PDA

View Full Version : Trade Back... please!



JRYCRL
04-25-2012, 07:58 AM
The worst pick in the draft is the 8th pick this year... by far. I'd trade back in the first round for a cup of coffee. The only "possible" value the 7th pick has is scaring somebody into trading up for Tannehill (please let that happen). The 8th pick has ZERO value. The guys that go between 8-18 are all roughly the same caliber IMO. I'd trade back as far as 6-8 picks for another 4th round pick. We need a serious infusion of capable starters.

I happen to think CB is vital and you can't have enough cover guys. The successful teams are going man-to-man on the line of scrimmage and smothering WR's for the first 5-15 yards in hopes that the DL can do it's job and get to the QB. It's happening more and more.

ROADRUNNER
04-25-2012, 08:14 AM
Unless a good one fall's im with you on that, i like DeCastro at #8 but if we can trade back 2-4 spot's and still get him great............

Zounds
04-25-2012, 08:23 AM
The worst pick in the draft is the 8th pick this year... by far.

I used to think that, but its looking more like there are a few top players that will be there at #8. I'd prefer that we try to get an impact player instead of getting a few ok players by trading down. Time to add a star at a key position instead of these slighly above average players at non-impact positions.

Dmarino110
04-25-2012, 08:31 AM
I personally want a WR so at 8 I would be all over Best WR available...

JCane
04-25-2012, 08:47 AM
Outside of the RB position, CB is the most overrated position in the NFL now.

How many shutdown cover corners are there in the league today?

ONE.

How many receivers are there blowing up? 30.

Stop ignoring the QB position and draft Tannehill.

At least act like you're trying to address that gaping hole in our offense.

RockyMtnPhinfan
04-25-2012, 08:59 AM
Honestly trading back is a great idea.
Please god don't let us draft ANOTHER o-lineman with our top pick.

It'd be nice to get a modest reward for trading back a few spots and then take either Tannehill or Weeden, which ever is available when we pick. I am thinking they grade out nearly the same, although Weeden has more experience and would challenge for starter sooner.

dolfan91
04-25-2012, 09:06 AM
If trading back meant losing Tannehill to the Chiefs or Seahawks, I'm not sure I'd be too happy about losing out on a QB who is not only a good fit for Miami's new offense, but also has tremendous upside. BUT, in the event, Miami did trade back (and LOST TANNY) and drafted DeCastro or Floyd, I think I'd could live with either of them. Especially DeCastro, who would rock lining up next to Pouncey!!!

TedSlimmJr
04-25-2012, 09:07 AM
Outside of the RB position, CB is the most overrated position in the NFL now.

How many shutdown cover corners are there in the league today?

ONE.

How many receivers are there blowing up? 30.

Stop ignoring the QB position and draft Tannehill.

At least act like you're trying to address that gaping hole in our offense.



It's not the CB position that has become overrated, it's the structure in which offenses attack now that have changed the dynamics of the CB position. Just as it's changed the dynamics of the WR position.

Offenses utilize more spread concepts in the NFL now in the form of multiple receiver sets and spread formations. Making it a necessity to have at least 3 starter quality CB's on your roster in order to defend it. Having one shutdown corner does you no good.... offenses will find the mismatch that favors them with their 2nd and 3rd WR vs. your inadequate 2nd and 3rd cornerbacks.

When offenses in the NFL were traditionally more 21-personnel oriented, it was required you have that one dominant WR who forced teams to double him or roll coverage towards him. Putting the pressure back on the defense to have that one shutdown cornerback who could match up with him.

It's the need for having a SINGLE, dominant, #1 WR that has decreased. Which has in turn, decreased the need for a single shutdown cornerback.

It's critical now that you have 3 cornerbacks who can cover man-to-man to match up with the 10 and 11-personnel packages. How do offenses combat that? By having the size mismatch at tight end who's athletic enough to flex out. He's too big for CB's and too fast for LB's. Defenses have to try and match up with a safety.

This reduces the defense's ability to bracket coverage. That's why so many receivers are "blowing up".


