I do, reason being is 3 Qb's, usually the #3 is a developmental type like a Pat Devlin, if you take Tannehill with the #8 he will play in 2012, or more than likely will play meaning you have 2.5 million dropped on Garrard or Moore and that is not how Ireland does things. Would be nice if both Garrard and Moore stood out in the preseason though, but are good Qb's and should have decent trade value.
Both Moore are Garrard only have 1 year deals, I could easily see them both remaining for the season, and then possibly Tannehill taking over next year. I agree, I don't think we move up, though if we really feel strongly on him, the attempt should be made. If we don't get him, I think it would depend on who was available what we do. I think Richardson or Reiff would be a waste of a pick personally, the value just isn't there. The only way we go Reiff is if we seriously are concerned about Long's health and future here. Would be hard to pass up on DE's like Coples or Ingram. Richardson I think would be decent to have fall, I could see the Bengals maybe making a move.
Really? So you don't think a RT isn't a pretty big deal here? And Richardson's one of the best 3/4/5 players in the entire draft. The whole "don't take a back high" thing has to all intents and purposes been removed because of the CBA.
Not at anything inside rd #4, of course we've cycled through 53 Offensive linemen in 4 yrs, have John Jerry on the roster, so of course we should look at him. Heck, let's trade back into rd #1, and take DiCastro, that way we have all high picks on the OL. True, if he is APlike, and you need offensive weapons then his value does meet our needs.
No, I don't. I don't doubt they are good players, but the positional value ... a RT at 8? It would make sense for, say, Buffalo at 10 to try him at LT, but really we need to be able to find OL outside of the first round. You do raise a good point about the money though with Richardson. But still, RB's have low positional value. As good as AP is, he has been utterly hamstrung by a lack of decent QB play. If Tannehill is gone, I guess he may be in play though. Certainly more so than a RT. We really need to start upgrading playmaking ability, so he is valid in that regard. Please note that I am not criticizing them as players or prospects, just their positional value, especially in regards to Miami. That said, I wouldn't be stunned to see Ireland do something like that.
We have a resurgent Reggie Bush and a 2nd rounder at RB....either use Richardson as trade bait or pick someone else.
Without a QB, talent won't get you anywhere in today's NFL. Drafting talent (when you lack a QB) gets you 6-10 and 7-9 every year. Enough to keep you out of the running for franchise QB like Luck and RGIII. And with the rookie scale, the drawbacks of missing a QB are pretty much nothing. You simply wasted 1 pick in the first round. Happens to 20+ teams every year. It really almost doesn't matter who is available. If they don't play QB, they simply don't have as much value as the guy who does, no matter how much talent they have. And lets cereal here... Running backs specifically have lost tremendous value in the last handful of years. You can compete for a SB without one if you have a franchise QB. And they simply have too short of a shelf life. I said the same for Ronnie Brown too, who I think was considered and even better prospect. Dude could run, catch, block, ran a 4.3, split carries and was "fresh", etc... For me, I would rather reach on a QB with potentially a high ceiling (franchise QB) then waste more time drafting positions that in the end, simply don't matter without a guy under center.
Bush has played 1 good season and stayed healthy for one season. He's also a FA. And Thomas has done what?
RB for THIS team at pick #8??? Bad idea, IMO. Good news is this is all moot because even Ireland isnt that dumb. I think.
I don't have RB as a need for us, but I might consider Doug Martin in the 2nd, depending on who else is available.
I don't think you can call anyone dumb for drafting the best back since Adrian Peterson who hs minimal miles on the clock, can catch, has one career fumble, has 49% of career yards after contact and pass protects as well as any back in the NFL. But this is why the draft is fun; differing opinions
I agree. A team becoming a west coast style offense shouldn't be taking a RB with its first pick. That's ridiculous IMO. How does that help the transition? If we wanted to become a power running team and were void of talent, then I could understand it.
Minimal miles hasn't stopped him from already needing surgery. How did minimal miles fare for Ronnie Brown? Minimal miles doesn't make a nascar driver any less prone to accident. The second he steps in the car he's subject to injury. Why would you want to use such a valuable pick on a position most prone to injury, a position that divides snaps, and especially if that position doesn't represent the final piece of the puzzle? If the passing aspect of the offense doesn't take off, then IMO it doesn't matter who we have at running back just as Adrian Peterson currently means little more in Minnesota than a bunch of oohs and aahs.... just as Barry Sanders was never going to get Detroit to a SB on his shoulders.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Terrible argument. Football is a team sport. You can make this argument for every position.
