Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Too early for draft talk but I have a question
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Miami Dolphins
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Russ57


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 692
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:30 pm    Post subject: Too early for draft talk but I have a question Reply with quote

I see 2013 as a pivotal year for the dolphins. We have stockpiled draft picks and will have a lot of cap space. I want to talk about areas that the 2013 draft is particulary deep at.

I see a lot on the offensive side. I feel there loads of QB's, RB's, WR's and OT's. I don't see any great RB's but there are a lot of very good ones. On defense I see DE's/OLB's and safety as very deep with a bunch of decent CB's.

Right now I don't want to talk so much about who the dolphins should draft. I want to discuss what this draft presents as possibilities and how it affects our approach.

For example there isn't much in TE's so perhaps we should fill that in FA. On the other hand, maybe this is our best time to do a sign and trade for Long and draft a LT. Would you trade Cam Wake to a 3-4 team if it allowed you to draft a top DE prospect this year and get an extra 1st/2nd rounder next year?

Also looks like a good time to pick up a late round QB to develop for trade bait....I like the miami of ohio qb and feel philbin has shown ability to turn those draft picks into future gold.

Anyhow I'm convinced next year's draft will define our future with the current coaching staff. If I was in their shoe's I'd like my odds (given the team's needs) compared to most years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
phinmun


Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 2231
Location: South Carolina
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't see us going RB or QB. Tannehill is our guy at QB plus we have a reliable backup in Moore and a nice developmental guy in Devlin. The combination of Thomas, Miller and Bush pretty much give us what we need at RB.

I think we'll see WR, OG & Def become the teams focus.


The Jake Long topic has been beaten to death. It will depend on his level of play going foward and ultimately whether or not he wants to sign a contract with this team at all. Straight up though he's relatively young and quite frankly with 2 spots on the O-line still pretty much wide-open in terms of future development I'd say that the team needs as much experience and consistency as possible so trading Long is a dangerous move and a gamble either way.

As far as Cameron Wake is concerned, the deal we need to consider is that he's 30-years old right now and this team is only beginning its development under Philbin and Tannehill. Even though we've only seen 1 good season from this dude and he seems like a young guy, he's not. The simple fact is that the team will eventually need to replace Wake at some point so it might be smart to considering trading him while he's at his peak, and the team in still developing, instead of letting him go once he's started his decline.

The problem with losing Long or Wake is that we would immediately need to draft a replacement, preferably within the top two rounds of the 2013 draft and it's risky because the draft is always full of unknowns.


As far as TEs go, I wouldn't dwell on that. We are in much bigger need of a primary WR than we are of a stand-out TE. Egnew and Clay are still developing. Drafting a TE would basically mean we're either already giving up on Egnew or we're already ready to release Fasano. I'm not sure either is where we're at.

Now, the reason teams don't just pick up QBs every year late in the draft is that you don't carry 5+ QBs. You carry 3 QBs and you need at least 1 guy who can come in and operate the offense as a veteran. The 3rd guy is typically developmental and in order to actually develop a guy (who's not getting much attention or practice time) you can't put a new name in that 3rd QB slot each and every year, or expect that player to prove much unless he's given 3 or 4 years in a system.

Unless the coaches trust Pat Devlin enough to hand him the role of immediate back-up and cut Moore, there's no need to go after adding another QB in the draft no matter what's available.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hammer


Joined: 08 Jan 2008
Posts: 514
Location: Cincinnati
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 8:07 am    Post subject: Re: Too early for draft talk but I have a question Reply with quote

Russ57 wrote:
I see 2013 as a pivotal year for the dolphins. We have stockpiled draft picks and will have a lot of cap space. I want to talk about areas that the 2013 draft is particulary deep at.

I see a lot on the offensive side. I feel there loads of QB's, RB's, WR's and OT's. I don't see any great RB's but there are a lot of very good ones. On defense I see DE's/OLB's and safety as very deep with a bunch of decent CB's.

Right now I don't want to talk so much about who the dolphins should draft. I want to discuss what this draft presents as possibilities and how it affects our approach.

For example there isn't much in TE's so perhaps we should fill that in FA. On the other hand, maybe this is our best time to do a sign and trade for Long and draft a LT. Would you trade Cam Wake to a 3-4 team if it allowed you to draft a top DE prospect this year and get an extra 1st/2nd rounder next year?

