Pure Speculation, is Ted Ginn expendable?

I'd be extremely pissed off if ginn was dealed. It would make NO sense. End of statement.

 

I still don't really understand the interest in Glenn. Our WR's are young, inexperienced and near the bottom of the league, but the last thing that group needs is an aging WR who has injury concerns. If we were so concerned about the WR spot, why weren't we adding one during the offseason via FA, trade or the draft when better options were available? We passed over some good young WR's in this draft and are now reduced to adding a player that missed all but 1 game last year from the scrap heap and hoping that he can regain his form.

Adding Glenn to our WR's will bump someone out of a job or at the very least to the practice squad. So if Glenn is the #1 WR, how does that effect the rest of the guys and who plays #2? Does Wilford (our big WR FA signing) play opposite of Glenn? Does that mean that Ginn is the #3 slot receiver and will his skill set be best utilized in the slot or burning the corners? What happens to Derek Hagan? All reports are that this FO likes what they are seeing out of him, so does he slide in at #4? Where does that leave Bess who has been dropping jaws and opening eyes ever since putting on the Dolphins jersey? Does he get playing time? Does he go to the PS?

We are a rebuilding team and we need to let the young players show what they can do. We got rid of JT, Zach, Booker, Green, etc because we didn't want aging vets who either were injury concerns or weren't getting the job done, now we bring in that very type of player? His presence will prevent one of our youngsters from establishing himself and in 2 years when our offense is coming around and we should be challenging for a playoff spot, Gleen will be gone and we'll need to find another WR and our youngters will be a step behind.

I would be okay with this if we were a playoff caliber team looking for that extra piece to get us over the hump and I'm really hoping that this move (if it's made) is because the FO feels that Glenn can be a ture #1 WR and not because they have a connection and that he's one of "their guys", but for some reason I doubt it and think we'll be worried about Glenn's health from week to week. I don't mind our players thinking that we are a playoff/SB team, but I don't like our FO acting the same way even when it's very apparent that we aren't.

Rebuilding means finding out what you have by letting the young guys play, not cutting old vets with injury concerns to bring in more aging vets with injury concerns that you are more comfortable with.

 

Terry Glenn will be in the league for 3 more years tops

 

Yepppp. Same thing a lot of us have been saying since the beginning L2G. We all agree that the whole adding Glenn move is def a head-scratcher. Really is the opposite of what our FO has done thus far.

We don't need anymore 1 year band-aids on this team.

 

You are assuming WAY too much here. Wilford is not better than Ginn, and neither is Glenn. I don't see where you're getting the idea that Glenn can just walk in here and start. I see him as situational, at best. His presence at practice and during meetings will help everyone else understand what their roles are in this offense. Same with Quincy Carter. Everyone thinks because they bring him in for a workout, then someone is getting the axe. Simply not true. Quincy could be a great tool for the coaching staff. They need as many guys as they can get in the locker room that believe in the Parcells philosophy. The building of the culture is very important.

 

He's injury prone and 34 years old. Thats not dependable. Maybe 1-2 years left in him.

Which is why its no lock that we sign him. And if we do, no lock that he starts at #1 or even 2 imo.

Right, we signed him to start. Prob #2 imo unless Hagan can take it from him.

I would of believed both of those scenarios. Zach was highly injury prone and not getting any younger. JT, I don't even want to get into but could def see being traded. Bottom line is their both nearing the end of their careers.

Could def happen.

I don't see how running the ball more makes puts our WRs in a bad spot. I know some of them can get open.

 

We may have that dependable WR already on the team. Because this thread is about Ginn I think it's important to point out that by all reports he seems to have put on a little weight/muscle in an effort to improve and his route running has been reported to be better than it was last year. I think if given the opportunity that he could be a dependable WR, maybe not a true #1 this year, but he could offer just as much as Glenn IMO.

Bess is another guy that could be a Wes Welker type player (safety net for QB).

Hagan.......we've heard the whole "He's catching everything" story before, I want to see it before I believe it.

Wilford was brought in to be that dependable wideout, has he really been that bad?

Yeah, this might be the first move by Tuna and Co. that has really stumped me. Henne was a shocker, but I could justify that by saying that he offers us another young QB with potential, but Glenn just doesn't make sense for us.