But first thing is first here. If you don't have the depth at CB to match up with the multiple WR sets, you're not capable of forcing the offense to adjust to you. They'll beat you with their base personnel and run their offense.

NFL teams can't have too many good cornerbacks, and the proof is in the amount of CB's that get drafted every year. Around 35 cornerbacks get selected in every single draft and it won't decline... it'll only increase.

j-off-her-doll
04-25-2012, 09:31 AM
It's not the CB position that has become overrated, it's the structure in which offenses attack now that have changed the dynamics of the CB position. Just as it's changed the dynamics of the WR position.

Offenses utilize more spread concepts in the NFL now in the form of multiple receiver sets and spread formations. Making it a necessity to have at least 3 starter quality CB's on your roster in order to defend it. Having one shutdown corner does you no good.... offenses will find the mismatch that favors them with their 2nd and 3rd WR vs. your inadequate 2nd and 3rd cornerbacks.

When offenses in the NFL were traditionally more 21-personnel oriented, it was required you have that one dominant WR who forced teams to double him or roll coverage towards him. Putting the pressure back on the defense to have that one shutdown cornerback who could match up with him.

It's the need for having a SINGLE, dominant, #1 WR that has decreased. Which has in turn, decreased the need for a single shutdown cornerback.

It's critical now that you have 3 cornerbacks who can cover man-to-man to match up with the 10 and 11-personnel packages. How do offenses combat that? By having the size mismatch at tight end who's athletic enough to flex out. He's too big for CB's and too fast for LB's. Defenses have to try and match up with a safety.

This reduces the defense's ability to bracket coverage. That's why so many receivers are "blowing up".


But first thing is first here. If you don't have the depth at CB to match up with the multiple WR sets, you're not capable of forcing the offense to adjust to you. They'll beat you with their base personnel and run their offense.

NFL teams can't have too many good cornerbacks, and the proof is in the amount of CB's that get drafted every year. Around 35 cornerbacks get selected in every single draft and it won't decline... it'll only increase.

Great point. Not the first time I've seen you make it, but it's nonetheless excellent. But why, then, is Coby Fleener (given his skill set) being viewed as a late-1st, early-2nd RD prospect? I feel like I'm on crazy pills.

TedSlimmJr
04-25-2012, 09:47 AM
Great point. Not the first time I've seen you make it, but it's nonetheless excellent. But why, then, is Coby Fleener (given his skill set) being viewed as a late-1st, early-2nd RD prospect? I feel like I'm on crazy pills.


I can't explain how or why others view prospects the way they do. Although I think the latter part of the 1st round is typically right in the wheelhouse for where the top TE prospect usually comes off the board.

It's a position where you can typically get production out of it in the mid-rounds that validates the draft slot.

TE and Safety are two of the most difficult projections to make.

j-off-her-doll
04-25-2012, 10:09 AM
I can't explain how or why others view prospects the way they do. Although I think the latter part of the 1st round is typically right in the wheelhouse for where the top TE prospect usually comes off the board.

It's a position where you can typically get production out of it in the mid-rounds that validates the draft slot.

TE and Safety are two of the most difficult projections to make.

I think TE is the Safety of offense - in regard to it be undervalued for a long time but coming to the forefront in recent years as a position that can be as dynamic and versatile as any. That it's difficult to project makes a lot of sense, though. I'm just saying that if I'm picking after 10, and I don't have a dynamic playmaker at TE, I'm going to need a guy that gives me good reason not to draft Fleener. They're out there. I'm not saying they aren't. I'm just saying that I'd take Fleener before a run-stuffing DT like Brockers (who I like) or a combine warrior like Poe (who I do not) or a bunch of marginal LT's or RT's.

