Would anyone be upset if we just said f*** all and signed Wallace or Jennings, then drafted Keenen Allen 1st and DaRick Rogers with 2b? We could still get a pressure guy with 2a (even if we had to trade up) and grab a safety & corner with both 3rds.
It's an interesting situation. Load up on DEs and CBs? Or load up on WRs? Overall I see this DE class as stronger than the WR class so my answer is more toward loading up on DEs. But maybe you can do both, and address CB with free agent money.
Yeah, it's a damn tough call when you have such enticing options at multiple positions. If there's a quality CB available in FA, I think you're right--- that'd be the way to do it, but could we afford that with Marshall's contract combined with the eventual re-signing of SS? I agree about the DE class being stronger, but if Allen & Rogers are there for the plucking with 1 & 2b, that would be terribly attempting. I don't think we could go wrong either way, do you?..... but when I look at Mingo & Werner paired with Porter, that makes me salivate as well. I think we'd have to ask ourselves what'd be easier to find next year between playmaking WR and pass rusher. Sammy Watkins, Mike Wallace, and Da'Rick Rogers wouldn't be too terrible of a trio.
Ok, w/o knowing how the rest of the draft will pan out and you have your favorite DE and Keenen Allen staring you in the face, which one would you take if the draft were today? {and let's we've signed a top FA receiver} Would you go DE 1st and corner 2nd..... or the opposite-- an elite corner 1st paired with an OLB/nickel pass rusher like Porter 2nd (along with re-signing Starks to keep the base Dline as it is, with the only change being Porter moving to edge rusher in nickel)? Would we get as much out of a 3 down Werner, Mingo, or Gayle as we would the combo of Odrick/Porter to the point where it would be worth using our 1st round pick to go that route? I think we'd be more stout verse the run [with the Odrick/Porter combo] while not losing much vs the pass, but that option would add the extra blitzing dimension out of our base D that would give us that wildcard factor IMO.
What you should be asking is which position will make the biggest impact on this team. When you compare defensive ends, cornerbacks, and receivers, receivers come in a distant third relative to the impact on the game they have.
Considering what we have at receiver compared to DE, I'd say the answer to that question is closer than it is under an "all things being equal" scenario. If we don't land one of the 3 top FA receivers but resign Starks, I'd be tempted to take Keenen Allen 1st [considering how ideal of a scheme fit he seems for our offense], followed by a solid situational pass rushing OLB like Porter in the 2nd b/c we wouldn't necessarily need to spend a 1st rounder on a 3 down DE this year if we can grab a decent nickel pass rusher instead IMO.
Here's the thing though. There is a lot that goes into this, but first round wide receivers are a tremendous waste of resources. Teams always fall into the trap thinking that they are a receiver away, and they end up spending entirely too much on the position only to have the position make limited impact because the quarterback position isn't settled. The myth that is at hand here is the idea that wide receivers make a quarterback better. That is not the case. Quarterbacks make the wide receivers better.
I respect your opinion on this but I'd have to disagree. Michael Irvin had a discussion about this very topic, and he, too, doesn't think it's a myth. He referenced Brady's crazy '07 season with Moss and then again with the best receiving TE tandem in the history of the game......... and then he went so far as saying he guarantees Brady and every other QB would feel the same way [that the receiver does more to make the QB better than vice versa]. He also stated Calvin Johnson does more for Stafford than Stafford does for CJ. Matt Ryan is another example, while Sam Bradford is an anti-example. The receivers still have to get open, still have to catch the ball, and still have to make plays with the ball in their hands. Bottom line is if a WR can gain quality separation, has great hands, can make the contested catch, and make plays with the ball in his hands, he's going to help maximize his QB's potential and make him better. If the receiver can't do those things as well, he's obviously wont be maximizing his QB's potential or making him better. No QB, not even Brady, Manning, and Rodgers, can make their receivers catch better, gain more separation, run better routes, or make more plays after the catch. If Brady has 3 receivers who can't get open or catch consistently, he's gonna have a very long day. However, with Moss, Welker, Gronkowski, and Hernandez, he's setting records and putting up crazy numbers that he never saw prior to their arrival. For example, Moss's arrival saw 26 more TDs, 1300 more yards, and a 30 point higher QBR in '07 than Brady of '06. Moss made Brady's year more than Brady made Moss's. Ditto for all the studs on 2 different SB teams that Curt Warner had the luxury of throwing to. Vick would've never had the 100 passer rating 2010 season w/o Jackson & Maclin. Of the 45 SB winners, 33 had 1st round starting receivers...... plus another 17 2nd rounders. Check out all the HOF QBs and see how many didn't have at least 1 great WR or an outstanding overall receiving corps.