 

I dont know that Terry Glenn will even come I am not going to lie because we have such a young widereciver I think that we want them to get a lot of time. Plus if Tery Glenn does come he will be a our 3rd wide reciver

 

Maybe, but coaches almost always play the guys that they know and are comfortable with. I was just talking with someone about how Joe Torre would favor vets in the bullpen with experience over young guys that he was unfamiliar with. Because Sparano doesn't have much experience for us to go back and look at and knowing that Parcells does have influence and Glenn is a Parcells guy, it's easy to see why we would make that leap.

 

Good point bro. I agree with you. Bill Parcells does like his guys that he knows that can produce.

 

Let me preface this by saying I don't think we will trade Ginn.

That said, the minute LoBook was traded to the Eagles I began to wonder about Ted. Now, they are different players, in different situations, to be sure. Lorenzo was a third string running back who did not block well, nor was he a special teams contributor. Ted Ginn is currently our probable #1 WR and our best return specialist.


That said, what the Lorenzo Booker trade made me ask myself was whether Dan Henning was willing to go out of his comfort zone working with players who were not typical for his system. Well, he had Steve Smith, you would argue. True, and that experience for Henning may be what saves Ted Ginn from being considered as trade vait. At the same time, though, the fact is that this regime, and the offensive co-ordinator, value smashmouth football, power running and physical size above smaller, speedier receivers and a heavy passing attack.

My question was, does this regime feel more comfortable with players who fit their heavy, power, ground game mentality? Even for a reciver, a field-stretcher, they would probably prefer someone bigger and stronger, even if is made him less elusive.

So, if they didn;t know how best to use a LoBook, and preferred another pick for the O-line, it is plausible to ask whether they might prefer to do the same with Ted Ginn Jr.

The problem, however, comes in Ted's market value (and cap hit). I don;t think Ted accomplished enough last year to recoup the #9 in the first round status in a trade. Also, receivers often tke a few years to mature and produce, so you are also losing a year of time by losing Ted for a draft pick (unless you plan to solve your receiver problem through a free agent signing or trade for an experuienced player). Signing an older player like Glenn would not be this regime's long term plan, obviously. They have been sart enough to try to build a team that will age and mature together, at the same time, rather than put in key pieces that are going to retire just as other key rookies become good. Glenn would be here more as a mentor, in my opinion, than as a replacement. That means keeping Ginn so Glenn can mentor him.

Still, I see the value in asking the question: would this regime consider trading a player like Ginn for a pick they can use on a player who suits their tastes and needs more.

At the end of the day, though, there are significantly more reasons to keep Ted Ginn than to trade him.

 

Henning made Muhammad look good and Smith like you said. I believe Muhammad had a pro-bowl year under him. As for the power running style, I don't see Ginn being part of the problem. Under Henning, the team was a power running team with Stephen Davis and DeShaun Foster.

Steve Smith isn't much bigger than Ginn. Ginn is bulked up if you look at him, as is Smith. Steve Smith stands at 5'9 and 185 pounds with outstanding speed and route running. He is also able to find holes in the defense and exploit them. Ginn is 5'11 and is at 180 pounds, he may weigh even more now. Ginn also has outstanding speed and while his route running isn't as good as Smith's, it wasn't all that bad last year. What you have to factor in for Ginn is that he was an All-American and top DB coming out of High School. The guy hasn't played the WR position that long and still may be learning. He has adjusted to the NFL level this off-season according to Sparano.

 

All that needs be said.

Your 9th overall pick in a draft is not expendable entering only his second year in the league.

On top of that he certainly isn't expendable simply because a team is bringing in an old veteran simply as a fail safe and depth.

This isn't even discussion worthy IMO.
No offense Padre.

 

For goodness sake some of you want to give up a second year WR for peanuts and a bag of chips. His rookie year on a terrible team was decent considering the lack of QB play. Go back and compare Ginn's numbers to some of the league's star WRs' rookie years. Add in the fact he ran 3 TD returns with only one counting because of stupid plays by his team mates on special teams. He is the only rookie with that elusive X factor the Phins have drafted in a decade. Now you want to trade him because a broken down former great WR with a busted knee is getting looked at for a purely mentoring role. Stupidity at its best!

