PDA

View Full Version : Im for the dolphins getting



finataxia24
02-25-2012, 03:18 PM
Trent Richardson hes head above the Rb reggie bush if they land peyton he doesn't need to throw the ball so much
hes one wrong hit from being retired
if not richardson maybe RG3

Thumper1016
02-25-2012, 03:21 PM
Bush and Richardson are two different types of backs IMO and would compliment each other if Miami drafted Richardson but I do not see that happening.

thefranchisedef
02-25-2012, 03:28 PM
Lets Draft best available player. Im for drafting off talent, not need. 2nd round pick Brandon Weeden or best available player. 3rd round pick Kirk Cousins or best available player. not in that order though, lol.

rob19
02-25-2012, 03:45 PM
Bush's contract is up after this year. I don't think it'd be too hard to justify it, I think he'll be a very very solid pro. I think he's better at what he does than Reily Reiff is at what he does.

finataxia24
02-25-2012, 03:51 PM
someone should start a petition to get the dolphin FO to get there act together
seriously some of there picks are the worst imo
im a huge fan they just frustrate me

Gonzo
02-25-2012, 03:52 PM
Trent Richardson hes head above the Rb reggie bush if they land peyton he doesn't need to throw the ball so much
hes one wrong hit from being retired
if not richardson maybe RG3Everybody is one wrong hit from being retired, his injury doesn't make him any more susceptible. The only thing people should be worried about with Peyton is whether or not his nerves heal fully and he can still throw the ball well.

And drafting a RB in the first round, let alone the top ten, is a horrible mistake. He would have been a great choice in the 80's or 90's, but not in today's NFL.

3rdandinches
02-25-2012, 04:17 PM
I flip flop all the time on picking T.Richardson, a run game is a QB's best friend and great defense against potent offenses.

TR has great skills, period. The theory of not taking a player that will have an impact in 40+ plays every game seems stupid. You'll take a WR that will have limited impact from his 4/5 catches but pass on a stud runningback that carries the ball 20+ times, catches 3/4 passes and pass protects and 17 or so times. If that receiver wants help making big plays it will be because the threat of the run game that helps him the most!

rob19
02-25-2012, 05:19 PM
And drafting a RB in the first round, let alone the top ten, is a horrible mistake. He would have been a great choice in the 80's or 90's, but not in today's NFL.

I don't necessarily buy that. I think every draft is different & I think the justification for drafting a running back is largely circumstantial depending on the players available. If you think Trent Richardson is the next closest thing since Adrian Peterson, but only think Luke Keuchly, Courtney Upshaw, David DeCastro, or Riley Rieff are only going to be above average or so players, is it then warranted to draft what you view is a superior talent, albeit at a (somewhat) diminished position?

I think the ability to be able to run the ball efficiently still has it's worth in the NFL. Five of the top 10 rushing teams did make the playoffs. Granted, NYG was ranked 32nd in the regular season in rushing, but at the same time was also the 6th rated of the 12 playoff teams in rushing. New England was also rated 29th in rushing in the regular season, but 3rd in the post season.

Gonzo
02-25-2012, 06:04 PM
I don't necessarily buy that. I think every draft is different & I think the justification for drafting a running back is largely circumstantial depending on the players available. If you think Trent Richardson is the next closest thing since Adrian Peterson, but only think Luke Keuchly, Courtney Upshaw, David DeCastro, or Riley Rieff are only going to be above average or so players, is it then warranted to draft what you view is a superior talent, albeit at a (somewhat) diminished position?

I think the ability to be able to run the ball efficiently still has it's worth in the NFL. Five of the top 10 rushing teams did make the playoffs. Granted, NYG was ranked 32nd in the regular season in rushing, but at the same time was also the 6th rated of the 12 playoff teams in rushing. New England was also rated 29th in rushing in the regular season, but 3rd in the post season.I'll take a potentially great OG in DeCastro or an above average to good pass rusher over a good-to-great RB any day. I like Richardson and wouldn't mind it as much if it were in the late first round, but not in the top ten.

