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

CB should be our #1 priority!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Miami Dolphins
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
phinmun


Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 2231
Location: South Carolina
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mercury22 wrote:
Niedermaier wrote:
draconis1410 wrote:
From I can tell, pass rushers should be the primary focus in the 1st round. Sam Montgomery or Bjoern Werner. Look at how the Giants won their last two Super Bowls. With a dominant front four/pass rushers that was able to stop Tom Brady. The Giants do not have any elite CBs, most of their CBs were injured throughout the year and they made things happen with an ELITE front four.

Pass rushers is definitely the way I would go about impacting the passing game with our defense.


A thousand times this. A good pass rush will make a crap secondary look amazing. If you hurry the passer, he makes mistakes and bad throws. Our #1 priority this draft is an OLB opposite Wake. We shave a half second off getting to the QB and you will see this Secondary seemingly improve over night. If an ELITE DE falls to us in the draft, I would not be opposed to it as long as its a hybrid DE/OLB. CB/WR is a luxury pick when we have no other issues to fix.



I agree as well. Unfortunately, we have spent a good amount of capital on pass rush over the last 5-6 years. We've taken

Olivier Vernon
Jared Odrick
Koa Misi
Phillip Merling
Kendall Langford


Olivier is clearly an unknown, but we didn't get much pass rush from these guys and they were all brought in under the current regime. Ireland made up for a lot by bringing in Wake, but beyond that, we haven't had a ton of success. I wouldn't be shocked to see a few guys brought in to put pressure on opposing QB's.


Yeah, it's a shame we don't have a young, developing rush specialist. I'll agree. We drafted BPA for a long time and wound up with a bunch of young, solid run-stoppers and strong tacklers which did wonders for improving the horrible 2007 roster but now we need to up our pass rush.

I see us doing it in the draft. At this point it seems easy to say we'll draft rush in round 1 and worry about pass catchers in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounds. If we wind up around 15, maybe we can trade back and find some way to nab Notre Dame's TE as well as some rush specialist, who knows?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cddolphin


Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 7045
Location: Gainesville, FL
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

xXxHOUSEDxXx wrote:
ViolentMonk71 wrote:
The Dolphin's need playmakers....guys that make the play to turn the momentum, guys that other teams game plan for


Brandon Marshall wrote:
Greetings from Chicago.


Seriously Brick wall
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jw33d


Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 404
Location: Texas
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RealMetalFan wrote:
I said this in the "One more 3 round mock" thread. Getting an elite corner opposite Smith would do wonders for this team. We have gotten our defense to the point where they throw the ball so much because they can't run. We need coverage guys to help thwart opportunities.


I agree but I don't know how we can overlook Hunter in first round and hope Rhodes or Amerson fall to us in the 2nd. Id be fine with either corner
_________________
WR3CK 3M T3CH

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
SUG


Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 6850
Location: Alameda, Ca
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deadeye wrote:
Gentlemen, I am currently experiencing a kidney stone. It is extremely painful, and accompanied by vomiting.


Hey man I hope you that quick, feel better OK.

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


Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Posts: 5998
Location: A Nearby Dolphin Encounter
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SUG wrote:
Deadeye wrote:
Gentlemen, I am currently experiencing a kidney stone. It is extremely painful, and accompanied by vomiting.


Hey man I hope you that quick, feel better OK.

sug
Thanks SUG, the stone passed (I think) around 6 am. It was a long night. But I feel much better now.
_________________
Earn more sessions by sleeving.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
phinmun


Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 2231
Location: South Carolina
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bpastermack wrote:
I know I hav ebeen against taking a pass rusher in round 1, but a big part of that is that I hav eno man crush on any of them. The 2 DE's in LSU are solid, but unspectacular if you ask me. I'm sure if I watch enough game film after the season I'll find one worthy. But I'd be fine not taking one too. The truth of the matter is we got to Luck a lot. We flushed him out of the pocket a lot too. But he got away from it with his feet and made plays. When we play a QB like him they are going to score points unless our defense is just absolutely dominant. It's like when you play Tom Brady or Peyton Manning. You have to consider any game where you only allow 23 points against a prolific passing offense to be a success.