TedSlimmJr
04-25-2012, 10:32 AM
I think TE is the Safety of offense - in regard to it be undervalued for a long time but coming to the forefront in recent years as a position that can be as dynamic and versatile as any. That it's difficult to project makes a lot of sense, though. I'm just saying that if I'm picking after 10, and I don't have a dynamic playmaker at TE, I'm going to need a guy that gives me good reason not to draft Fleener. They're out there. I'm not saying they aren't. I'm just saying that I'd take Fleener before a run-stuffing DT like Brockers (who I like) or a combine warrior like Poe (who I do not) or a bunch of marginal LT's or RT's.


Fleener is easily a 1st round pick, especially in this draft. I've actually talked before about Miami trading down from #8 into the middle of the 1st round just as a hypothetical and taking a player like Fleener or Mark Barron because of the steep dropoff in quality at the positions behind these two.

The point is that tight end and safety are both typically late 1st round picks (somewhere in the 20's) where the top prospect usually comes off the board. It's a result of the combination between the positions traditionally being devalued, and the difficulty of the projection.

Teams that use 1st round picks on these two positions are usually solid teams that have few needs and don't mind taking the BPA on the their board at that point if he's a TE or a Safety.

Obviously, on occasion comes a prospect that teams feel like is a rare prospect for the position and gets taken in the top 10 picks. The problem they run into there is that it's difficult for the player to justify his draft selection at that spot no matter good he turns out to be.... and the bust potential is high.

j-off-her-doll
04-25-2012, 10:53 AM
Fleener is easily a 1st round pick, especially in this draft. I've actually talked before about Miami trading down from #8 into the middle of the 1st round just as a hypothetical and taking a player like Fleener or Mark Barron because of the steep dropoff in quality at the positions behind these two.

The point is that tight end and safety are both typically late 1st round picks (somewhere in the 20's) where the top prospect usually comes off the board. It's a result of the combination between the positions traditionally being devalued, and the difficulty of the projection.

Teams that use 1st round picks on these two positions are usually solid teams that have few needs and don't mind taking the BPA on the their board at that point if he's a TE or a Safety.

Obviously, on occasion comes a prospect that teams feel like is a rare prospect for the position and gets taken in the top 10 picks. The problem they run into there is that it's difficult for the player to justify his draft selection at that spot no matter good he turns out to be.... and the bust potential is high.

The idea of targeting Barron or Fleener in a trade-down scenario makes a lot of sense. I keep hearing that teams are having a tough time finding trade partners, but I can see the Eagles trying to jump ahead of the Panthers for Cox or some other scenario like that (maybe involving Kuechly or DeCastro). Either way, that'd be very enticing - considering that we'd have a shot at getting maybe Curry and Sanu or some combination like that and then we'd still have our two thirds. But I'll stop that tangent here.

Your points about the TE and S positions are well noted. I can appreciate the difficulty in projecting the positions, and maybe there is something to getting an Egnew in the 3rd or 4th as opposed to using a mid-1st on a Fleener.

TedSlimmJr
04-25-2012, 11:12 AM
The idea of targeting Barron or Fleener in a trade-down scenario makes a lot of sense. I keep hearing that teams are having a tough time finding trade partners, but I can see the Eagles trying to jump ahead of the Panthers for Cox or some other scenario like that (maybe involving Kuechly or DeCastro). Either way, that'd be very enticing - considering that we'd have a shot at getting maybe Curry and Sanu or some combination like that and then we'd still have our two thirds. But I'll stop that tangent here.

Your points about the TE and S positions are well noted. I can appreciate the difficulty in projecting the positions, and maybe there is something to getting an Egnew in the 3rd or 4th as opposed to using a mid-1st on a Fleener.


A good case study would be to do the research on all the starting TE's in the league and see where they were drafted. There's probably just as many that weren't 1st round picks as there are that were 1st round picks. Obviously it would dwindle down even further when you get to the #2 TE on team's depth charts that like to utilize multiple TE sets. Yet they still get the production out of the position.

Tony Gonzalez is the best TE in the history of the game and was taken with a top 15 pick. No matter how good he was, he couldn't justify his draft slot in terms of impact on his team being a superbowl contender. He's a great player who never won anything. Same for Ed Reed.