Also looks like a good time to pick up a late round QB to develop for trade bait....I like the miami of ohio qb and feel philbin has shown ability to turn those draft picks into future gold.

Anyhow I'm convinced next year's draft will define our future with the current coaching staff. If I was in their shoe's I'd like my odds (given the team's needs) compared to most years.



It's NEVER too early to talk draft but needs are partly dictated by loses and gains in free agency.
_________________
NFL: Miami Dolphins
NCAA: The Ohio State University
MLB: Cincinnati Reds
NBA: New York Knicks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SUG


Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 6825
Location: Alameda, Ca
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I certainly don't have an inside trk as to what we will do but I'll tell ya what I'd do !

If we are looking at a 2 - 6 for the first half of the season I would "clean house" before the trade deadline of FA.

Clearly the benefits are:
1). an even more improved salary cap
2). once we've freed up $$$ we can target FA that better suit our scheme
3). As it stands we have 5 pks in rnds 1 - 3, why not make it 6 or 7 pks in rnds 1 -4 ???

Possible trade bait (no particular price tag)

* Jake Long
* Reggie Bush
* Daniel Thomas

* Lets face it we are taking a humongous risk signing J. Long for 50 - 60 Mil.
* We can draft & sign another FA - OT saving half of the amount we'd pay him combined.

And as for RBs ... I can't recall the last time 1 single West Coast Off RB ran up 172 yds/gm.
Tanneyhill and the Passing Off should be significantly better by gm # 3 of 2013. At that point we are loading up on RBs in the 3rd & 4th rnd for the duration of the WC Off in Mia.
(Dime a Dozen at a discount rate/expendable RBs)

I'm not trying to tank the 2012 season, what I am addressing is massing all the talent we'll need when it is important - when Tanneyhill has settled in his 3rd year. When it actually matters.

sug
_________________
# 52
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jaytotha


Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 4493
Location: Spokane Valley, Wa
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Next year I think we will be targeting a WR. I look at FA first and look at:
Greg Jennings
Dwayne Bowe

Jennings is a huge interest. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we were looking at a trade if we are in the hunt with the trade deadline moving later.
_________________


Adopt a Dolphin: RB Knowshon Moreno

Rushing: 24- 134yds 5.6 Avg 1TD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SUG


Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 6825
Location: Alameda, Ca
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Again, I would reiterate/ ask you all to consider:

* the fact Tanney is going to take a solid 3 yrs to grow into a high caliber NFL QB.

* The vast majority of the quality players on the roster today will not be here in 3 years due to factors like:
* salary cap casualty's
* injuries
* retirements
* incompatibility with an ever expanding playbook/system
* more lucrative offers
* influx of young talent

We have to learn to look past this yrs record & probably next yrs rec.
Yes it's important to show progress next year but realistically by that I mean like 8 - 8 or 9 - 7.

With Philbin at the helm & the QB already on the roster, this upcoming draft could/should be the one we
utilize to load up on the talent that's actually going to be surrounding Tanney around that 3 yr target date.

Not the Dansby's - Misi's - Reggie Bush's - J. Jerry's - Incognitos - Legadu Nanee's, Daniel Thomas - Randy Starks - Armstrongs & possibly J. Long's on the roster today.

Clearing out the dead weight now & focusing on the players we need moving forward should be the
philosophy we embrace today.

The best way I see to focus on future is to really look deep around gm 4 - 5 this season at the roster.
Is the player you/we are looking at project to be a contributing player in 3 yrs ...? Yes or No ...

Get rid of them if they don't project from talent, health, economics and or skill set NOW period !!!
Get as much value as you can sooner rather than later.

my 2 cents
sug
_________________
# 52
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Blagasse67


Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 11319
Location: Delaware
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm actually thinking WR will be the main focus in this draft. I can see us going WR early and late. I also see us going pass rusher as well.

IN the first we can get a guy like Justin Hunter and in the 3rd get a guy like Da'rick Rogers. With Roger transferring due to off the field issues, i can see him being a mid round pick.

Another idea i see us doing is a pass rusher in the first and a WR in the second.

I mean it really depends on how deep the draft is at what positions. Free agency obviously plays a part here.
_________________

UniversalAuthor
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CanesFinsFan


Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 740
Location: Miami, Fl
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blagasse67 wrote:
I'm actually thinking WR will be the main focus in this draft. I can see us going WR early and late. I also see us going pass rusher as well.