Fairly clear that Trent Richardson and Ronnie Brown are too totally different players. The NASCAR thing is totally irrelevent. You're looking at the Draft as a one year deal. Miami is rebuilding and you add good pieces when you can. Elite when you can. I'm not saying should could or will draft Trent Richardson but he'll be in the discussion and if you think any different then you are clueless about the process works. It's not about building a WCO offense. What sort of WCO offense is Miami running? 3rd most important part of the original and archetypal WCO? Roger Craig who blocked like Tom Rathman, caught the ball like John Taylor and ran the ball like a factor back. It's about pieces of the puzzle.
It's not a terrible argument. If we want to be a WCO, then the play of the running back won't be the main determinant of success. Our success will only go as far as the passing game takes us, not a running back. The running back compliments it, but he can't compliment it if it doesn't exist, and until it exists, the bulk or our offensive effort should be placed in trying to make it exist; therefore using a #1 pick on a running back could be considered counterproductive.
Counterproductive? I am sorry, but that is crazy. Having a HOF runningback to compliment the passing offense, would help put it in place.
Sometimes some pieces are less important than others. Did coach Philbin need world beaters at running back to win a SB and subsequently go 15-1?
So you are saying Philbin wouldn't have won a superbowl and then go 15-1 if he had a world beater at runningback?
What passing offense? Don't you actually have to have one first in order to compliment it? What's crazy is to simply assume we'll develop a great passing offense, especially if we're dedicating 1st & 2nd round picks to running backs in consecutive years.
Even if Trent is the best prospect since Peterson, he still isnt near the prospect that Adrian was. Be good trade bait if he is there and Tannehill and Blackmon are gone....but I see no reason to draft ANY RB at that point.
are you trying to rationalize GB spending a 1st rounder on a running back even though the result would've been the same?
by preventing it from becoming "it"..... or at least delaying the process. How does taking Trent Richardson (and making our RB corps the strongest aspect of our team) help us develop an effective passing game consistent with what you'd expect from the mastermind behind GB's offense? Honestly, if we're to build an offense around the passing game, then how does it help us to boost our RB corps to Richardson, Bush, and Thomas while leaving the QB at Moore & Garrard and the WRs at Bess, Hartline, and Gates? IMO it's like Carolina spending a 1st on Jonathan Stewart despite have DeAngelo and holes all around the field. Overkill.
How would it do either? Taking Trent Richardson doesn't hurt creating an effective passing game, and it would make the offense better on a whole. Was Carolina switching chefs when they drafted Jonathan Stewart?
Me? you're the one saying GB could've used a 1st rounder on a running back even though they'd still be able to win a SB and go 15-1 without him. Perhaps if Green Bay goes back in time and uses a 1st on a running back, then their future changes and never ends up winning a SB or going 15-1. Heck, with that mentality, maybe they pass on Aaron Rodgers entirely considering Favre is already rostered.
If Green Bay uses a 1st on an Adrian Peterson instead of a Defensive Tackle that ended up not making the team, then they wouldn't be able to win the SB and go 15-1. How does that make any sense?
Please reread your post and tell me the flaw in the logic considering the cost involved of adding a world beater running back.
Not a crazy scenario, they did draft a Defensive Tackle that didn't make the team. Are you just trying to be difficult?
Does Richardson cost money? Is there a salary cap? Does his money & salary cap prevent us from allocating it toward establishing a passing game? Does Richardson cost a valuable draft pick? Is a valuable draft pick used on running back one less valuable draft pick that can be used create an effective passing game? It doesn't matter if Carolina wasn't switching chefs. It was a bad move period. What's even worse is we're likely trying to transition from a running team to a passing one. At least Carolina wanted to be a running team.
It is a crazy scenario b/c A. the Packers weren't picking in the top 6 in 2007..... and B. they didn't draft their DT with the hopes that he wouldn't make the team. Quit acting ridiculous.