1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Final Day 1 Draft Thoughts ....

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by PHINANALYST, Apr 26, 2012.

  1. PHINANALYST

    PHINANALYST Well-Known Member

    1,834
    513
    113
    Jan 3, 2008
    North Carolina
    After looking across our meets and needs, the following comes through to me:

    1- we have spent the most time and energy where we have consistently spent it over the last few years: QB, DE/OLB, CB, and WR.

    2- our needs: DE/OLB to compliment Wake, CB to compliment Davis, WR to 'replace' Marshall, T to bookend with Long, TE to compliment Fasano, G to solidify the OL, and of course QB of the future - which to me at this point is 'slightly' over-rated.

    3- Right now today - i do not view a QB of the future an immediate need. I can't say whether or not Tannehill is/could be that guy -- but the vibe i get, is that we are not going that way in this draft. But, of course - we'll find out shortly.

    4- I have always been a defense 1st type guy ... and view the lack of a compliment to Wake an essential ingredient to the teams success over the next 3-5 years (time we could expect to still have Wake). I also think we lack a Defense Captain - the right guy to make the calls and take charge of the Defense on the field ... which to me is a MLB responsibility and one we seem to be missing. We don't have a true DE on the roster ... our CB situation is unsettled -- and of course there are many questions at S.

    5- That being said, i view - and we have invested significant effort once again into DE/OLB prospects along with a few DEs. There has been much talk about Coples, his physical tools, lack of intellectual tools, and overall appearance of laziness ... which collectively don't conform to this regimes 'standards' of lunchpale leaders ... all that being said - IF the FO believes he is even 80% of Julius Peppers ... I'm taking him @ #8 if he is there.

    6- While i have actively said that i am undoubtedly a fan of MLB Luke Kuechly, not sure the FO is. They haven't spent much time on ILB/MLBs thus far. That leads me to believe that Kuechly is not a target of ours, albeit - as i have said in previous posts, he would be one of my 2 @ #8. Our Defense needs a CPT and a true blue MLB ... and he is it in spades. I do not want another Zach Thomas ... I want a John Offerdahl -- and this is what I see in Kuechly.

    7- Should Coples not be on the board @ #8, i fully expect the FO to trade down (if offered the opportunity). Trading down to the 15-22 area would still be a good position along with picking up additional picks.

    8- IF we trade down, a few players that come into immediate play: DE/OLB: Perry, Mercilus, Ingram, Upshaw and Curry; CBs: Jenkins; Kirkpatrick and Johnson; Tackles - Reiff and Massie; WR - Hill; TE - Fleener; S - Barron; G - DeCastro; DT - Worthy

    9- Believe the FOs draft board is mostly Defensive players in rounds 1 + 2 ... with DE/OLB and CB, throw in a handful of WRs and Ts. (Quinton Coples, Nick Perry, Courtney Upshaw, Vinny Curry, Melvin Ingram; Dre Kirkpartrick, Janoris Jenkins, Josh Robinson, Josh Bethel;Stephen Hill, Micheal Floyd; Riley Rieff, Bobbie Massie, Mike Adams)

    10- Believe the FOs draft board expands to ILB/MLB and potentially a TB in RDs 3 + 4. (those above that fall and add: Cam Johnson; Jeff Adams; Lavonte Davis, James-Micheal Johnson; Tavarius Cadet)

    11- The wildcard for me is when they select QB- Ryan Lindley as their developmental QB ... in either RD 4 or 5, most won't be happy -- but this is the route I see us on based on our moves to date.

    12- As usual, believe that the FO will select a WR; CB; DT; T; TE prospects in RDs 5 + 7.

    In summary, if we pick at #8, it is almost certain to be either Tannehill, Coples or another DE/OLB ... for players such as DeCastro, Barron, Fleener or Hill to come into the picture later in RD 1 - we must trade down and pick up the extra pick(s) to address the other needs in RDs 2 + 3 with the other 4 X picks.
     
    azfinfanmang likes this.
  2. CRAZYFACE

    CRAZYFACE Active Member

    230
    70
    28
    Sep 13, 2011
    England
    I've been trying to follow this draft lark on and off this year, you don't half make things complicated with all you're jargon and stuff, and can only offer the one thing that stands out a country mile. It's all down to the QB. He's the man that controls EVERYTHING. So why have Miami sat back and not traded up, like the Redskins, to get a decent QB prospect? Sure it's not a given they will turn out to be a franchise QB, but given the mess Miami are in, (fans not in the stadium, yup I was there V Buffalo) the promise of a star QB in the making IS A MUST. We'll get a nothing QB in the draftc and suffer the consequences.
    PS Who is this Gerrard fella?
     