IN the first we can get a guy like Justin Hunter and in the 3rd get a guy like Da'rick Rogers. With Roger transferring due to off the field issues, i can see him being a mid round pick.

Another idea i see us doing is a pass rusher in the first and a WR in the second.

I mean it really depends on how deep the draft is at what positions. Free agency obviously plays a part here.


I can see us doing something like that. In fact thats what im hoping they do. I can also see us trading down if we end up in the top 3 and picking up even more picks. I can see a trade down with someone like Arizona, who maybe looking for a QB, and still being able to get one of the Hunter, Woods, or Allen.
_________________

^ Thanks for the sig Delphi83^
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
phinmun


Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 2231
Location: South Carolina
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SUG wrote:
Again, I would reiterate/ ask you all to consider:

* the fact Tanney is going to take a solid 3 yrs to grow into a high caliber NFL QB.

* The vast majority of the quality players on the roster today will not be here in 3 years due to factors like:
* salary cap casualty's
* injuries
* retirements
* incompatibility with an ever expanding playbook/system
* more lucrative offers
* influx of young talent

We have to learn to look past this yrs record & probably next yrs rec.
Yes it's important to show progress next year but realistically by that I mean like 8 - 8 or 9 - 7.

With Philbin at the helm & the QB already on the roster, this upcoming draft could/should be the one we
utilize to load up on the talent that's actually going to be surrounding Tanney around that 3 yr target date.

Not the Dansby's - Misi's - Reggie Bush's - J. Jerry's - Incognitos - Legadu Nanee's, Daniel Thomas - Randy Starks - Armstrongs & possibly J. Long's on the roster today.

Clearing out the dead weight now & focusing on the players we need moving forward should be the
philosophy we embrace today.

The best way I see to focus on future is to really look deep around gm 4 - 5 this season at the roster.
Is the player you/we are looking at project to be a contributing player in 3 yrs ...? Yes or No ...

Get rid of them if they don't project from talent, health, economics and or skill set NOW period !!!
Get as much value as you can sooner rather than later.

my 2 cents
sug




If you go position by position it might be easier to name the starting guys who will be around:

WR - Bess, Hartline, Thigpen
TE - Clay
RB - Miller
OT - Martin, ______
OG - ______, ______
OC - Pouncey

DT - Soliai, Randall, ______
DE - Vernon, Odrick,
LB - Misi, ______, ______
CB - Smith
S - Clemons, Jones


Here's who eventually disappears:

WR - Armstrong, Naanee
TE - Fasano
RB - Miller
OG - Incognito, Jerry
DT - Starks
DE - Wake
LB - Dansby, Burnett
CB - Marshall

That's an awful lot to replace so I'd recommend we ease into it and consider keeping some of those guys. In fact, I kept Soliai amongst the first list for that reason. Guys like Fasano, Starks and Wake will slow down do to age. Wake is 30, Starks has a ton of years in the league and Fasano besides being a veteran is just not good enough.

Dansby should be dealt, and possibly Burnett, too, but I'd be careful about losing more than we can replace. Dansby would likely command more through trade, I think. There's no doubt we need to deal Daniel Thomas while we can. We have a replacement and he's a problem.

Jake Long and Reggie Bush are more difficult cases though. Bush produces well and losing Long might be more than we can afford right now.

If we lose Jake Long we'll lose a great run blocker and we'll also make it harder to rebuild this team. We'll leave 3 spots along the O-line to fill which is going back to square one. If we lose Reggie Bush we'll lose the most explosive player we have and someone who contributes a lot on offense without costing a lot of money.

Look at Houston, they have a great QB and at least 1 outstanding WR and they run a ZBS but they still focus on the running game because they are good at it. There's no reason to think that Tannehill's ability over the next 3 season will afford us the loss of Bush. PLUS, he draws fans and excitement which is why Ross will push to have him re-signed. That's important to consider and Ross isn't wrong for thinking it. The team needs that type of player especially when they help win games and don't cost obscene amounts of money.