If we end up drafting in the top 3 [which I don't think will happen], there's absolutely no way I'd pass on Star Lotulelei if he's on the table. He and Soliai in the middle would be joyous devastation.
just to keep up my UCLA homerism Tonight's game: UCLA (22) vs. Houston UCLA wins 37-6 Jonathan Franklin: 25 carries, 110 yards (4.4 yds/crry), 4 rec, 58 yards -- total 168 yards from scrimmage Joe Fauria: only 2 rec, for 27 yards Brett Hundley: shakier game, 27/42 320 yards, 2 TD, 2 INT also worthy of note, CB Sheldon Price had 3 INTs, but he is hardly a high draft pick right now (he only had 4 all last year i believe) YTD totals on Franklin and Fauria (the two draftable ones) Franklin: 66 rushes, 541 yards, 8.2 yds/carry, 3 TDs plus 8 receptions for 121 yards and 1 TD Fauria: 9 receptions, 122 yards, 3 TDs
Except the reason Tannehill and we will struggle this season is we have no-one to throw to, so that sort of destroys your argument from the get-go.
Actually, the reason this team will struggle are: 1. They have a young quarterback who will take his lumps before he settles in. 2. The team has questionable pass protection up front. 3. The secondary lacks ball skills. 4. The team has no complimentary pass rusher to Cameron Wake. As for receiver impact, I once again bring up the fact that Miami scored more points per play and averaged more yards per play in 2008 with Davone Bess, Greg Camarillo, and Ted Ginn as the top 3 wide receivers with Chad Pennington at quarterback than they did at any point when they had the great Brandon Marshall at wide receiver with some combination of Chad Henne and Matt Moore at quarterback. Did Brandon Marshall make Chad Henne better? No, he didn't. Let's also ingore the fact that this is by far the easiest position to fill on the team when your quarterback position is settled. How many years was it that Detroit spent a first round pick on a wide receiver? All those first round picks, and they didn't get good till they drafted Matthew Stafford AND he stayed healthy for an entire season.
The Utah-BYU game was crazy last night in case no one saw it. BYU was down by 3 with 7 seconds on the clock, on Utah's 36. BYU tries a far side out route, was incomplete, and the time ran out. Utah fans rushed the field. BYU protested claiming there was 1 second left.... which there was. So all the fans had to be pushed back to the sidelines. BYU attempts 53 yard FG.. it's blocked.. while the play is still live Utah fans storm the field. Refs convene.... 15 yard penalty..... BYU has a chance to send it to overtime with a 38 yard FG..... Doink.
A couple of things just because you raise multiple questions. 1. Philosophically, do I prefer a true DE, or do I prefer a OLB/Nickel Rusher? As always it depends on the players in question but if you're playing as a 4-3 defense then I think you want the true DE. You want the Jason Pierre-Paul, Michael Strahan, Julius Peppers type of guy, IMO. The reason I say that is because they can affect a pass rush in situations where you can't necessarily call for it as a defensive coordinator based on situation/personnel packages. You hate to see a guy be totally useless on 1st/2nd down unless it's a run play. I've not been a fan of Jared Odrick at DE because of that. We're picking up the dividends against the run, but we're paying for it in the air, IMO. 2. You ask if I want my #1 ranked DE or my #1 ranked WR. I say the DE. I'm more confident in what Bjoern Werner will bring to the NFL as a football player than I am Keenan Allen. That's just a personal preference. I don't have much of a feel for this year's CB class (yet). So if we're assuming we can address two in the Draft and one in Free Agency, I don't know for sure which would be what. You mentioned Richard Marshall. I believe he should be playing safety.
Chris, how true of an end was JPP and Peppers (at Carolina, for example)? Both of those guys have stood up at some point in their careers, with JPP doing it in college on numerous occasions and Peppers at Carolina.
