As a guard I think so. I think Zack Martin is getting credit at guard for his being good at left tackle and while pass protection will be similar, run blocking is not all that comparable IMO. There are also some differences in pass protection when it comes to picking up inside blitzers in zone protection and picking up stunts. There are differences.
I figure they are similar in pass pro at tackle, with Su'a Filo being more athletic and stronger at punching, and better in run game in either scheme.
Greg Auman @gregauman 7m Looking back on 2009 NFL draft: Five years later, 25 of 32 NFL teams have just one or zero players still on roster from their draft class.[/QUOTE] Wow.
Thinking about the 1st round and the fact Hickey recently had Marqise Lee back for a second visit, I'm guessing he's grown worried his top 2 targets, Beckham & Cooks, won't make it to 19, thus conducting further due diligence on Lee to see how comfortable he feels about him at 19 or even a short trade back. Then when you look at our fallback option at WR, Robert Herron, ask yourself what type of player he most reminds you of? It's Beckham and Cooks. It's Hickey's first draft as a GM. He's gonna want to make a statement, put his stamp on it, as well as appease his fire-power loving owner in the process. We're looking at enough 2nd round and beyond offensive tackles to suggest Hickey feels he can address the position without using a 1st. So right now, barring a trade up for one of the top tackles, I'm strongly inclined to say the pick is Brandin Cooks [assuming Beckham is off the board], followed by Lee if Cooks is gone.
I'm not sure your following my logic, You do realize we gave less than then the # 42 pick to aquire the 3rd overall?
I'd rather have Robinson's YAC and jump ball ability too..... but I'd take Lee's better combination of hands, route running, and feel for the game as a receiver instead.
To each their own I don't think WR is a huge need in this deep of a draft. I'd rather get a top end TE early in the draft than WR.
We gave the #12 and #42 picks for the #3 pick. We spent that highly valued asset to acquire Dion Jordan.
TEs have performed well as a group. The main problem is TD production from WR spot (9TDs 2 starters), and Wallace-Tannehill inefficiency which is at 5 yards per attempt. So WR is much more problematic if you believe that the problem is not only schematic.
We should move back but I don't know how easy that will be. Many teams in the second half of the draft will be looking at Newsome's 17th pick as the premier trade opportunity.
Jonathan Dowling of Western Kentucky is a phenomenal natural talent at safety or even corner. I just wish the guy were more disciplined and that there weren't so many rumors of him butting heads with coaches and being hard to handle. The film shows a lack of discipline and on-field character that seems to corroborate some of those rumors too. But that talent is ridiculous. He's 6'3" and runs a 4.49. I've never seen a safety so incredibly focused (way too much at times) on ripping out fumbles. But it's not all for naught, as he forced SIX fumbles this year. He also had 3 interceptions. Last year he had 6 interceptions and 2 forced fumbles. He also had a punt/kick block in 2012, a touchdown off one of his interceptions, and a 39 yard reception on offense. He had 14 PBUs over the two years combined. His combination of 17 interceptions and forced fumbles over the last 2 seasons is by far the most in college football. The next best tally is 13 which is shared by some underclassmen who aren't out for the Draft plus Deone Buchanon (who is my top rated safety). He also has a blocked kick in 2012. The thing that makes me curious is that Kevin Coyle took another talented but fairly undisciplined safety in Reggie Nelson and made him work up in Cincinnati. [video=youtube;nExfz1ZrwMI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nExfz1ZrwMI[/video] [video=youtube;6m1PJtb-flM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m1PJtb-flM[/video]
You want a really sad story? Marcus Trice transferred from Oklahoma to North Texas and notched an incredible total of 7 interceptions, 5 forced fumbles and 3 blocked kicks over 2012 & 2013 at North Texas. That total of 15 turnover plays is second only to Jonathan Dowling's 18 and 2 ahead of the next best numbes. He's got great highlight films, fantastically instinctive and a great tackler. [video=youtube;tk26UeBBprs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk26UeBBprs[/video] The sad part? He's only 5'8" & 195 lbs, and he's working with 4.62 speed. That's a really sad story. Wonderful college football player that probably just won't be able to translate to the next level. Is there a silver lining? I'd say so. His name is Jim Leonhard, who was also 5'8" & 191 lbs, running only a 4.63 coming out of Wisconsin.
when you put it down on paper, we didn't give up both picks, we only gave up the #42 because instead of having the 12 we swapped it for 3rd overall, that value from 12 to 3 is a big difference,so basically we gave up less than the 42 because we accrued value from the 12 to 3 in the process, and that value has to be accounted for..
It's very correct Ck, we only gave up the #42, we still kept our first round pick, but now that pick moved up to #3..which should create more value to the overall transaction..so while we lost the 42, we gained with our first, thus picking up value. Lol..what are we missing here? Swap from 12 to 3 Give up 2nd.. You don't seem to be equating the nine spots of value into the total.?