The part about trading down into the middle of the 1st round for Miami makes sense if you subscribe to the following:

1. Picking 8th is just enough to be out of range of the 5 or so truly elite caliber prospects in the draft

2. #8 is too high to take an elite guard in DeCastro

3. Tannehill is a reach at #8 and isn't franchise material. More of a game manager in the NFL.

4. #8 is too high for a borderline elite MLB prospect in Kuechly, a borderline elite TE prospect in Fleener, and a borderline elite Safety in Mark Barron.

5. #8 is too high to take whatever receiver is left between Floyd and Blackmon.



If you trade down somewhere in the middle of the 1st round, you obviously add more picks which a positive, and perhaps even add a 1st rounder in 2013.

You then have your choice of Kuechly, Barron, Fleener, DeCastro, Floyd, Blackmon, Weeden, Coples, Cox, Upshaw, Ingram, Nick Perry, or Tannehill somewhere in the mid-teens or early 20's. Whichever one falls.

Obviously you'll have a choice because a few will still be there.

hooshoops
04-25-2012, 11:14 AM
i'm also hearing trade down partners are scarce...might not be a trade in the top 10...

TedSlimmJr
04-25-2012, 11:22 AM
i'm also hearing trade down partners are scarce...might not be a trade in the top 10...


Exactly. Nobody wants to trade up into the latter part of the top 10 because they know it's just enough to be out of reach for the elite talents. They can stay put in the teens and 20's and have the same caliber of talent to choose from at #16 that they would choose from at #8, for example.

j-off-her-doll
04-25-2012, 11:31 AM
i'm also hearing trade down partners are scarce...might not be a trade in the top 10...

Yeah, but I think the #8 spot makes a lot of sense for a team like Philly, because it's right in front of the Panthers. Of course, if St. Louis drafts Cox, that's out the window. But what if Kalil falls? It's a big slide, but SD and the Bears could have interest? Realistically, we're probably drafting Tannehill. And with this staff, I feel pretty good about it. I have a lot of faith in our offensive coaches. But I'll admit that I'd feel better about trading down, grabbing the #1 guy on our board between the guys on Slimm's list (save for Upshaw, Ingrim - just because I think we'll want a true DE - and the QB's), picking up an extra 2nd, and drafting a QB next year. But this is like the Mallett/Ingram/Pouncey debate from a year ago. I wanted Mallett at #15 because I couldn't be sure we'd get Barkley or Luck the next season. Obviously, we didn't. But if some of the underclassmen come out next year, I'm pretty sure we can land a QB that'd I'd grade higher than Tannehill.

dovershores
04-25-2012, 11:33 AM
Stay and grab Floyd

hooshoops
04-25-2012, 11:37 AM
Yeah, but I think the #8 spot makes a lot of sense for a team like Philly, because it's right in front of the Panthers. Of course, if St. Louis drafts Cox, that's out the window. But what if Kalil falls? It's a big slide, but SD and the Bears could have interest? Realistically, we're probably drafting Tannehill. And with this staff, I feel pretty good about it. I have a lot of faith in our offensive coaches. But I'll admit that I'd feel better about trading down, grabbing the #1 guy on our board between the guys on Slimm's list (save for Upshaw, Ingrim - just because I think we'll want a true DE - and the QB's), picking up an extra 2nd, and drafting a QB next year. But this is like the Mallett/Ingram/Pouncey debate from a year ago. I wanted Mallett at #15 because I couldn't be sure we'd get Barkley or Luck the next season. Obviously, we didn't. But if some of the underclassmen come out next year, I'm pretty sure we can land a QB that'd I'd grade higher than Tannehill.

if there is a trade i think phillys the one and for cox...that said have you looked at our sched this year...we could win 6 games without blinking an eye...i don't think we'll be in position next year with a top 10 pick to use on a high end qb and i fully believe that next year tyler wilson is going in the top 5 if he continues his play from last year...i think we'd be in the same boat all over again...on the outside looking in at the top level qb prospects...at least this year we can get a 1st round physical talent with upside in tannehill if we go the qb route...its not the best thing i realize if you break it down like that but neither is watching matt moore and david garrard with no long term hope for another season

MadDog 88
04-25-2012, 11:38 AM
Luke Kuechly is an elite talent that can be had at 8. I am not trading back if I can get him.