I guess it's the difference between what a guy does just because he's so special that he can, versus what a guy does because that's where the skill set is leading you. With Jason Pierre-Paul, I didn't feel like dropping him was anything you were ever going to do except purely because it's possible (based on his physical gifts) and because you might have a theory that doing it will confuse the defense and/or produce better matchups on certain plays.
Yeah I suppose that would be what I mean there. But the term also carries with it a connotation of completeness (in my mind). A true end for me is a guy that is a three-down threat. Not that you'd have him out there 1100 snaps in a season like you would a corner or safety but you get the picture I think.
.... but what if the WR represents an ideal fit to the offense/scheme and the draft is deep in talented defensive ends to where we could trade up our highest 2nd round pick if needed and still grab an impact pass rusher? If we're picking around 12th, I personally don't see as strong of a drop off between the 3rd and 6th DE compared to the 1st and 4th or 5th receiver [based on scheme fit]. IMO we need to come away with a few impact players in this draft, so I'd seriously consider taking Allen 1st and then trading up into the 1st round for a stud pass rusher just like the Packers did in '09. .... but then again I'd be quite content taking the best DE on the board (especially if it is Werner) and then going with Da'Rick Rogers in 2nd, especially if we make a dent at WR in FA.
In a word, no. I don't think you invest in receivers high unless they are exceptional talents. You're going to have to overdraft a WR anyways because every year, there is a run on them and the quality ones go pretty quickly. With that said, its better to do that in mid rounds than it is at the top simply because of the risk at the top.
I think that's an excellent point. I've been looking for an excuse to add Keenen Allen b/c I feel he's the key missing piece to our offense (outside of Wallace or Jennings), but I'm a defensive minded guy and should probably stick to my guns with a 3 down DE, especially considering Wake is getting up there in age.... unless you think we could rush 5 on 1st or 2nd down vs the pass (with Sean Porter at OLB) similarly to how Houston often does with Barwin & Reed, which would allow us to stay strong vs the run on 1st & 2nd down.
IMO, anytime the thought that a wide receiver is the key missing piece to any offense enters someone's head, that thought is typically off base. http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/gluttony-wide-receiver-feeding-frenzy/13955/ IMO, this is the key statement in the article: Here is the article detailing the man law: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/chff-theory-elevated-to-man-law/2490/ Let's fast forward to the Miami Dolphins of today. Are they great at quarterback? The jury is still out on this. Ryan Tannehill shows some good things, and he shows that he still has a lot to work on. Getting a "great" wide receiver isn't going to accelerate that learning curve. A great wide receiver isn't going to make Ryan Tannehill go through his progressions quicker and have better ball placement on passes inside the hashes. Repetitions and finding a comfort level with the speed of the game is what will do that. If Tannehill turns out to be great though, then the Dolphins will be able to win with a group of good wide receivers. There is no need for a great wide receiver. Do the Dolphins have a great defense? Right now, they are showing very well vs the run. Not so much vs the pass. What the Dolphins lack that keep them from being a great all around defense is speed in the linebacker corps and ball skills in the secondary. They also lack another pass rusher who can get double digit sacks on the team, but they do a good job of generating pressure despite this. They just cannot force turnovers because they do not have ball skills or instincts in the secondary. I feel it would be very foolish to invest a high draft pick in a receiver when you have an opportunity to get one of two potential stud cornerbacks with tremendous ball skills in David Amerson and Jonathan Banks, or potentially a stud safety in Eric Reid. Then you have the potential uncertainty over whether they will end up resigning Jake Long or not, and you could potentiall see left tackle get shifted to the forefront.
Keep in mind that CHFF only began referring to WRs as "shiny hood ornaments" after the Patriots traded Randy Moss. Before that trade, they were fully on the WR wagon headed to Touchdownsville. That convenient about-face is one of the only things I don't like about CHFF. Top offenses tend to have very good WR talent.
And those top offense also have very good quarterbacks, which is the biggest reason they have very good wide receiver talent.
It's true that they have top quarterbacks, and I'm glad to see that you've come around on the importance of the quarterback and efficient passing. But the receiver matters. You can't throw to a group of warm bodies. There needs to be competence. Look at what Jay Cutler is dealing with in Chicago. He has one legitimate receiver and a group of guys who think the football is a grenade.
Jay Cutler's problem is more with his consistency than any perceived lack of talent in his receivers. He's yet another quarterback that Brandon Marshall cannot make better. Jay isn't streaky because of his receivers. He is streaky because he makes bad decisions with the football.