Jake Long might return us the necessary pick it would take to replace him BUT it's a virtual certainly that we'd never replace Bush with another player of his caliber. The most likely scenario is that if we didn't resign Bush we'd lose him altogether and gain nothing through his leaving. If we somehow traded him we probably wouldn't get much either. I'd resign Bush and treat him as our Arian Foster. We might wind up looking more like the Texans than the Packers when it's all said and done anyway. I don't exactly think we have an Aaron Rodgers on this team. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deadeye


Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Posts: 5996
Location: A Nearby Dolphin Encounter
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

phinmun wrote:
There's no doubt we need to deal Daniel Thomas while we can. We have a replacement and he's a problem.
I disagree with both of these points.

1) Thomas has no value. Who would trade anything for him?

2) We are thin at RB, and I really think we need to draft another one in 2013. I utterly despise teams that draft a stud RB and then mindlessly run him into the ground. That's what we did with Ricky Williams and I supported his decision to retire based on that. My point is that I don't want Bush or Miller being overworked. We need a solid power runner for depth and goal line situations.
_________________
Earn more sessions by sleeving.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SUG


Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 6825
Location: Alameda, Ca
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

phinmun wrote:
SUG wrote:
Again, I would reiterate/ ask you all to consider:

* the fact Tanney is going to take a solid 3 yrs to grow into a high caliber NFL QB.

* The vast majority of the quality players on the roster today will not be here in 3 years due to factors like:
* salary cap casualty's
* injuries
* retirements
* incompatibility with an ever expanding playbook/system
* more lucrative offers
* influx of young talent

We have to learn to look past this yrs record & probably next yrs rec.
Yes it's important to show progress next year but realistically by that I mean like 8 - 8 or 9 - 7.

With Philbin at the helm & the QB already on the roster, this upcoming draft could/should be the one we
utilize to load up on the talent that's actually going to be surrounding Tanney around that 3 yr target date.

Not the Dansby's - Misi's - Reggie Bush's - J. Jerry's - Incognitos - Legadu Nanee's, Daniel Thomas - Randy Starks - Armstrongs & possibly J. Long's on the roster today.

Clearing out the dead weight now & focusing on the players we need moving forward should be the
philosophy we embrace today.

The best way I see to focus on future is to really look deep around gm 4 - 5 this season at the roster.
Is the player you/we are looking at project to be a contributing player in 3 yrs ...? Yes or No ...

Get rid of them if they don't project from talent, health, economics and or skill set NOW period !!!
Get as much value as you can sooner rather than later.

my 2 cents
sug




If you go position by position it might be easier to name the starting guys who will be around:

WR - Bess, Hartline, Thigpen
TE - Clay
RB - Miller
OT - Martin, ______
OG - ______, ______
OC - Pouncey

DT - Soliai, Randall, ______
DE - Vernon, Odrick,
LB - Misi, ______, ______
CB - Smith
S - Clemons, Jones


Here's who eventually disappears:

WR - Armstrong, Naanee
TE - Fasano
RB - Miller
OG - Incognito, Jerry
DT - Starks
DE - Wake
LB - Dansby, Burnett
CB - Marshall

That's an awful lot to replace so I'd recommend we ease into it and consider keeping some of those guys. In fact, I kept Soliai amongst the first list for that reason. Guys like Fasano, Starks and Wake will slow down do to age. Wake is 30, Starks has a ton of years in the league and Fasano besides being a veteran is just not good enough.

Dansby should be dealt, and possibly Burnett, too, but I'd be careful about losing more than we can replace. Dansby would likely command more through trade, I think. There's no doubt we need to deal Daniel Thomas while we can. We have a replacement and he's a problem.

Jake Long and Reggie Bush are more difficult cases though. Bush produces well and losing Long might be more than we can afford right now.

If we lose Jake Long we'll lose a great run blocker and we'll also make it harder to rebuild this team. We'll leave 3 spots along the O-line to fill which is going back to square one. If we lose Reggie Bush we'll lose the most explosive player we have and someone who contributes a lot on offense without costing a lot of money.

Look at Houston, they have a great QB and at least 1 outstanding WR and they run a ZBS but they still focus on the running game because they are good at it. There's no reason to think that Tannehill's ability over the next 3 season will afford us the loss of Bush. PLUS, he draws fans and excitement which is why Ross will push to have him re-signed. That's important to consider and Ross isn't wrong for thinking it. The team needs that type of player especially when they help win games and don't cost obscene amounts of money.


