Absolutely, if you take a receiver in the first or 2nd, and you sign a Jennings/Wallace and Hartline, then that 2nd rounder has to be better than Bess, thus making him the number 4, which then like you said would be free to go.
Goodness, davone Bess was having an excellent first half of the season, if he winds up being our # 4 we'll be doing great.
You don't allocate to all those positions. Thats the reality of the salary cap. If you are spending $12M+ on a FA per annum, then you're pretty much opening yourself up to having holes on the roster. You pay someone that kind of money because they're good enough to cover up for the holes their compensate creates. If you're looking to fill all your holes while you shell out that kind of money, then you need to cross your fingers and hope you hit the lottery on late round guys.
I don't think Eifert is really affected by any supposed lack of "top talent" because he's not expected to go at the very top. I think the 30th best prospect in this draft is roughly equivalent to the 30th best prospect in most drafts. This one is weak at some positions and strong at others, but that is true of all drafts. He may not be a whole lot better than Rudolph, but he is faster and quicker and Rudolph went in the top half of the 2nd round and had a pretty nice 53 catch, 9 TD season in his second year in the league in a very run heavy offense with mediocre QB play.
Agreed. I like Bess, but I'm fine with that if we spend a 2nd or 3rd on a WR and bring in a TE. Unless we draft a playmaking TE and cut ties with Clay, I think Fasano is a goner as well. I like Fasano, but he's far from being a playmaker. Now if Miami does jettison Bess...what do you think they could get for him in a trade?
This has been my biggest complaint about this front office. They are reactive in the way they do things. You rarely see them doing anything that is proactive. Basically, what this boils down to is the fact that they misjudged the market for free agent wide receivers last year, so they are REACTING to that by severely overpaying in the market this year.
You got to this question before I could post it. What about a trade, and not necessarily Harvin? Is there someone else?
If the top 52 salaries break like they did last year, we'll only need $3.9 million for the rookies. That would leave $33.1 million. If we gave Wallace the exact same deal that Bowe got, the first year cap hit would be $4 million and we would still have $29.1 million. If we give Hartline the exact same deal that Laurant Robinson got last year, the first year cap hit would be $4.7 million and we'd still have almost $25 million left. And that's before doing a long term deal with starks to bring his cap number down and before any other cuts or restructurings. Let's say we use the 1st round pick on an OT, and 2nds on TE and CB. Then, even accepting your list of needs (which I don't really), we'd have around $25 million to spend on a FS, DE and another CB. We can get some pretty good players at those positions for $25 million.
Was Marshall an overreaction though? I didn't really like him from the beginning, but the value was good, the production was reasonable, and they were able to move on and recoup a large percentage of their costs. Failure is all or some combination of paying too much, getting ****ty production, and losing your investment entirely. Carson Palmer to the Raiders most recently.
this is the kind of discussion that helps me, I know CK is worried about allocating too much in one position, which has me thinking about the big picture and how to put it all into context of staying true to building a football team...
I don't think so. I think we had Hartline the year before Marshall. EDIT: Just looked it up. Says Hartline was drafted in 2009 and Marshall was signed in 2010.
I've said this several times, but I don't look at it as an allocation to a position. I look at it as an allocation to the passing game (skill positions). Most of the better teams will spend $30-40 million on their starting QB and top 4 receivers (WR or TE). We have Tannehill on a bargain rookie deal for several years, which frees up money to spend elsewhere. To me, it makes to spend it on other passing game assets.
The thing you have to factor into this is the relative small amount of money the Dolphins have to pay Tannehill over the next 3 years - the Dolphins are not having to invest near the resources there that a number of teams are. That gives them the cap space to overspend at receiver if need be - which is what they should do. The cap is supposedly going to go up significantly in 2015 when the new TV money kicks in - I'm sure deals will be structured to be lower cap hits the next couple of years and bigger cap hits in 2015 when the increased cap can absorb bigger cap hits. The Dolphins need proven offensive talent now - I'm perfectly OK overspending for a #1 receiver (Wallace/Jennings) and a TE too - they've got to get Tannehill guys to throw to. Hartline is a solid piece and already has a good relationship with Tannehill - need some consistency going forward.
That was good balance between those 4 as for snaps too. Bess 725, Camarillo 691, Ginn 544, Hartline 408.
I'm generally with you on that. I think 12 is too high too. Not sure I'd say "upset" because in the scheme of things taking a player 5 or even 10 spots higher than you think he should go is really not a big deal, especially if he turns out to be a good player.