Running backs are a dime a dozen. Where were the RBs in the teams you alluded to drafted? Willis McGahee was a late first rounder and so was Tim Tebow (lol). Arian Foster? Ben Tate? Frank Gore? McCoy? etc. The one you mention in comparison, Peterson, helped his team to 3-13. Carolina's 3 1st round RBs (I'll include Cam Newton) helped them to 6-10 (due far more to Cam's one man show).

Further, I hope those that don't mind drafting a RB at #8 or 9 don't have a problem with drafting Weeden because of his age. I'm willing to bet Weeden at 29 will play longer at a high level than Richardson or almost any RB in the draft.

Morey161
02-25-2012, 06:04 PM
Anyone wanting to draft a RB in the top of the draft doesn't know anything about where football is going. I love the running game I do but to spend a high draft pick on a running back is just plain stupid.

Miami1
02-25-2012, 06:11 PM
You need an impact player with your first pick, that can contribute right away. If Richardson is the best impact player available, then I dont see a harm in taking him at 8 if he is there. Daniel Thomas has already shown signs of being injury prone, id take Richardson over Thomas.

rob19
02-25-2012, 06:22 PM
I'll take a potentially great OG in DeCastro or an above average to good pass rusher over a good-to-great RB any day. I like Richardson and wouldn't mind it as much if it were in the late first round, but not in the top ten.

Running backs are a dime a dozen. Where were the RBs in the teams you alluded to drafted? Willis McGahee was a late first rounder and so was Tim Tebow (lol). Arian Foster? Ben Tate? Frank Gore? McCoy? etc. The one you mention in comparison, Peterson, helped his team to 3-13. Carolina's 3 1st round RBs (I'll include Cam Newton) helped them to 6-10 (due far more to Cam's one man show).

Further, I hope those that don't mind drafting a RB at #8 or 9 don't have a problem with drafting Weeden because of his age. I'm willing to bet Weeden at 29 will play longer at a high level than Richardson or almost any RB in the draft.

Fair enough.

I don't have an issue with Weeden's age, and I get what you're trying to say, but I think that's probably a bit disingenuous. I don't think he'll play 10+ years like I think some of these young backs have a chance to do. Considering Weeden's prior baseball past, and the fact that only a handful of NFL players have ever played past 40, and even fewer at a high level, I don't think that claim is accurate. Most Quarterbacks that play past 40 do so in reserve/back-up rolls ala the Mark Brunell, Doug Flutie, & Steve DeBerg's of the world.

I actually looked up a list of players to play past 40. Brett Favre is very much the exception, and not the rule, in terms of high level of play past 40.

http://www.profootballhof.com/history/stats/40_and_over_club.aspx

Not to bust your balls, I just think drafting Weeden with the expectation of 10+ years of solid play isn't realistic. Maybe 5-6 years.

Gonzo
02-25-2012, 06:37 PM
Fair enough.

I don't have an issue with Weeden's age, and I get what you're trying to say, but I think that's probably a bit disingenuous. I don't think he'll play 10+ years like I think some of these young backs have a chance to do. Considering Weeden's prior baseball past, and the fact that only a handful of NFL players have ever played past 40, and even fewer at a high level, I don't think that claim is accurate. Most Quarterbacks that play past 40 do so in reserve/back-up rolls ala the Mark Brunell, Doug Flutie, & Steve DeBerg's of the world.

I actually looked up a list of players to play past 40. Brett Favre is very much the exception, and not the rule, in terms of high level of play past 40.

http://www.profootballhof.com/history/stats/40_and_over_club.aspx

Not to bust your balls, I just think drafting Weeden with the expectation of 10+ years of solid play isn't realistic. Maybe 5-6 years.I don't expect Weeden to be able to play 10+ years of solid football. I also don't expect any running back to be able to either. 5-6 years is about right for them as well. I'm also not advocating drafting Weeden in the top ten despite him playing a position that is a hundred times more important than RB.

rob19
02-25-2012, 06:46 PM
I don't expect Weeden to be able to play 10+ years of solid football. I also don't expect any running back to be able to either. 5-6 years is about right for them as well. I'm also not advocating drafting Weeden in the top ten despite him playing a position that is a hundred times more important than RB.

I didn't think you were. I wouldn't have any qualms about it in the 2nd, though I've heard some people refer to him as a 3rd day pick.