In my opinion the bigger problem was that we only scored 20 points against an average defense at best, and it's starting to become a trend. I like our QB, but our O-line needs work, and we need playmakers.



You know, no one in this forum is going to accept how good Andrew Luck played in that game but he absolutely deserves all the attention ESPN is giving him right now. If you all go back and watch the majority of those defensive snaps you'll see we did a good job on the majority of them.

We absolutely got beat by a QB who's amazingly ahead of the curve for a rookie. It's no joke to say that at times he was moving in the pocket like Peyton as of a couple years ago. It's amazing to watch if you go back and focus on what he's doing as opposed to trying to make it out like we're horrific.

That said, my original point that had it actually been Peyton back there he would've thrown for 300 yards and 6 TDs remains. The ONLY reason Andrew Luck only threw for 2 TDs is that the Colts offense isn't as well-developed and explosive as it will be in time. Once they develop some weapons and start hitting more big plays they'll gash a defense like ours and score 43 without having Luck pass for 433 yards. But consider that they came with a pass-heavy offensive game plan, too.

Our offense had chances to stay on the field including when they started the second half with the ball and when they had a chance at the end of the 4th quarter. There's no reason to think that Philbin or Tannehill or anyone else was lying when they said they needed to do more offensively in those post-game comments.

The game confirms that we can't defense an offense led by an elite QB but it does also confirm that our offense sputters at times and cannot possess the ball for lengths at a time when it can reverse the course of a game. We need to be able to run the ball more effectively and we need more targets that can take the pressure off of Tannehill.

This loss was not a defensive loss. We should have done a lot more on offense and quite frankly while most people are going to be commenting (rightfully so) about a defensive let-down, we all need to be honest and admit that our offense did nothing to win us this game in the 2nd half. We had the lead at half-time and the Colts simply shut us down after half-time.

You're not going to win many games in which you only score 3 points after halftime, especially when you have the opening possession. Be honest people, this was a dual-sided let-down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fishfan4life


Joined: 15 Mar 2012
Posts: 2014
Location: santa rosa california
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are absolutely right about luck i said previously in this thread he was a master of getting that extra split second in the pocket and a subtle but effective side stepping
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
phinmun


Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 2231
Location: South Carolina
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thing is...if we intercept 1 or 2 of those passes (and we had our chances) and we have more offensive ability, we wouldn't have to watch our defense play for 40 minutes or whatever it was this past week.

I don't want to root for an elite defense and we're certainly not building one here. We need to create turn-overs and an offense that can benefit from them by scoring TDs.

An improved and more balanced pass rush is certainly part of that but I'm not jumping off the deep end. We need more offensive fire power so that we can sustain those important drives that ultimately lost us this game.

How many times are you going to face a QB like Andrew Luck and win off of defense alone?

Probably not a lot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SUG


Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 6850
Location: Alameda, Ca
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

phinmun wrote:
bpastermack wrote:
I know I hav ebeen against taking a pass rusher in round 1, but a big part of that is that I hav eno man crush on any of them. The 2 DE's in LSU are solid, but unspectacular if you ask me. I'm sure if I watch enough game film after the season I'll find one worthy. But I'd be fine not taking one too. The truth of the matter is we got to Luck a lot. We flushed him out of the pocket a lot too. But he got away from it with his feet and made plays. When we play a QB like him they are going to score points unless our defense is just absolutely dominant. It's like when you play Tom Brady or Peyton Manning. You have to consider any game where you only allow 23 points against a prolific passing offense to be a success.

In my opinion the bigger problem was that we only scored 20 points against an average defense at best, and it's starting to become a trend. I like our QB, but our O-line needs work, and we need playmakers.



You know, no one in this forum is going to accept how good Andrew Luck played in that game but he absolutely deserves all the attention ESPN is giving him right now. If you all go back and watch the majority of those defensive snaps you'll see we did a good job on the majority of them.