Jake Long might return us the necessary pick it would take to replace him BUT it's a virtual certainly that we'd never replace Bush with another player of his caliber. The most likely scenario is that if we didn't resign Bush we'd lose him altogether and gain nothing through his leaving. If we somehow traded him we probably wouldn't get much either. I'd resign Bush and treat him as our Arian Foster. We might wind up looking more like the Texans than the Packers when it's all said and done anyway. I don't exactly think we have an Aaron Rodgers on this team. Wink



I agree we must look at the ramifications of cleaning house but ...

Considering the economics of the J. Long deal alone merit he be dealt at the top of the list in my opinion.
Simply because your likely looking at a late 2nd rndr.
Not only that but you are clearing an arseload of cap space to be used for future FA acquisitions. (FS - OG - CB - WR)

That puts us at:
* First Rnd - 1 pk
* Second Rnd - 3 pks
* Third Rnd - 2 Pks
= 6 pks (rnds 1 - 3 of the new salary cap friendly NFL)

That formula alone gives us the flexibility to draft a high 1st rnd OT for about 60% less than were paying J. L. PLUS we have ammo to trade up if we like an OLB/DE.

The point I was trying to make earlier is that of acquiring the talent to develop over a 2 yr period so
that impact/game changer positions are stocked & PEEKING when it actually makes a big difference.

Timing is everything

sug
_________________
# 52
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
phinmun


Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 2231
Location: South Carolina
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deadeye wrote:
phinmun wrote:
There's no doubt we need to deal Daniel Thomas while we can. We have a replacement and he's a problem.
I disagree with both of these points.

1) Thomas has no value. Who would trade anything for him?

2) We are thin at RB, and I really think we need to draft another one in 2013. I utterly despise teams that draft a stud RB and then mindlessly run him into the ground. That's what we did with Ricky Williams and I supported his decision to retire based on that. My point is that I don't want Bush or Miller being overworked. We need a solid power runner for depth and goal line situations.


It depends on what we could get. We'll either trade him or release him.

He has:
Fumbling problems
Health problems
Doesn't run with much authority
Doesn't have the explosion of Bush or Miller.

He'll fall to 3rd on the depth chart and we won't hesitate to get rid of him once that happens. We're not paying 2nd-round money to a 3rd-string, rotational player.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
phinmun


Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 2231
Location: South Carolina
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SUG wrote:


I agree we must look at the ramifications of cleaning house but ...

Considering the economics of the J. Long deal alone merit he be dealt at the top of the list in my opinion.
Simply because your likely looking at a late 2nd rndr.
Not only that but you are clearing an arseload of cap space to be used for future FA acquisitions. (FS - OG - CB - WR)

That puts us at:
* First Rnd - 1 pk
* Second Rnd - 3 pks
* Third Rnd - 2 Pks
= 6 pks (rnds 1 - 3 of the new salary cap friendly NFL)

That formula alone gives us the flexibility to draft a high 1st rnd OT for about 60% less than were paying J. L. PLUS we have ammo to trade up if we like an OLB/DE.

The point I was trying to make earlier is that of acquiring the talent to develop over a 2 yr period so
that impact/game changer positions are stocked & PEEKING when it actually makes a big difference.

Timing is everything

sug



If we re-sign Jake Long it gives us the ability to not only guarantee some ability to run the ball next year but also the chance to go and grab a high-level Guard in the draft and plug him in without too much concern over O-line consistency. If we're trying to plug a rookie LT in with a second-year RT I'm not sure we can give ourselves the freedom to also throw a young, inexperienced rookie Guard in that mix as well. We'll surely has some cataclysmic failures in pass protection as well as a very inefficient running game which seems to be the basis for our being competitive.

That's a recipe for absolute disaster; a young QB with no time in the pocket being asked to lead a team that can't run the ball. God forbid we put ourselves in that position. We must preserve the running game for Tannehill and this team to remain in healthy development. While Jake Long is not the ideal pass-protecting LT we want, I think it's more important that we develop new young talent at Guard while maintaining the pocket and running game for Tannehill.

I'm on your side but realistically this gamble could destroy the whole project and so you have to consider the consequences. Now, what if that LT we draft doesn't pan out to be the elite guy it would take to surpass Jake Long's production? Talk about egg on your face! You would've gambled the entire project's success for nothing!