Gonzo
02-25-2012, 07:17 PM
I didn't think you were. I wouldn't have any qualms about it in the 2nd, though I've heard some people refer to him as a 3rd day pick.2nd or 3rd would be good value, 3rd day is crazy though. Age is an issue, but not THAT big of an issue.

Didn't mean to derail the topic. Was only using Weeden to prove a point. I like Richardson, and if we had a later 1st round pick, I wouldn't be upset. I just think the position in general is not worthy of a top ten pick.

On a side note, I think the area we're picking at in the draft is the worst case scenario. Too low for the top talent, too high for the next tier. But man, those 6 wins were fun to watch.

LANGER72
02-25-2012, 07:43 PM
2nd or 3rd would be good value, 3rd day is crazy though. Age is an issue, but not THAT big of an issue.

Didn't mean to derail the topic. Was only using Weeden to prove a point. I like Richardson, and if we had a later 1st round pick, I wouldn't be upset. I just think the position in general is not worthy of a top ten pick.

On a side note, I think the area we're picking at in the draft is the worst case scenario. Too low for the top talent, too high for the next tier. But man, those 6 wins were fun to watch.

Richardson is the best back...by far...in this draft. He will be gone in the top 10 IMHO.
He is better than DT, and might have more upside than Reggie Bush. If he the best impact offensive player available, he can help us right away. He might be something special.
Each team has a different formula to winning. Some rely on the uber QB(which looks unlikely short of Manning @100% and signing with us), while others need a balanced approach.
I believe we fall into the balanced team category, with Moore or an 80% Manning, or an unproven Flynn.
Tannehill is a reach at #8. Weeden is arguably the better player at that spot. His only flaw is his age.

Gonzo
02-25-2012, 08:02 PM
Richardson is the best back...by far...in this draft. He will be gone in the top 10 IMHO.
He is better than DT, and might have more upside than Reggie Bush. If he the best impact offensive player available, he can help us right away. He might be something special.
Each team has a different formula to winning. Some rely on the uber QB(which looks unlikely short of Manning @100% and signing with us), while others need a balanced approach.
I believe we fall into the balanced team category, with Moore or an 80% Manning, or an unproven Flynn.
Tannehill is a reach at #8. Weeden is arguably the better player at that spot. His only flaw is his age.Of course he's going in the top ten, because plenty of teams still live in the past with the run first, control the clock, keep the score close until the 4th quarter antiquated mentality.

As of right now, we don't have a formula for winning. We're a 6-10 team. And every team needs a good QB to win. Period. Believing otherwise is, again, antiquated.

LANGER72
02-25-2012, 08:15 PM
Of course he's going in the top ten, because plenty of teams still live in the past with the run first, control the clock, keep the score close until the 4th quarter antiquated mentality.

As of right now, we don't have a formula for winning. We're a 6-10 team. And every team needs a good QB to win. Period. Believing otherwise is, again, antiquated.

IMHO, the uber QB's are Peyton, Tom, Drew, Eli, Rodgers and Ben.
The great QB's lead their teams to the SB. We have good(Moore in house).
The problem is that we will not be able to get one this year unless Manning signs and plays up to his standards.
Tannehill needs work, Weeden has a smaller window, and the rest are projects.
Flynn has practically no starts in college or pros.
It might not happen. We may as well take another player (Richardson) who will touch the ball 30 times a game, and might be great.
Football runs in cycles. The running game will always be very important, especially keeping the Brady's on the sideline.

2413fanphins
02-25-2012, 08:21 PM
If we are adopting an offensive system similar to green bays, I am staying the hell away from trent richardson. green bay, unless it's just because aaron rodgers is so good, didnt' really seem to give a **** about the run game. I realize they probably ran the ball, but I dont' recall them doing it successfully. I don't recall them really giving a **** about the run.

if you draft trent, it has to be to be a guy like AP.. a guy who throws you on his back and carries you. not a swing man out of the backfield and a blitz pick up artist.

much rather spend the pick on a pass rusher, OL, or LB and that order changes daily. if blackmon falls, hes the guy I take. if richardson falls, hes the guy I hope my phone rings off the hook with somebody wanting to give me some picks.