Picking up an extra 4th doesn't help. If they do trade down they'll get an extra second and if they actually draft right, could walk away with 5 starters in the first 3 rounds assuming a trade down.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?fdpm4k

j-off-her-doll
04-25-2012, 11:45 AM
if there is a trade i think phillys the one and for cox...that said have you looked at our sched this year...we could win 6 games without blinking an eye...i don't think we'll be in position next year with a top 10 pick to use on a high end qb and i fully believe that next year tyler wilson is going in the top 5 if he continues his play from last year...i think we'd be in the same boat all over again...on the outside looking in at the top level qb prospects...at least this year we can get a 1st round physical talent with upside in tannehill if we go the qb route...its not the best thing i realize if you break it down like that but neither is watching matt moore and david garrard with no long term hope for another season

This is true. I was thinking of guys like Aaron Murray and Tyler Bray. It's too bad that Wilson and Barkley stayed. F'd up everything. Of course, Murray and Bray may do the same thing next year. It's tough. It's the reason that I picked Tannehill in the mock I did.

hooshoops
04-25-2012, 11:45 AM
one more thing...other than the guys who won't get to us anyways and kuechly and decastro is there anything in this class that is so wonderful that we'll be looking at with the #8 pick that taking a chance on a qb with big upside and high end physical tools wouldn't justify???

i don't see it...this pass rush class lacks an elite explosion edge athlete with high end production and elite tools who can play every down from the jump...there's no von miller here...we don't need a left tackle...michael floyds nice player and a #1 but is his upside higher than tannehills??? not to me its not...no cb warrants it at all...the only one who might has major off the field flags...etc

MiamiDolphin618
04-25-2012, 11:46 AM
if there is a trade i think phillys the one and for cox...that said have you looked at our sched this year...we could win 6 games without blinking an eye...i don't think we'll be in position next year with a top 10 pick to use on a high end qb and i fully believe that next year tyler wilson is going in the top 5 if he continues his play from last year...i think we'd be in the same boat all over again...on the outside looking in at the top level qb prospects...at least this year we can get a 1st round physical talent with upside in tannehill if we go the qb route...its not the best thing i realize if you break it down like that but neither is watching matt moore and david garrard with no long term hope for another season
Yeah we will be looking at "elite" prospects like Landry Jones....Ill take Tannehill

hooshoops
04-25-2012, 11:51 AM
Yeah we will be looking at "elite" prospects like Landry Jones....Ill take Tannehill

bray and murray will probably stay in school...the kid from va tech who has a lot of upside and plays a poor mans cam newton has high end physical talents etc but is very raw and who knows if he comes out...we'll be picking in that #15 range and in the same damn boat...i can see it already...matt moores solid enough to screw our draft slot up next year david garrards veteran enough to win a few games before he goes on ir again...

take the chance on the high upside qb now...

j-off-her-doll
04-25-2012, 11:58 AM
one more thing...other than the guys who won't get to us anyways and kuechly and decastro is there anything in this class that is so wonderful that we'll be looking at with the #8 pick that taking a chance on a qb with big upside and high end physical tools wouldn't justify???

i don't see it...this pass rush class lacks an elite explosion edge athlete with high end production and elite tools who can play every down from the jump...there's no von miller here...we don't need a left tackle...michael floyds nice player and a #1 but is his upside higher than tannehills??? not to me its not...no cb warrants it at all...the only one who might has major off the field flags...etc

Another reason I took Tannehill. Kuechly was gone at #5.

MiamiDolphin618
04-25-2012, 12:05 PM
Another reason I took Tannehill. Kuechly was gone at #5.
Yeah, Kuechly is the only person I would even consider at 8 (other than someone unexpected falling) other than Tannehill. I would probably still take Tannehill though...we have to take a shot on his upside.