Sorry, I'm of the belief that you cannot win in this league without great WRs. This is a position the Dolphins obviously need to prioritize this offseason. If we manage to get a top WR (whether it is through FA, Draft, Trade, whatever), our WR corps would do a complete 180. Hartline is a great complimentary WR if used right (working the sidelines like he did against Oakland), Bess is solid in the slot, and a true WR who can spread the field will benefit everybody on the team. Combine that with Fasano & Egnew at TE and your receiving corps look pretty damn good now.
Reference my quote from the cold hard football facts article. This is the same mindset that the Dolphins and fans had when they wasted two picks on Brandon Marshall. The top 3 receivers in the NFL are Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, and Larry Fitzgerald. Now what their team's records since they have been with them are? Arizona 58-72 Houston 63-95 Detroit 26-56 A combined record of 147 and 223. A winning percentage of 0.397 for the teams that have the top 3 wide receivers in the NFL. So, exactly how much of an impact does a wide receiver make?
Do you remember the days when you used to watch football with your eyes? I don't mean that to be offensive, honestly, but look at the three names you just listed. Do you see anything mildly wrong with your argument?
I wonder how much worse their records would be if you disregarded any points those receivers put up and recalculated W-L
No offense- but are you serious? Detroit and Houston are no longer laughing stocks in this league. And, somehow, Arizona has quietly managed to win 9 out of their last 11. What they were like 8 years go or whatever really is almost irrelevant at this point. Calvin Johnson, Andre Johnson, and Larry Fitzgerald make HUGE impacts. Players like those 3 make any team they are on better. Period. End of story. I don't see how you can say an elite player doesn't make an impact. Watch any of those three play and you can see the difference. They help spread the field and provide opportunities for other teammates to make plays. I mean, if a top WR is so useless then I guess we are indeed better off rolling out each with Legedu Naanee on the field. Teams records since drafting a player is an awful metric to use. It isn't a 1 man sport, it is a team sport.
Hey. If you want to ignore the data that shows a wide receiver's impact is limited, that's all on you. Their impact is 100% tied to the quarterback on the team. My general feeling is that "spreading the field" and "drawing coverage away" from other players on offense is completely subjective, and you cannot find a statistic that shows the actual impact that has on the game. If there is an impact, then it can be measured objectively by a statistic. My guess is, this is something that is along the lines of "creating shots" in basketball. In basketball, shots aren't created. They are taken.
I think the point is that WR like every position is important to have talent at, but the position itself isn't one where best in the league play creates a significant difference in record than average play...when the team is crappy. A great WR might be the difference between the AFC Championship game & a Super Bowl, it is not the difference between 6-10 and 10-6. Brady needs receivers. We need a Brady first. I think we don't have to look further than our own recent experience with Marshall. You can say his huge amount of yards did a lot for the team, but not in any quantifiable way other than 1200 yrds. It didn't translate to a great record, it didn't translate to a great offense in yards or points. It didn't bring up the game of those around him. It was just empty yards that didn't do anything important for the team, if that's not true it should be quantifiable with some kind of results...at this point I haven't seen anything.
Every position's impact is "limited" then by your definition. Of course it is, since it is 11 vs 11 on the field. I don't disagree that QB is more important than WR. Obviously that is the most important position and will have the greatest impact on a team's ability to win games. And I'm sorry, but that data does not show that a WR's impact is limited. That is a load of crap. You can pull up losing records after any player is drafted and then say "Well, see, that position doesn't have an impact." How about I post Indianapolis' record a year after drafting Peyton Manning? Just as subjective a sample size and would prove the same thing that QB obviously is not an impact decision. Using your logic I can conclude that: Cornerback is not an important/impact position, since Cleveland has gone 9-23 after drafting Joe Haden, 1 of the premier CBs in the game. Now, let's say that somehow, Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, and Larry Fitzgerald happened to be drafted by the New England Patriots or Green Bay Packers or some other perennial powerhouse, you wouldn't be sitting here making the same argument. This is despite the fact that the players and position in question are the same, their records would be much different. Because if that were the case, I could sit here and use those teams records and say "Look, WR is an impact position. Look at NE's winning record since drafting (insert elite WR talent here)." I'm stopping here. No offense, but the argument you are presenting here is ridiculous.