2413fanphins
02-25-2012, 08:25 PM
IMHO, the uber QB's are Peyton, Tom, Drew, Eli, Rodgers and Ben.
The great QB's lead their teams to the SB. We have good(Moore in house).
The problem is that we will not be able to get one this year unless Manning signs and plays up to his standards.
Tannehill needs work, Weeden has a smaller window, and the rest are projects.
Flynn has practically no starts in college or pros.
It might not happen. We may as well take another player (Richardson) who will touch the ball 30 times a game, and might be great.
Football runs in cycles. The running game will always be very important, especially keeping the Brady's on the sideline.


I agreed with you back in 06 or whenever the hell we took ronnie brown. I have since adapted as I think the league has adapted as well. trich isn't gonna touch the ball 30 times a game. I dont see with the changes we have made that any RB gets 20-22 carries a game. It's gonna be the same style offense greenbay has IMO. quick short passes, and quick strike when the d allows. I've seen teams try to run to keep brady off the field via the run game, that doesnt work. why? because brady puts up points. theres one way to beat brady, thats touchdowns. too many teams try to settle for field goals, and run the clock against NE, and thats why, IMO, they go 13-3 every damn year. I do however, agree with the rest of your post concerning quarterbacks. I think tannehill maybe needs to sit a year. weeden has a smaller window, although I'm not sure it's any smaller than richardsons if we did go get him. JMHO

Cleetus
02-25-2012, 09:00 PM
Take the best player available if we stay at 8, if it is TR then do it. Not sold on Daniel Thomas and now I am getting worried about Bush's mindset if he hooks up with Kim K again. RB is not a necessity but if the rb is best available it will be a good pick for us. We have an abundance of positions that can be upgraded.

2413fanphins
02-25-2012, 09:32 PM
somebody is gonna slide. than we are gonna be between a rock and a hard place. I hope he falls to us, and cincy coughs up a few draft picks for him honestly.

If claiborne and trent richardson both fell, I'd have a hard time picking who to pass up IF we insisted on picking one or the other.

Gonzo
02-25-2012, 09:34 PM
IMHO, the uber QB's are Peyton, Tom, Drew, Eli, Rodgers and Ben.
The great QB's lead their teams to the SB. We have good(Moore in house).
The problem is that we will not be able to get one this year unless Manning signs and plays up to his standards.
Tannehill needs work, Weeden has a smaller window, and the rest are projects.
Flynn has practically no starts in college or pros.
It might not happen. We may as well take another player (Richardson) who will touch the ball 30 times a game, and might be great.
Football runs in cycles. The running game will always be very important, especially keeping the Brady's on the sideline.You mean good BACKUP. If the main strength of your offense is your running game, you fail. Again, that's in today's NFL. Running games may draw out the clock and "keep the brady's off the field," but it doesn't score points and is nothing more than the strategy of keeping it close until the 4th quarter; a strategy that utterly fails in today's NFL. I'm going to keep saying it because there seems to be a lack of understanding when it comes to what the NFL has become. Having a good running game is important, yes; but the days of a running back being a key factor in getting to the super bowl are over.

Winning now requires points, and lots of them. It's a passing league first, by far. The faster this team realizes that, the sooner we'll be contending for the Super Bowl. If it's going to be another year of making excuses for not addressing the most important position in football and letting a career backup start again, well, hello again mediocrity.

GoonBoss
02-25-2012, 09:37 PM
You mean good BACKUP. If the main strength of your offense is your running game, you fail. Again, that's in today's NFL. Running games may draw out the clock and "keep the brady's off the field," but it doesn't score points and is nothing more than the strategy of keeping it close until the 4th quarter; a strategy that utterly fails in today's NFL. I'm going to keep saying it because there seems to be a lack of understanding when it comes to what the NFL has become. Having a good running game is important, yes; but the days of a running back being a key factor in getting to the super bowl are over.

Winning now requires points, and lots of them. It's a passing league first, by far. The faster this team realizes that, the sooner we'll be contending for the Super Bowl. If it's going to be another year of making excuses for not addressing the most important position in football and letting a career backup start again, well, hello again mediocrity.


Yep. I'm waiting for someone to bring back the Run and Shoot. I think it would be very successful today.