After all this speculation now we have to get Wallace or this fanbase will collectively jump off of a cliff and take Ireland with them. That is why these kinds of assumptions only prove to be detrimental.
I'm still waiting for someone to show me from an x's and o's standpoint how you take Mike Wallace who does not run a full route tree and integrate him into a passing offense that is based on timing, precise route running, and receivers that can run a full route tree?
Doesn't this imply first that Mike Wallace doesn't run a full orute tree, and wouldn't it therefore be first incumbent on the person who poses that theory to show that to be the case? Just curious. I'm not a fan of Wallace at the price tag but I'm not sure I get this kind of request.
If Joe Philbin believes Wallace can't run enough routes to be effective we won't sign him, if we do sign him obviously he isn't as limited as you insist on posting every 10 minutes. Just leave it at that.
I think you have to strip out the hyperbole. There is nothing about Mike Wallace that makes him "unable" to run any particular route. There are no routes on which his legs simply cease to work and he crumbles to the turf. There are routes that he is particularly good at and others that he is not particularly good at. That is true of most WRs. And the ones he is not particularly good at are not ones for which he is physically or mentally incapable of improving. So you use him a lot on the routes that he is very good at, some on the routes he is solid but not great at, and rarely on the routes that is below average at. In the meantime, you try to get him to improve at the routes that are not currently his strengths. And if he doesn't get open on those routes on those relatively rare occasions in which you have him run them, you throw the ball to a different receiver who is hopefully successfully running a route that he is good at running. Wallace has one attribute -- speed -- that gives him an edge on both routes he is good at and the ones he is not yet very good at and he is young and capable of getting better. You may be right that Philbin/sherman do not want to make any adjustments in their system to accomodate Wallace. And if that is the case, we won't sign him. But if we do sign him, I think it will indicate that they do have a plan for him that they believe will work well from an Xs and Os perspective. And maybe that is treating him as a one-trick pony, but he's shown that against NFL competition that one trick can still be good for 1200+ yards and 10 TDs.
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/49179081/ns/sports-player_news/ Mike Wallace was targeted on five different routes during the Week 3 loss to the Raiders. Wallace isn't just a straight-line speedster. He's been running a full route tree for a couple years now and he put it all on display last week. He ran dig routes, slants, screens, deep ins and fly patterns, racking up a 8/123/1 line. Despite missing the majority of camp, Wallace has racked up 17 catches on 22 targets and scored three touchdowns so far. Source: Mark Kaboly on Twitter
Well... if Philbin signed him... wouldnt that ease your concerns? They wont sign him if they feel he was such a terrible fit for our offense....
I don't think Mike Wallace is worth the money we are looking at throwing at him, personally. I prefer Jennings. I prefer Jennings, Hartline, the best tight end we can sign (Cook?) and the best receiver available after round 1.
Whoa up there pardner. How could this possibly be true when we've been told ad infinitum right here in this here forum that he is not capable of running them there routes???
I'm not sure five routes is really particularly impressive. I think pretty much everyone knows that Wallace had to run a more diverse route tree this year, and the idea that he had to diversify is quite arguably part of why he had a mediocre performance this year. It's also worth noting in that game none of those routes were really the out-breaking timing routes so prevalent in Sherman's offense.
The source spoke of only 5 but also said that Wallace has been running the full tree for a couple of years now. And who's to say that Wallace can't run Sherman's offense? If that's the case then the Dolphins should not draft a rookie WR and soley go after Jennings.
Haley wasn't very popular in Pittsburgh, even Big Ben had a few comments. Hiring Haley was a bad idea by the Steelers.
I don't think he runs a full route tree, and even then it's semantics. He doesn't do it very well. I don't think there is any way you can reasonably say he's a well-rounded player. I'm not entirely convinced that you can't utilize Mike Wallace reasonably well in a principled offense, but you've got to make a lot of changes that might not be worth it. "Even" Big Ben? The guy is a massive ******* and has no problems throwing anyone else under the bus. His comments really didn't have a huge amount in line with reality, either.
I never understood letting Arians go. They had a good QB/OC relationship there with he and Ben. Why upset the apple cart? Arians offense was ideal for Ben. Never been impressed by Haley. He seems like a foul mouthed little tyrant to me. I'd bet Matt Barkley is hoping and praying for the chance to play for Bruce Arians. If anyone can get his pro career off on the right foot it is Arians IMO.