You have to take the value on the initial 12 into account. If you go to a car dealership and trade in your car at a value of $15,000 and pay an extra $5,000 for a brand new car, you don't say you bought a brand new car for $5,000. You essentially paid $20,000 for it. Sure the new car is more valuable than the old car, but that old car was still an asset. Same if you're calculating trade value with the draft value chart.
I think both ways are fine to look at it personally. I think this is a stupid way of people wanting to be technically correct.
No I agree. I think it depends on how you want to take it. If you're talking informally - sure you just gave up an extra pick. However if you were looking at it from an actual math/finance/ logic standpoint - you'd have to take the #12 into account.
Gil Brandt @Gil_Brandt 2m Hearing lots of chatter about #Bills wanting to move up in the draft from 9, #Dolphins wanting to move down from 19.
I think a lot of that was Tannehill's lack of a deep ball touch. If we go WR that just means we plan on getting rid of Wallace in the very near future. I actually like the depth we have but we don't have a mismatch at TE. Unless were banking at Lazor turning Egnew into that player which I don't.
I'm certainly not trying to be combative, I genuinely don't understand the logic against. 3rd spot is more valuable than 12 spot.. 2nd round pick gone. I cannot conceptualize how one would say we gave up more than a 2nd round pick...yet not caculate that we gained some value back in the process.
This is exactly right. This was DJ's statement verbatim: "You do realize we gave less than then the # 42 pick to aquire the 3rd overall?" This is incorrect. Purely incorrect. It would be like in your example claiming you only paid $5,000 for the new car.
Original Statement: "He was a blue chip talent aquired for peanuts." Original Response: "A #3 overall pick is not peanuts. Nor are the #12 and #42 picks combined. That's not peanuts." Where exactly am I making an invalid and/or uselessly pedantic point here? I can't help it if DJ is responding to that entirely valid and significant point with incorrect statements about giving up only the #42 overall pick for Dion Jordan when the fact of the matter is we either gave up the #3 overall pick for Dion Jordan or we gave up the #12 and #42 picks for Dion Jordan. You can view it as one or you can view it as the other as both are valid. What is not valid is simply stating we only gave up the #42 pick for Dion Jordan hence we paid "peanuts" and therefore it's an awesome move.
When your looking at the way I am it is less than the 42nd pick, because we swapped our first for much better value which lessens the loss of value on the #42. The car example doesn't make sense to me because quite simply both teams had first round picks, we swapped ours for theirs, we didn't lose value, only gained it there,then in the 2nd round, lost the 42nd pick, that's it,a lost 2nd round pick, but a higher 1st round pick.. Lol, I'm sorry, but that's the logical way of looking at it.. If I'm wrong I'm truly sorry, but it seemingly is the most easiest of equations that I've ever seen.
I know you're right in terms of math, logic, etc. However in terms of perspective, I can understand why DJ is looking at it the way he is. In terms of the car analogy offered earlier... You trade in your car and spend $5K for your new car. I can understand the perspective of feeling like you spent $5K on a new car if you knew you wouldn't keep your old car no matter what when purchasing a new car. I guess I feel keeping that perspective isn't a big deal... It doesn't really matter at the end of the day IMO.
It's all a matter of perspective, and probably not worth arguing about, but I agree here. To take the car analogy another step, you have a car to begin with and end up with a car. Ether way you are not changing the fact that you have a car. But you are essentially spending 5K to get a nicer, newer car. In the draft the Dolphins were going to get a 1st round caliber player either way. They paid a 2nd round pick to get a better 1st round caliber player. Neither side of the argument is wrong. You are paying a 1st and a 2nd for the player, but you are paying the second for the chance to get that caliber of player.
You are 100% right. If I collect coins and trade two for one better coin, I didn't lose a coin. I exchanged it for value.
I love the quote from Bill Polian on this KiperMcShay mock: "The job of the draft is not to find value, but to find football players." Paraphrasing Polian, Miami needs to lineup, they don't have players to lineup, if all top tackles are taken, take Bitonio, take a good football player to line up!
So if Miami traded down with San Fran, what would be the trade? Miami's 19 (875) for San Fran's 30 (620) + 61 (292) = 912 Close, but might be too rich for San Fran's blood. Maybe... Miami's 19 (875) for San Fran's 30 (620) + 77 (205) + 129 (43) = 868
Or could swap 2nd rounders in the deal... Miami's 19 (875) + 50 (400) = 1275 for San Fran's 30 (620) + 56 (340) + 61 (292) + 171 (23) = 1275 Completely even trade. Miami gains a 2nd and 5th rounder.
Some of the pundit mockers are tripping, it seems like their all sleeping on Anthony Barr. Top 8 player imo.