    Aquafin likes this.
  3. PHINANALYST

    PHINANALYST Well-Known Member

    1,834
    513
    113
    Jan 3, 2008
    North Carolina
    Actually, we are not in a woeful position at QB with Moore and Garrard ... no one knows where Devlin is in his development (but he was certainly cheated last year with no offseason) or what the FO actually thinks of him ... throw in Lindley and we should have 2 chances at developing a QB in the next 2 years ...

    It's all moot of course, if the FO thinks differently and goes the Tannehill route ...
     
  4. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic Twuaddle or bust Club Member

    32,072
    22,828
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    If we are even mentioning Devlin in the QB discussion, we are in trouble. You can only talk up Moore and Garrard so much. They are mediocre with enough flashes to keep us moderately happy, but CLEARLY are not good enough.

    If we end up selecting Ryan Lindley like you hope, then I will cancel my Sunday Ticket subscription immediately.
     
    Aquafin likes this.
  5. Daben

    Daben Well-Known Member

    1,695
    1,905
    113
    Apr 9, 2008
    Did I wake up in 2003?
     
    rafael likes this.
  6. The G Man

    The G Man Git 'r doooonnne!!!

    7,480
    5,637
    113
    Mar 18, 2009
    My final thoughts leading up to tonight's first round are as follows:

    I don't think we are targeting Tannehill at #8.
    I think we want to trade back and will try to do so with ANY trade partner (but, keep a close eye on Dallas at #14).
    I think our first round pick is going to be a lineman, either D or O (and, probably D as there is a more immediate need).

    JMHO...
     
  7. PHINANALYST

    PHINANALYST Well-Known Member

    1,834
    513
    113
    Jan 3, 2008
    North Carolina
    I am not 'hoping' for Lindley ... just believe that we'll definately walk away with a QB ... and he is it -- another developmental guy to compete with Devlin. Devlin isn't an earth shaker -- but he didn't get the benefit of a true offseason last year, a lot of the rookies didn't. Lindley is a project for sure ... but barring an injury - we'll have 2 years to groom someone behind Moore. Moore isn't a 'sexy' pick either ... but he was sufficient the last part of season.

    Put it this way ... if you buy into the philosophy that coaches must win now -- why would you spend a premium draft pick on a guy that at best wouldn't start until next year ... maybe even 2 years from now (who knows). The 10 years later deal doesn't matter to me right now, because if i don't win in the 1st 2 years ... i won't be here ....

    Now if you are talking Luck or RGIII and they are walking in to start right now ... i got it.

    Again, if the FO believes Tannehill is the guy starting next year ... so be it - but it is a guess you make with your job on the line. And i don't think they take that bet (as i think Ireland is on a lifeline in this draft).
     
  8. Rick 1966

    Rick 1966 Professional Hipshooter

    8,565
    3,821
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Powell, WY
    Oh yes we certainly are.
     
    Aquafin and GARDENHEAD like this.
  9. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    That is spot on. Wanny was basically saying the same thing in 2003. My recollection is that it didn't work out so well. I guess it depends on how you define "success". Those teams had good regular season records, but no real chance to win a championship. The strategy this thread espouses seems to favor that result.
     
    Daben and Aquafin like this.
  10. pennphinfan

    pennphinfan Stelin Canez Arcade Scorz

    5,820
    2,511
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Los Angeles
    If we draft a QB in round 1 or after round 4 I'll be happy. Just PLEASE no mid round talent QB again. Either get a potential stud or a real project with huge potential, none of this "guy that's fairly good but probably won't get much better" shenanigans any more.
     