LANGER72
02-25-2012, 10:28 PM
You mean good BACKUP. If the main strength of your offense is your running game, you fail. Again, that's in today's NFL. Running games may draw out the clock and "keep the brady's off the field," but it doesn't score points and is nothing more than the strategy of keeping it close until the 4th quarter; a strategy that utterly fails in today's NFL. I'm going to keep saying it because there seems to be a lack of understanding when it comes to what the NFL has become. Having a good running game is important, yes; but the days of a running back being a key factor in getting to the super bowl are over.

Winning now requires points, and lots of them. It's a passing league first, by far. The faster this team realizes that, the sooner we'll be contending for the Super Bowl. If it's going to be another year of making excuses for not addressing the most important position in football and letting a career backup start again, well, hello again mediocrity.

Apart from pontificating, and the signing of Manning, who would you select to upgrade this team to the heights of Brees, Brady, and Rodgers?

Gonzo
02-25-2012, 11:33 PM
Apart from pontificating, and the signing of Manning, who would you select to upgrade this team to the heights of Brees, Brady, and Rodgers?You're confusing my imparting of wisdom and knowledge of the modern NFL with "pontificating." If you want to live in the past, by all means, stick to the ole timey ways of the game that have kept us mired in mediocrity.

Now that I've addressed the weak, backhanded personal attack, back on topic. I read the "we had no other options at QB" every.single.year, yet other teams seem to be able to address the position time and again. How? They take risks. They trade up if necessary. They do whatever it takes. ****ty GMs just make excuses. ****ty GMs undervalue the position and settle for garbage like Henne, thinking a "strong running game," cornfed linemen, and an elite LT are more important. A good GM will take a shot at getting Luck (albeit an extreme longshot), signing Manning, taking Tannehill, signing Flynn, trading back or up or whatever it takes to get Weeden. A good GM does whatever it takes to address the position. And if it fails, THEY TRY AGAIN. They don't "stick with their guy" when it's clear that "their guy" isn't very good.

So, I would go for Manning or Flynn, STILL draft Tannehill or a high-ceiling project like Osweiler, and keep Moore. If Manning isn't 100% or if Flynn sucks, it's okay, we have possibly the best backup in the league to be a transitional starter while grooming the rookie. If the rookie sucks, draft another again next year. If you can't get Manning or Flynn (or another veteran that may not be being discussed yet, such as Schaub), draft Weeden, who is probably the most ready to start outside of Luck and maybe RGIII.

"There were no options" is nothing more than a pathetic excuse and the reason we've been a **** team for over a decade.

Tigers2003
02-26-2012, 12:54 AM
Everybody is one wrong hit from being retired, his injury doesn't make him any more susceptible. The only thing people should be worried about with Peyton is whether or not his nerves heal fully and he can still throw the ball well.

And drafting a RB in the first round, let alone the top ten, is a horrible mistake. He would have been a great choice in the 80's or 90's, but not in today's NFL.

A player has to be very special to go 1st round as a rb. Richardson is very special. He is one rb who would be worth the risk.

RevisChrist
02-26-2012, 04:28 AM
As a Jets fan the only guy the Dolphins can draft at 8 that would truely scare me to face twice a year is Richardson. The guy is a top 5 talent in this draft easily and I believe when all is said a done will end up going in the top ten somewhere. I also think this talk about the NFL becoming a passing league is premature at best, you still and will continue to need to play D and run the ball to win in the playoffs. 2 of the last 4 teams left were running teams and both of them should have won their championship games if not for other parts of each of their teams choking.

Man I hope TRich starts to drop to say 16..

Funky Fin
02-26-2012, 05:27 AM
Lamar Miller > Trent Richardson

NorFlaFin
02-26-2012, 10:03 AM
I'd love to ransom Trent Richardson to the Bengals for their 17th and 21st picks.

LANGER72
02-26-2012, 10:16 AM
You're confusing my imparting of wisdom and knowledge of the modern NFL with "pontificating." If you want to live in the past, by all means, stick to the ole timey ways of the game that have kept us mired in mediocrity.