We could re-sign Jake Long and stick with him for 2-3 years while we develop Martin at RT and another young Guard beside him. Then, halfway through Long's contract we could trade him and think about replacing him with a rookie or sliding Martin over there. We could also be in a position to keep Long if he works out.

Losing Jake Long, even though the system-fit isn't ideal, is just going to be a disaster I think that might wind up getting Tannehill killed, not to mention really slow down the development of the Guard position.

What this comes down to is that Jake Long isn't ideal but he's very good. To look at this O-line and say that trading Jake Long and finding subtle improvement at LT is more important that replacing Incognito and Jerry to me is absolutely crazy talk.

John Jerry may not be able to play professional football for very long. Incognito has noticeable limitations in this scheme. He is as bad a scheme fit as Long except he doesn't have the abilities Long does to make up for it. I'm starting to think here that re-signing Reggie Bush and Jake Long might be the right move while trading Cam Wake while might be the real home-run.

Cam Wake is 30 right now. He's also on the radar of every team in the NFL. He's the only star on a defense that isn't playing well right now. You guys talk about elite LT's that play on cruddy teams, how many elite DE's are in the same boat? How many are 30 and at the peak of their career?

We need to see what Cam's value is across the league because while we're happy with his production, his age is a serious red flag. We need to get younger in our defensive front-7. Getting a high pick for Cam Wake would be a great place to start.



So, here's my proposal:

Sign Jake Long and move forward knowing that you have both OT positions along with your C filled with premium talent. This way, in April we can draft at least one high-level Guard and begin his development.

Sign Reggie Bush and trade/release Daniel Thomas. Signing Bush will not only help the team but also set a great example to the young guys and finally make a huge difference for the fans of the team which Ross will want to see. This way we have Bush & Miller splitting carries. Both are home-run threats with great ability. We can pound the ball behind Pouncey, Martin and Long and keep Tannehill upright in the pocket with reliable protection and a near-elite running game.

In April, use two of our highest picks to obtain the rookie Guard I spoke of as well as a premier WR. This means we'll be nearly elite running the ball with Bush and Miller while having the hands and reliability of Hartline and Bess. The new WR will make a huge difference strategically and so will the ability to protect Tannehill. We also keep around two of the best leaders on the team in Bush and Long, guys who deserve to get paid.

Finally, trade the veterans Cam Wake & Karlos Dansby for the highest picks we can get. They're not winning us any games. Use those picks for their replacements and start moving this defense into the younger, faster version we need. We're not getting a lot from this defense so there's no point in treading water with Wake and Dansby since age is already a concern with both. They're value is high now. Move them!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SUG


Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 6825
Location: Alameda, Ca
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

phinmun wrote:
SUG wrote:


I agree we must look at the ramifications of cleaning house but ...

Considering the economics of the J. Long deal alone merit he be dealt at the top of the list in my opinion.
Simply because your likely looking at a late 2nd rndr.
Not only that but you are clearing an arseload of cap space to be used for future FA acquisitions. (FS - OG - CB - WR)

That puts us at:
* First Rnd - 1 pk
* Second Rnd - 3 pks
* Third Rnd - 2 Pks
= 6 pks (rnds 1 - 3 of the new salary cap friendly NFL)

That formula alone gives us the flexibility to draft a high 1st rnd OT for about 60% less than were paying J. L. PLUS we have ammo to trade up if we like an OLB/DE.

The point I was trying to make earlier is that of acquiring the talent to develop over a 2 yr period so
that impact/game changer positions are stocked & PEEKING when it actually makes a big difference.

Timing is everything

sug



If we re-sign Jake Long it gives us the ability to not only guarantee some ability to run the ball next year but also the chance to go and grab a high-level Guard in the draft and plug him in without too much concern over O-line consistency. If we're trying to plug a rookie LT in with a second-year RT I'm not sure we can give ourselves the freedom to also throw a young, inexperienced rookie Guard in that mix as well. We'll surely has some cataclysmic failures in pass protection as well as a very inefficient running game which seems to be the basis for our being competitive.

That's a recipe for absolute disaster; a young QB with no time in the pocket being asked to lead a team that can't run the ball. God forbid we put ourselves in that position. We must preserve the running game for Tannehill and this team to remain in healthy development. While Jake Long is not the ideal pass-protecting LT we want, I think it's more important that we develop new young talent at Guard while maintaining the pocket and running game for Tannehill.