We absolutely got beat by a QB who's amazingly ahead of the curve for a rookie. It's no joke to say that at times he was moving in the pocket like Peyton as of a couple years ago. It's amazing to watch if you go back and focus on what he's doing as opposed to trying to make it out like we're horrific.

That said, my original point that had it actually been Peyton back there he would've thrown for 300 yards and 6 TDs remains. The ONLY reason Andrew Luck only threw for 2 TDs is that the Colts offense isn't as well-developed and explosive as it will be in time. Once they develop some weapons and start hitting more big plays they'll gash a defense like ours and score 43 without having Luck pass for 433 yards. But consider that they came with a pass-heavy offensive game plan, too.

Our offense had chances to stay on the field including when they started the second half with the ball and when they had a chance at the end of the 4th quarter. There's no reason to think that Philbin or Tannehill or anyone else was lying when they said they needed to do more offensively in those post-game comments.

The game confirms that we can't defense an offense led by an elite QB but it does also confirm that our offense sputters at times and cannot possess the ball for lengths at a time when it can reverse the course of a game. We need to be able to run the ball more effectively and we need more targets that can take the pressure off of Tannehill.

This loss was not a defensive loss. We should have done a lot more on offense and quite frankly while most people are going to be commenting (rightfully so) about a defensive let-down, we all need to be honest and admit that our offense did nothing to win us this game in the 2nd half. We had the lead at half-time and the Colts simply shut us down after half-time.

You're not going to win many games in which you only score 3 points after halftime, especially when you have the opening possession. Be honest people, this was a dual-sided let-down.


I hope I haven't misled anyone regarding A Lucks 430 yd arsekickin...
He deserves most all of the credit, the kid is fantabulous.

But at the same time, I cannot accept my 3rd or 4th ranked Deff allowing him to have time to make a
sandwich & pack a fruit cup back there.

What I saw our Deff display on Sun was the exact performance that cost us both the nyjerks & Ari losses/ Minimal Pass Rush !

And I say this knowing damn well our secondary is avg at best.
The solution is crystal clear.

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: Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SUG wrote:
phinmun wrote:
bpastermack wrote:
I know I hav ebeen against taking a pass rusher in round 1, but a big part of that is that I hav eno man crush on any of them. The 2 DE's in LSU are solid, but unspectacular if you ask me. I'm sure if I watch enough game film after the season I'll find one worthy. But I'd be fine not taking one too. The truth of the matter is we got to Luck a lot. We flushed him out of the pocket a lot too. But he got away from it with his feet and made plays. When we play a QB like him they are going to score points unless our defense is just absolutely dominant. It's like when you play Tom Brady or Peyton Manning. You have to consider any game where you only allow 23 points against a prolific passing offense to be a success.

In my opinion the bigger problem was that we only scored 20 points against an average defense at best, and it's starting to become a trend. I like our QB, but our O-line needs work, and we need playmakers.



You know, no one in this forum is going to accept how good Andrew Luck played in that game but he absolutely deserves all the attention ESPN is giving him right now. If you all go back and watch the majority of those defensive snaps you'll see we did a good job on the majority of them.

We absolutely got beat by a QB who's amazingly ahead of the curve for a rookie. It's no joke to say that at times he was moving in the pocket like Peyton as of a couple years ago. It's amazing to watch if you go back and focus on what he's doing as opposed to trying to make it out like we're horrific.

That said, my original point that had it actually been Peyton back there he would've thrown for 300 yards and 6 TDs remains. The ONLY reason Andrew Luck only threw for 2 TDs is that the Colts offense isn't as well-developed and explosive as it will be in time. Once they develop some weapons and start hitting more big plays they'll gash a defense like ours and score 43 without having Luck pass for 433 yards. But consider that they came with a pass-heavy offensive game plan, too.

Our offense had chances to stay on the field including when they started the second half with the ball and when they had a chance at the end of the 4th quarter. There's no reason to think that Philbin or Tannehill or anyone else was lying when they said they needed to do more offensively in those post-game comments.