Now that I've addressed the weak, backhanded personal attack, back on topic. I read the "we had no other options at QB" every.single.year, yet other teams seem to be able to address the position time and again. How? They take risks. They trade up if necessary. They do whatever it takes. ****ty GMs just make excuses. ****ty GMs undervalue the position and settle for garbage like Henne, thinking a "strong running game," cornfed linemen, and an elite LT are more important. A good GM will take a shot at getting Luck (albeit an extreme longshot), signing Manning, taking Tannehill, signing Flynn, trading back or up or whatever it takes to get Weeden. A good GM does whatever it takes to address the position. And if it fails, THEY TRY AGAIN. They don't "stick with their guy" when it's clear that "their guy" isn't very good.

So, I would go for Manning or Flynn, STILL draft Tannehill or a high-ceiling project like Osweiler, and keep Moore. If Manning isn't 100% or if Flynn sucks, it's okay, we have possibly the best backup in the league to be a transitional starter while grooming the rookie. If the rookie sucks, draft another again next year. If you can't get Manning or Flynn (or another veteran that may not be being discussed yet, such as Schaub), draft Weeden, who is probably the most ready to start outside of Luck and maybe RGIII.

"There were no options" is nothing more than a pathetic excuse and the reason we've been a **** team for over a decade.

Your wisdom and knowledge is very good, but your insistence that elite RB's are now practically worthless is flat out wrong. I don't know if you say these things just to be negative, but I definitely feel your negativity in your posts. I hope you are doing OK and you have a lighter side outside of your GONZO persona.
Apart from Manning, the other "options" are not proven starters, and probably could not beat out M Moore IMHO.
Flynn has started 2 games in the NFL, and only played in a couple in college. Very weak resume. He is on a super bowl quality team, and he may be over rated. Only Philbin knows for sure.
Tannehill is a rookie with small hands. The last QB that started with hands as small as his was John Beck. Fumbling problem? Sherman has the inside knowledge there. How fast can he adapt to the pro game?
Weeden? I actually think he the best option apart from Manning. Older, better skills, ready to compete for the starting job if drafted. The problem with him is his age, shortened career.
Schaub is intriguing, but I think it is a long shot to think he will leave the Texans.
Trading up for RGIII is just ridiculous. It will not happen thankfully.
I am not the only one who feels that TR could be special and we should take him if he is there at #8. I think more fans will come around to the idea as the draft approaches.
The best case scenario is Manning, draft the BPA at #8 ( if Richardson...I would be happy), and draft a project in round 3-4.

fishbanger
02-26-2012, 05:30 PM
I am for drafting a pass rusher. See why someone like Mario Williams is so needed.

normaniii
02-26-2012, 05:56 PM
100% no

Phantom
02-26-2012, 06:19 PM
He's no Al Bundy !!!!

OyeDale305
02-26-2012, 06:26 PM
So wait then why did we draft Daniel thomas for? No thanks

Gonzo
02-27-2012, 03:54 PM
Your wisdom and knowledge is very good, but your insistence that elite RB's are now practically worthless is flat out wrong. I don't know if you say these things just to be negative, but I definitely feel your negativity in your posts. I hope you are doing OK and you have a lighter side outside of your GONZO persona.
Apart from Manning, the other "options" are not proven starters, and probably could not beat out M Moore IMHO.
Flynn has started 2 games in the NFL, and only played in a couple in college. Very weak resume. He is on a super bowl quality team, and he may be over rated. Only Philbin knows for sure.
Tannehill is a rookie with small hands. The last QB that started with hands as small as his was John Beck. Fumbling problem? Sherman has the inside knowledge there. How fast can he adapt to the pro game?
Weeden? I actually think he the best option apart from Manning. Older, better skills, ready to compete for the starting job if drafted. The problem with him is his age, shortened career.
Schaub is intriguing, but I think it is a long shot to think he will leave the Texans.
Trading up for RGIII is just ridiculous. It will not happen thankfully.
I am not the only one who feels that TR could be special and we should take him if he is there at #8. I think more fans will come around to the idea as the draft approaches.
The best case scenario is Manning, draft the BPA at #8 ( if Richardson...I would be happy), and draft a project in round 3-4.That's the spirit! Unfortunately, you misread emotion in my posts, outside of my disdain of how this team has been run over the past decade of course, which totally warrants negativity.