We have a great group of young WRs now, it just takes time for them to develop and IMO Ginn will be a truly special WR in time. I wish Glenn would stay right away from the Phins, let some other bunch of desperate FO types deal for him.

 

That's my point. Parcells made that statement, not Sparano.

I know sparano doesn't make the trades, that's why I pointed it out his previous statement. YOU used one of Sparano's statements in your speculation in the first post.

I don't see why we would trade Ginn for a #1 (IF anyone would even do that, they wouldn't) for some more unknowns.

 

Padre, I can see where you could try to 'read between the lines' with the potential acquisition of Glenn, but there is no way that Glenn will 'replace' Ginn. That certainly wouldn't be the reason for adding Glenn. If you look at our WR position, other than Wilford, who has little starting experience, what experience do we have ?? Glenn is being added to give the unit some experience and a mentor, if at all. For sure, he's only around a year or so at best. Likely, if added, we won't see him that long as his knees are worse than Danny's ever were...

There is one more compelling reason that Ginn wouldn't be moved out, even if we get Glenn, and that is because of the cap hit we'd take and the wasted signing bonus money that has already been paid to Ginn...We'd have to accellerate his bonus of nearly $9 M bucks to trade or cut him...now, it appears that we can do this without killing ourselves, but is this the way we want to spend that money this year ?? Besides that, what has Ginn done or not done to implicate that Glenn would be a replacement ??

Sorry, I just don't see it happening...

 

Actually, going back to December when Parcells was hired, there were a lot of us thinking that Zach and JT would be gone...Although, I actually thought that Zach would do the sensible thing and retire due to his concussion history. While no one is a sacred cow, trading Ginn now, absent a Wanny-style deal that we get someone's farm and a player to boot, with the cap hit and what the owners could be construed as 'wasted money' (Ginn's signing bonus)...and don't think that doesn't have some influence on the moves Parcells makes...is just not fathomable at this point...

Ginn may not be a Parcells guy, neither was Glenn at one point...and Glenn and Ginn are a lot alike as players go..that may be the only reason that Glenn is being considered...

 

Everyone is expendable.

 

It's too bad he can't help us at Cornerback AND Widereceiver, then.



Iron man. Play both ways.

 

Don't mean to be condescending, but are you aware of the last player to be traded for a first-round pick?

It almost never happens. In fact, it's fairly rare to see a player traded for a second-round pick. Heck, Randy Moss went for a fourth-rounder and Terrell Owens for a second.

Why in the world would any team trade a first or second-round pick for an unproven receiver like Ginn?

Sorry but I'm going to have to file this under "unrealistic Maddenesque trade scenarios."

 

lets trade the entire team for draft picks and field a pop warner team this year.

 

explanation to this all encompassing statement?

 

I never said that, but as they say 'its a talent acquisition business'. If you can improve the overall talent on your team, I'm not against trading anyone.

 

Stringer, did you mean in your comment that everyone is available if the price is right?

 

Trading your top young prospects does not improve the overall talent of a team.

They are what you build a top team around.

 

yes

 

But if you can get better or more young prospects, the trade may make sense.

 

I disagree with you there. I don't think Terry Glenn will be brought in for production. He will be brought in to help people like Ginn.

 

Not sure.

 

I have to agree with Stringer on this. He's brought in here for mentoring and 'showing the ropes'.

 

Trade him to a team starved for WRs? I thought the Dolphins were one of those starved teams?

 

he did. but at what price. there is reasonable expendable and unreasonable expendable. for example, Jake long is expendable, I think Sparano made that statement. but what would someone have to give up to pry him out of Miami's hands at this point? A price NOBODY would be willing to pay. So therefore, for all intents and purposes, he's technically expendable, but practically not.

 

I think the mentality behind 'expendable players' is that no one player is more important than another. Ted Ginn is no more important than the 53rd man.

 

Naw I don't think that. I think what he meant was, no one player is important than the team. That's the Jake Long example. He's worth more than say a third string TE. But if the right offer comes along, he isn't above the team, therefore he is expendable. BUT, their price would be so high, only Matt Millen on crack would offer it.