The game confirms that we can't defense an offense led by an elite QB but it does also confirm that our offense sputters at times and cannot possess the ball for lengths at a time when it can reverse the course of a game. We need to be able to run the ball more effectively and we need more targets that can take the pressure off of Tannehill.

This loss was not a defensive loss. We should have done a lot more on offense and quite frankly while most people are going to be commenting (rightfully so) about a defensive let-down, we all need to be honest and admit that our offense did nothing to win us this game in the 2nd half. We had the lead at half-time and the Colts simply shut us down after half-time.

You're not going to win many games in which you only score 3 points after halftime, especially when you have the opening possession. Be honest people, this was a dual-sided let-down.


I hope I haven't misled anyone regarding A Lucks 430 yd arsekickin...
He deserves most all of the credit, the kid is fantabulous.

But at the same time, I cannot accept my 3rd or 4th ranked Deff allowing him to have time to make a
sandwich & pack a fruit cup back there.

What I saw our Deff display on Sun was the exact performance that cost us both the nyjerks & Ari losses/ Minimal Pass Rush !

And I say this knowing damn well our secondary is avg at best.
The solution is crystal clear.

sug


Yeah, but my point is that while everyone's going to jump on the bandwagon that has us reaching for the first pass rushing DE we see in the draft, I'm not sure I want to mail in my ballot just yet. Plus, consider what would happen if we drafted the next Vernon Gholston or something horrible like that. It's a real risky endeavor to go after top tier rushers.

I think we'll have to consider DE a more pressing need after this season but not necessarily our only option in round 1. I think it's clear that amongst our top picks there needs to be a stand out rusher though.

Not a tackler. Not a run stuffer. Not a BPA D-linemen.

A pass rush specialist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Miami2DaMax


Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 792
Location: North Carolina
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lucks good but I don't give him that much credit, i think our pass def sucks has been for years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SUG


Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 6850
Location: Alameda, Ca
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

phinmun wrote:
SUG wrote:
phinmun wrote:
bpastermack wrote:
I know I hav ebeen against taking a pass rusher in round 1, but a big part of that is that I hav eno man crush on any of them. The 2 DE's in LSU are solid, but unspectacular if you ask me. I'm sure if I watch enough game film after the season I'll find one worthy. But I'd be fine not taking one too. The truth of the matter is we got to Luck a lot. We flushed him out of the pocket a lot too. But he got away from it with his feet and made plays. When we play a QB like him they are going to score points unless our defense is just absolutely dominant. It's like when you play Tom Brady or Peyton Manning. You have to consider any game where you only allow 23 points against a prolific passing offense to be a success.

In my opinion the bigger problem was that we only scored 20 points against an average defense at best, and it's starting to become a trend. I like our QB, but our O-line needs work, and we need playmakers.



You know, no one in this forum is going to accept how good Andrew Luck played in that game but he absolutely deserves all the attention ESPN is giving him right now. If you all go back and watch the majority of those defensive snaps you'll see we did a good job on the majority of them.

We absolutely got beat by a QB who's amazingly ahead of the curve for a rookie. It's no joke to say that at times he was moving in the pocket like Peyton as of a couple years ago. It's amazing to watch if you go back and focus on what he's doing as opposed to trying to make it out like we're horrific.

That said, my original point that had it actually been Peyton back there he would've thrown for 300 yards and 6 TDs remains. The ONLY reason Andrew Luck only threw for 2 TDs is that the Colts offense isn't as well-developed and explosive as it will be in time. Once they develop some weapons and start hitting more big plays they'll gash a defense like ours and score 43 without having Luck pass for 433 yards. But consider that they came with a pass-heavy offensive game plan, too.

Our offense had chances to stay on the field including when they started the second half with the ball and when they had a chance at the end of the 4th quarter. There's no reason to think that Philbin or Tannehill or anyone else was lying when they said they needed to do more offensively in those post-game comments.

The game confirms that we can't defense an offense led by an elite QB but it does also confirm that our offense sputters at times and cannot possess the ball for lengths at a time when it can reverse the course of a game. We need to be able to run the ball more effectively and we need more targets that can take the pressure off of Tannehill.