I keep reading "unproven." Is that what they've been waiting for? Are they the hobos that remain jobless because they're holding out for a management position? Getting a good QB requires taking risks, whether that be through the draft, through trades, or through FA. You do whatever it takes. You don't just wait for a HOF QB to fall in your lap. If none of them beat out Matt Moore, good for Matt Moore, but we try again next year. And the year after that. As long as it takes. That's the ONLY way.

All I'm seeing from you is the same thing I've read every.single.year when it comes to addressing the most important position in football (BY FAR). Excuses for why any option isn't worth the risk. The desire to stay safe; "build a team" for some mythical HOF QB that's going to magically appear with no effort.

If Flynn is brought in, it's because Philbin thinks he's the goods. I can't say for sure, but like I did with Sparano, I'm giving him a shot; going in with an open mind. That being said, it doesn't take me 7 years to decide whether a coach or QB is capable. If Philbin is wrong about Flynn, he better be willing to move on as quickly as possible.

One of Beck's biggest problem wasn't just his hands, IMO. I've never in my life seen a player play more scared than he did. Absolutely petrified every time he was behind center. The kid didn't stand a chance, regardless of talent. The NFL was too big for him. I can't say the same for Tannehill, and he will certainly need some work, but with an excellent backup/transitional starter in Moore, he'll have time.

Regarding Weeden, who cares about a shorter career? If he comes in and leads us to a Super Bowl and then retires immediately after, would you really care? I might be mildly upset, but I'll be too hungover from finally getting the chance to celebrate being a Dolphins fan rather than lamenting it.

Point is, there are plenty of options. If we go into next season with Matt Moore, some scrub FA (or worse, Henne), and Devlin; it's because Jeff Ireland is a godawful GM. Enough with the excuses. As for the draft pick, as long as he gets a QB in here, I honestly don't give a **** who he drafts. He wants to waste a 1st round pick on a runningback, whatever. Well done on the trade up for Daniel Thomas. Maybe Thomas can provide some pass rush or become a receiving threat outside of Marshall.

Gonzo
02-27-2012, 03:56 PM
So wait then why did we draft Daniel thomas for? No thanksWhy did we trade up to draft Daniel Thomas? Can't really say if he's horrible (though he clearly can't stay on the field), but if they draft a RB in the first round, it says a lot. If only they moved on from bad QB's so quickly.

TrinidadDolfan
02-27-2012, 04:36 PM
Lets Draft best available player. Im for drafting off talent, not need. 2nd round pick Brandon Weeden or best available player. 3rd round pick Kirk Cousins or best available player. not in that order though, lol.

Never been a fan of BPA.

In a nutshell, it never works as a "blind" strategy.

For example:
1. What if the BPA was a Left Tackle and you had just drafted a young Jake Long the year before? With GLARING holes on defence...and guys on the board who are a (very small) notch below the available LT in terms of talent?
2. What if BPA was a QB and you had a 25 year-old Marino on your team?
3. What if the BPA, at your position was a RB....5 years in a row??? Does that mean that you would pick 5 RB's with every 1st round pick for 5 years straight?

Of course not. The way it works is this:

You BALANCE the needs of your team vs. the BPA that will make the biggest IMPACT to your WIN-Column.
Simple a that.

For example, if you had what you thought was a future HOF running back sitting when you pick, and what you though was a "near" HOF QB also available....who do you pick??? Well, if you have a young Ricky Williams as your current RB, and Beck as your current QB, then you pick the QB, no question. Are you picking the BPA? No. But you will make the biggest IMPACT on your team and have a much better chance of going to the Big Dance.

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/02/truth-1.jpg

dagger151
02-27-2012, 08:57 PM
You dont always take BPA, only when you have a bunch of average and slightly above average players that ti doesnt matter. In the Fins case, you dont take a LT unless he is slotted to play RT. All other postions can be upgraded with BPA. If you had a Marino at 25, then no BPA if its a QB, you move on to the next BPA.

TrinidadDolfan
02-27-2012, 09:28 PM
You dont always take BPA, only when you have a bunch of average and slightly above average players that ti doesnt matter. In the Fins case, you dont take a LT unless he is slotted to play RT. All other postions can be upgraded with BPA. If you had a Marino at 25, then no BPA if its a QB, you move on to the next BPA.

Exactly