  11. dsteve

    dsteve Banned

    514
    70
    0
    Sep 26, 2011
    I don't think we draft tanny just for the sake of getting a qb. If our coaching staff, part of which coached him in college, likes the kid then that's what you draft. Moore is at best an average back up quarterback. Garard(sp) is at best a weak starter that is over 30 years old. We need a quarterback. Our defense used to be something special back in the taylor/thomas era but not now and not in this league. Maybe if Jay pick 6 fiedler wasn't locked in as our quarterback we would have a few championships in the past 15 or so years. I agree we have holes in our defense but our offense is honestly not even at an NFL level. What other team can boast the worst WR corp with no quarterback and half an o line like we can? Our best non linemen on offense is reggie bush, a third down gadget player who played out of his mind last year to be a slightly above average traditional RB.

    If I'm the GM and my coaching staff likes tannehill, that's what I do. If sherman says no then I'm looking to trade down and target Luke Kuechly. If you can't trade down to stay within a reasonable range to get him you just take him at 8. Now you've got fat dansby and his bloated contract to try and trade your way back into the first round and grab a quarterback like weeden if it doesn't look like he's gonna fall. From there on out you target the BPA at your needs. We need some WR help obviously but with the system we will run I don't think first round talent is needed. We need another pass rusher but I have a hard time spending first round resources on it because we've already invested in solia, odrick and will have to pay wake eventually. Saftey is another huge need. A second corner maybe even a first corner is davis doesn't start producing. I have some confidence in sean smith to turn it around along with our other spare parts. I'm also not a huge cornerback guy on defense. It's prob the easiest position to hide if you lack talent but we dont have the saftey play nor the pass rush.

    basically, this team sucks. we need to burn it down and try to rebuild fromt he inside of the ball out. We've already got two great o linemen but it's still a weakness because of how bad we missed on RT in FA last year and the horrible play of our guards.
     
  12. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I see the question between Coples and Tannehill as nearly analogous to would you trade Peppers for Rodgers. I see nearly analogous b/c I do't know of anybody who has Coples rated as high as Peppers. At best he's thought of as Peppers without that pass rushing burst. (Personally, I have him even lower than that). Most everybody says that Tannehill has all the skills to potentially be Rodgers, but will need time to develop. (I personally don't think he'll need as much time as many think). So if you had a choice today to draft either Peppers or Rodgers (both in their prime), but the caveat was that you would have to wait two years for Rodgers, who would you take?

    For me, Rodgers would be the easy choice.
     
  13. PHINANALYST

    PHINANALYST Well-Known Member

    1,834
    513
    113
    Jan 3, 2008
    North Carolina
    can't really comment on this team 'sucking' ... it doesn't and is only a handful away from being pretty damn good actually. 2 to 3 on both offense and defense - maybe less depending upon developing players.

    We MUST get a compliment to WAKE and either find/solve the compliment to Davis, and same for S ... would guess we need 1 new player and a 'fix' from one of the DBs already on the roster.

    We MUST have a compliment to LONG on the Right Side, either find/solve the 'other' Guard position, and 'maybe' another TE - depending on the utilization of Clay.

    Our biggest problem was coaching ... not necessarily 'players' ...
     
  14. PHINANALYST

    PHINANALYST Well-Known Member

    1,834
    513
    113
    Jan 3, 2008
    North Carolina
    Raf ... if you were to ask me which i would choose based on the 'prospect' that said players would be replicas of Peppers or Rodgers .... I would have to take Peppers. Why - he is much easier to project based on past performance. Rodgers is much harder. No one could have predicted he'd be what he is now. Some of that is him, some is the environment he 'grew' up in, the mentoring of Favre, etc .... none of knows that if he came to MIA he wouldn't have been an Alex Smith ... that is the beauty of this whole draft thing.

    It's very much like any organization ... i'll use the Army as 'an example' ... your success/outlook, etc is formed very much at the 1st unit you arrive at. A good unit and you are good to go ... a bad unit - not so much. Some can rebound in a different environment - some can't. The PHINS, IMHO - have had ****ty coaching the last few years ...

    Diatribe aside ... again, i'd take my luck with Peppers ... (and for the record - his pass rushing ability is a bit over-stated).

    NOW, if we were talking Luck ... different story ... but a guy that needs 'development' ... tough call indeed.
     