This loss was not a defensive loss. We should have done a lot more on offense and quite frankly while most people are going to be commenting (rightfully so) about a defensive let-down, we all need to be honest and admit that our offense did nothing to win us this game in the 2nd half. We had the lead at half-time and the Colts simply shut us down after half-time.

You're not going to win many games in which you only score 3 points after halftime, especially when you have the opening possession. Be honest people, this was a dual-sided let-down.


I hope I haven't misled anyone regarding A Lucks 430 yd arsekickin...
He deserves most all of the credit, the kid is fantabulous.

But at the same time, I cannot accept my 3rd or 4th ranked Deff allowing him to have time to make a
sandwich & pack a fruit cup back there.

What I saw our Deff display on Sun was the exact performance that cost us both the nyjerks & Ari losses/ Minimal Pass Rush !

And I say this knowing damn well our secondary is avg at best.
The solution is crystal clear.

sug


Yeah, but my point is that while everyone's going to jump on the bandwagon that has us reaching for the first pass rushing DE we see in the draft, I'm not sure I want to mail in my ballot just yet. Plus, consider what would happen if we drafted the next Vernon Gholston or something horrible like that. It's a real risky endeavor to go after top tier rushers.

I think we'll have to consider DE a more pressing need after this season but not necessarily our only option in round 1. I think it's clear that amongst our top picks there needs to be a stand out rusher though.

[b]Not a tackler. Not a run stuffer. Not a BPA D-linemen.

A pass rush specialist.[/b]



I'm on board 100% & I don't care if we take him in rnds 1 - 2 or 3 but we have to land someone that in the
least is as good or better than C. Wake.

I also think where the water gets a bit murky is, do we draft a OLB or a DE ????

My personal preference would be OLB. We don't have a "Great OLB" & I believe we'd land a faster/speedier athlete type
player given a slight size differential DE/OLB.

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: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SUG wrote:



I'm on board 100% & I don't care if we take him in rnds 1 - 2 or 3 but we have to land someone that in the
least is as good or better than C. Wake.

I also think where the water gets a bit murky is, do we draft a OLB or a DE ????

My personal preference would be OLB. We don't have a "Great OLB" & I believe we'd land a faster/speedier athlete type
player given a slight size differential DE/OLB.

sug


I sort of agree with the sentiment that's been floating around that Vernon is a do-it-all type of guy who's flexibility might be his best asset. Right now it's the things he's doing on special teams that make him a force. He's blocked 1 or 2 FGs and of course recovered the Jimmy Wilson-blocked punt for the score against the NYJ.

We need to add a pure rusher. Merc and I both agreed that if we could grab 1 guy to start a team with, that defensively-speaking it would be Jason Pierre-Paul. He's nearly unblockable at times.

In our scheme, we might blitz the OLBs (Misi/Burnett) occasionally but we really need consistent pressure from the RDE spot and that's where Odrick & Vernon are not giving us what we need. Lose Starks, kick Odrick inside, continue using Vernon for whatever he's good at and try to find ourselves a JPP-type of player who can be a force starting as a rookie.

Hard to convince me not to use a 1st round pick on offense though. That's the only thing. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Russ57


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 695
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is where I disagree with you guys. Good QB's and OC's can scheme around elite speed edge rushers. Marino did it for years.

Real pressure up the middle....the kind that collaspes the pocket so the QB has to retreat into the arms of the edge rusher.....now that is the sort of stuff even an lucky Luck can't escape from.

So no, I'll keep Starks, trade Solia, and take a true penetrating disruptive DT.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mercury22


Most Valuable Poster (1st Ballot)

Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 12842
Location: the 50 yard line
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So I see some of the Sean Smith bitching is back.

Here's a fun little stat:

Sean Smith has been targeted deep (over 20 yards in the air) ten times this year but has yet to allow a catch from that range.

Carry on.
_________________
"22 players are involved in every football play. To value precisely the activity of one of them, it is first necessary to account for the actions of the other 21"
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
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