortgage the house for him...no.

Valandui
01-17-2012, 08:05 AM
I agree that it's difficult to justify a quarterback at #8 or #9 overall. I do not, however, see why an offensive tackle would be justified at that pick but a David DeCastro would not.

People need to adjust the way they think about draft priorities in light of the rookie wage scale. The hierarchy of position importance with respect to top 10 picks has flattened out to a much more meritocratic landscape. In other words, David DeCastro can flat out play football and make an impact on the game more so than can a Jonathan Martin or Riley Reiff, and now that you don't have to pay these guys a whole lot of money, THAT is what counts most. In the past that was clouded with the fact that you have to pay X amount of money to these guys, which would then compare with Y compensation levels which are typical for that position. Not nearly as much a factor anymore.
I agree. As much as I don't want another first round OL, it would be hard to be pissed at taking DeCastro. Dude is sheer badassery. We may be talking about Tannehill as a possibility there by draft time, though.

Finfanforever
01-17-2012, 11:01 AM
Yeah if idiot Ireland would have taken Mallett in the 3rd round before Bill-a-cheat got him we would not have this worry!

Kistner10
01-17-2012, 09:35 PM
I agree that it's difficult to justify a quarterback at #8 or #9 overall. I do not, however, see why an offensive tackle would be justified at that pick but a David DeCastro would not.

People need to adjust the way they think about draft priorities in light of the rookie wage scale. The hierarchy of position importance with respect to top 10 picks has flattened out to a much more meritocratic landscape. In other words, David DeCastro can flat out play football and make an impact on the game more so than can a Jonathan Martin or Riley Reiff, and now that you don't have to pay these guys a whole lot of money, THAT is what counts most. In the past that was clouded with the fact that you have to pay X amount of money to these guys, which would then compare with Y compensation levels which are typical for that position. Not nearly as much a factor anymore.

I agree 100% with you.

With the new rookie wage scale, taking a RT or interior lineman in the top 10 or 15 isn't such a big deal anymore.

I think the most important thing is to get the best player available and making sure whoever you draft can come in and help you win some football games.

Roman529
01-18-2012, 02:12 AM
O'Really????? If Luck and RG3 are gone when we pick, we might not take a QB???? That took a real rocket scientist to figure this out. It would be flat out stupid to take a QB in the first round if these two are gone. I think Tannehill might be the only halfway decent QB after this, but he is a second rounder at best, and the same for Weeden, who I think is a third rounder.

perfect1
01-18-2012, 03:35 AM
Bpa!!!!!!!!!!!!

jlfin
01-18-2012, 07:31 AM
Yeah if idiot Ireland would have taken Mallett in the 3rd round before Bill-a-cheat got him we would not have this worry!

Mallett has a nice arm, but there were obviously numerous concerns about him (character concerns, immobility, intangibles) that caused MANY teams to shy away from him. The Pats had numerous picks and used one to take a flyer on him. No great risk for them, but would have for us.
Some of you act as if Mallett was a 'can't miss' prospect destined for Canton. I personally would rather have Tannehill or Weeden

Finfanforever
01-23-2012, 06:24 PM
Mallett has a nice arm, but there were obviously numerous concerns about him (character concerns, immobility, intangibles) that caused MANY teams to shy away from him. The Pats had numerous picks and used one to take a flyer on him. No great risk for them, but would have for us.
Some of you act as if Mallett was a 'can't miss' prospect destined for Canton. I personally would rather have Tannehill or Weeden

Not disputing that...but when we draft Pat White in the 2nd round...and Billa-ceat doesn't exactly waste draft picks...seems like taking a chance on Mallett in the 3rd round doesn't seem like that much of a gamble to me.