  15. PHINANALYST

    PHINANALYST Well-Known Member

    1,834
    513
    113
    Jan 3, 2008
    North Carolina
    Additionally, this is not 2003 ... as much as i liked the heart that Fiedler played with -- he had some very clear shortcomings in his game. Whilst Moore isn't Rodgers by any stretch of the imagination ... his play was not paultry - and is not reminisent of Fiedler.

    This offense with a few tweeks will be able to points on the board, and the defense with a few tweeks will be able to keep points off the board.

    Not Wannastache at all ... NO Ricky Williams and run, Ricky run ...
     
  16. thisperishedmin

    thisperishedmin Well-Known Member

    2,404
    509
    113
    Aug 17, 2011
    How is D line a need? Thats one of our strongest units (if not the strongest unit) on the whole team! I can see the argument for a DE/OLB hybrid type rusher, but no way is the line a more immediate need than the Oline, let alone a laundry list of other positions.
     
    Aquafin likes this.
  17. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I don't see Tannehill as a difficult eval. I like to evaluate QBs. I would say that my hit % on QBs is probably higher than on most positions. Many people claim it's the hardest position to evaluate, but for me it's always been the easiest. Tannehill in particular is easier to project than most b/c unlike most of the prospects you've already seen him in a pro-style offense. You've already seen him make reads while using 3, 5 and 7 step drops. You've already seen him go through the progressions that most spread QBs never have to go through. You've seen him make the audibles and adjust protections at the line. You've seen him throw that 18 yard out from a 7 step drop from the far hash mark. The hardest evals IMO are always the guys where there's a motivation question. That's why I have Coples way down my list. It's difficult to know whether your coach can find the right buttons to motivate a player with a questionable motor. And I'm talking about the situation where you get to interview the prospect. From a fan perspective, I would say it's practically impossible to know what it will take to keep him motivated.
     
  18. The G Man

    The G Man Git 'r doooonnne!!!

    7,480
    5,637
    113
    Mar 18, 2009
    IDK thisperishedmin, but everything I've read and heard tells me other wise. For one thing, we're apparently switching from a 3-4 to a 4-3. Jason Taylor retired. Lankford left via FA. Wake is threatening to hold out. And, they just cut Merling. I may not be the smartest guy in the room, but I think that all adds up to needing help on the D line more the the O line.
     
  19. thisperishedmin

    thisperishedmin Well-Known Member

    2,404
    509
    113
    Aug 17, 2011
    I feel like Odrick/Soliai/Starks/McDaniel with Wake (and Misi maybe) if hes still here rotating into a hybrid DE type of thing working out just fine. The DE/OLB hybrid may be a bit more of a need, but I personally feel like our line can be considered set for starters. Certainly, we'll want to add some depth at some point, but I just can't justify anything other than a pass rush specialist in the first.

    If thats your consideration of Dline - I'll agree...but I think we'd be crazy going after a DT or something. Perhaps I misunderstood the initial implication of your post in that regard :)
     
    The G Man likes this.
  20. Aquafin

    Aquafin New Member

    4,736
    304
    0
    Jun 16, 2011
    the poor house
    you guys know what seems frustrating to me and maybe i am a minority here but the dolphins have been creating new holes to fill instead of filling holes . how can we win like that ?
    to me just for once in this decade I wish Miami could make headlines with dolphins go outside the box and select Blackmon or Floyd and then take another wr and a tightend and then draft all defense there after.
     
  21. Phinastic

    Phinastic Active Member

    184
    43
    28
    Jan 3, 2012
    We're going DE or LB.
     
  22. Jaj

    Jaj Registered

    6,359
    1,671
    0
    Mar 23, 2008
    Los Angeles
    Tannehill-Coples together I think that's the final answer to this. Coples slides and Miami finds a way to get him.
     
  23. The G Man

    The G Man Git 'r doooonnne!!!

    7,480
    5,637
    113
    Mar 18, 2009
    Yeah thisperishedmin, that kinda was what I meant (i.e., a DE or edge pass rusher). That said, I was not nearly as clear as I should've been. And, your post makes me realize that. It also makes me realize our D line isn't as thin or weak as I may have considered. So, thanks bro!

    :knucks:
     

Share This Page