I'm on your side but realistically this gamble could destroy the whole project and so you have to consider the consequences. Now, what if that LT we draft doesn't pan out to be the elite guy it would take to surpass Jake Long's production? Talk about egg on your face! You would've gambled the entire project's success for nothing!

We could re-sign Jake Long and stick with him for 2-3 years while we develop Martin at RT and another young Guard beside him. Then, halfway through Long's contract we could trade him and think about replacing him with a rookie or sliding Martin over there. We could also be in a position to keep Long if he works out.

Losing Jake Long, even though the system-fit isn't ideal, is just going to be a disaster I think that might wind up getting Tannehill killed, not to mention really slow down the development of the Guard position.

What this comes down to is that Jake Long isn't ideal but he's very good. To look at this O-line and say that trading Jake Long and finding subtle improvement at LT is more important that replacing Incognito and Jerry to me is absolutely crazy talk.

John Jerry may not be able to play professional football for very long. Incognito has noticeable limitations in this scheme. He is as bad a scheme fit as Long except he doesn't have the abilities Long does to make up for it. I'm starting to think here that re-signing Reggie Bush and Jake Long might be the right move while trading Cam Wake while might be the real home-run.

Cam Wake is 30 right now. He's also on the radar of every team in the NFL. He's the only star on a defense that isn't playing well right now. You guys talk about elite LT's that play on cruddy teams, how many elite DE's are in the same boat? How many are 30 and at the peak of their career?

We need to see what Cam's value is across the league because while we're happy with his production, his age is a serious red flag. We need to get younger in our defensive front-7. Getting a high pick for Cam Wake would be a great place to start.



So, here's my proposal:

Sign Jake Long and move forward knowing that you have both OT positions along with your C filled with premium talent. This way, in April we can draft at least one high-level Guard and begin his development.

Sign Reggie Bush and trade/release Daniel Thomas. Signing Bush will not only help the team but also set a great example to the young guys and finally make a huge difference for the fans of the team which Ross will want to see. This way we have Bush & Miller splitting carries. Both are home-run threats with great ability. We can pound the ball behind Pouncey, Martin and Long and keep Tannehill upright in the pocket with reliable protection and a near-elite running game.

In April, use two of our highest picks to obtain the rookie Guard I spoke of as well as a premier WR. This means we'll be nearly elite running the ball with Bush and Miller while having the hands and reliability of Hartline and Bess. The new WR will make a huge difference strategically and so will the ability to protect Tannehill. We also keep around two of the best leaders on the team in Bush and Long, guys who deserve to get paid.

Finally, trade the veterans Cam Wake & Karlos Dansby for the highest picks we can get. They're not winning us any games. Use those picks for their replacements and start moving this defense into the younger, faster version we need. We're not getting a lot from this defense so there's no point in treading water with Wake and Dansby since age is already a concern with both. They're value is high now. Move them!


All due respect phinmun, I vehemently oppose any long term 50 - 60 Mil signing deal of an
injury racked OT that is better suited for a running Off.

I would rather plug J. Martin back to LT or simply draft a 1st rnd talent that is better suited.
Hell, the money alone available from a JL trade could easily acquire a 2 yr deal @ LT via FA.

He is struggling in this system & is an avg player at best getting 50 Mil $$$.
I'm not even interested in bringing him back.

sug
_________________
# 52
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
cddolphin


Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 6902
Location: Gainesville, FL
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deadeye wrote:
phinmun wrote:
There's no doubt we need to deal Daniel Thomas while we can. We have a replacement and he's a problem.
I disagree with both of these points.

1) Thomas has no value. Who would trade anything for him?

2) We are thin at RB, and I really think we need to draft another one in 2013. I utterly despise teams that draft a stud RB and then mindlessly run him into the ground. That's what we did with Ricky Williams and I supported his decision to retire based on that. My point is that I don't want Bush or Miller being overworked. We need a solid power runner for depth and goal line situations.


Agreed. A 3-headed rushing attack is perfect. Bush is great, Miller could be a starter and Daniel Thomas is a low end #2 and a high end #3. I'm very satisfied with our RB situation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Miami Dolphins All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group