20 years? How about the last 5-10? I know that might be a sample size issue, but line play in college has changed drastically in the last few years with things like the spread and running QBs proliferating. We just do not see the same quality of linemen hitting the NFL ready to go as we used to. That "safe bet" thing is not really a great way to draft imo, and - though I don't have the time or desire to statistically figure it out - feel it is not nearly as safe as it once was. When you have the chance for a home run, settling for singles just isn't cutting it. And yes, Scherff may have been drafted to BE a guard , but he played tackle in college. I am referring specifically to guards in college coming to be guards in the NFL as not being worth it. I think playing tackle gives them better experience and awareness, and is a better highlight of athletic talent and ability than a strict guard. I would not touch a pure guard in the top 15-20 at least.
The issue with 5-10 years is the same anyway as the offenses in college have changed. It wouldnt change anything. Additionally, a multi-time pro bowl player at any position is a home run not a single. Listen, id advocate for a DE or QB over a guard at 11 as well but Nelson wouldnt upset me. Id prefer we went Chubb/Landry/Ferrell in rd 1 (since i doubt we go qb) then Price or Cole in rd 2 and Ragnow in rd 3 but Nelson is a very good guard prospect and this is the type of draft that can set your interior OL for a decade
The team said yesterday that QB is definitely on the table if it's the BPA, so I wouldn't give up on that completely.
Harold Landry has one of, if not the best, bends in the draft. I worry he's undersized to play a 4-3 DE though.
Well I’m still hopeful we will fire Burke and hire Fangio or even Pagano as they run a 3-4 for which Landry is an amazing fit. You’re probably right and I’m not sure he has the frame to support more then another 5-10 LBs. But hey Cam Wake did it all these years. That said, I hate the wide 9, always have, always will. That crap does not work unless you have 2 Dwight Freeney type edge guys and 2 Kuechly types at LB and DTs that can 2 gap and get a push. It’s a lot to ask. That’s why no team has made a SB with it and I can’t recall a team even making a conference championship with it. It’s too predictable and easy to dissect.
1st round preference for me, at this junction of the offseason. In order: 1) Saquon Barkley (luxury pick) 2) Bradley Chubb (potential Wake replacement) 3) Quenton Nelson (safe pick that will help Tannehill) 4) Arden Key (amazing 2016-2017 and measurables. Attitude problems?) 5) Minkah Fitzpatrick (all-around dependability/coverage, could move TJM to slot safety vs. TE or nickel LB) 5) Derwin James (super athletic and a big hitter, needs some development though to be special NFL player, matchup vs. TE) 6) Joshua Jackson (CB depth set for next 3 years) 7) Vita Vea (groom for Suh replacement) 8) Clelin Ferrell (dependable DE to replace Branch after next year) Wouldn't be super upset with any of those picks.
My ideal first round would be to trade down and get Rokwan Smith and Mason Rudolph. It's very hard to project where those two will end up though.
No it isn't. Saying we could go from 9-10 wins to 11-12 wins if we draft Nelson in the 1st is saying it could improve the win total. Since when does saying something could happen mean it would happen? Could means could, not would.
Obviously at this point none of us can know that. However, G is a known and obvious weakness. What we do know is if Nelson was drafted, one of the weakest positions on the team would very likely become one of the stronger positions. He helps the run game go, he helps keep Ryan upright, hence he would help sustain drives and help keep the D on the sideline longer, meaning a fresher D when they do go back on the field.
No it isn't. They are two words with different meanings. It is not fair to Boik's point, that by saying Nelson might help or could help, means he will help or would help. Will and would both guarantee it. Might and could do not.
We can debate the semantics all we want, but the voracity with which Boik was arguing also implies he feels there's a stronger likelihood than just the nebulous "could". If someone thought it was as up in the air as you guys are making "could" out to be in this specific discussion, then there'd have been no reason to call my stance of not wanting to take Nelson with the 11th pick, as crazy. I don't believe there's a massive difference in the overall play of an oline, with an average guard versus a great guard. If anyone wants to provide conclusive evidence I'm wrong about that, then I'll accept it. Until then..........
Roquan Smith would be huge what a player, but we are linked with Joshua Jackson, i can see us tryint to get Vontae Davis or Malcolm Butler in Free Agency...I like or CB : Lippett,Tankersley,Mccain,Xavier howard but we need one good Cb Verner was bad.. A Qb if we draft one: Lamar Jackson or Josh Allen.. Lamar Jackson would be crazy he is better than Ryan Tannehill and i love the guy but Jackson has Cam Newton written over him
you want great guard play relative to win total stats lol Cbrad.... where u at??? I believe the upgrade of any position on the starting lineup can increase performance of more than just that position
I gave my short stab at the problem in post #64: https://thephins.com/threads/dolphins-mock-draft.92540/page-2#post-3023584 A much larger list of guards than in post #64 that people generally agree are "well above average" would make the analysis more solid.
I want to know that the overall play of the line is dramatically different when there's an average guard versus a great guard. I don't believe there is and no one has realistically challenged that yet. Cbrad tried, but not only is it too small a sample size, he's ignoring that other positions are picked and not accounting for it.
But we haven’t had average guards and we haven’t had great ones..so the difference would be tangible.. A good guard lessens the load for the tackle and center.. overall improving the whole line because now the tackle and center can focus on their one job.. I’m sure you get that, so when you get better overall line play obviously your chances of winning increases, to what degree who cares..
Jesus ****ing football christ. What did I just read? You've got to be kidding me. Apply this to any other position and ask yourself if it makes any sense. Then when you realize it makes absolutely none, on one - if not THE - most important unit in the game of football, erase such nonsense from your thought process.
Can you reiterate? Cause I Think you asked if there would be a dramatic difference and you want some sort of proof? I would say yes if your going from where we are, to great.. One player can change the game..
Try rational thought. The line is a unit of 5 players that work as a whole. If you care to explain how the difference between an average guard and a great guard affects the play of the line overall, I'm all ears. Until then you haven't actually explained a damn thing.
Well Deej, I'm not talking about our team. Nowhere did i mention the Dolphins or any team specifically. Furthermore, I didn't say anything about the difference between a bad/terrible guard and a great guard. I'm talking in general terms. I do not think there is a massive difference in the overall play of a line that has an average guard versus a great guard. Certainly not a big enough difference to spend the 11th overall pick in the draft on a guard. Case in point, 2016. Once we replaced awful guards with average guards our running game and passing game flourished. We wouldn't have won the Baltimore game, if one of those guys was a great guard instead of an average one. We wouldn't have won the Pitt playoff game, if one of those guys was a great guard instead of an average one.
Take our running style for example - the zone run game. If you have an excellent guard or center, you can nullify and isolate very good linebackers in the second level because their purpose is to climb after securing a double team block on an interior DL in an inside zone run (one of the most popular runs used in the entire NFL). This is in turn, frees up other blockers, or simply properly executes the play for the ball carrier to read up and thru. Want to slow Rueben Foster? Get a really good ****ing guard. In the passing game, if I have an excellent guard, I can then isolate the defense's 3 tech by manipulating the passing strength depending on if they line up in an Under or Over front. This then puts a TE on his side (vs Over) which can help the Tackle with a possible matchup on a good SDE that may line up next to that formidable 3 tech that I can now single block with my guard. Want to slow down players like Suh? Get a really good ****ing guard. There's a **** ton of great possibilities that arise from having great, rather than just average players. It allows you to scheme to an advantage. It's the same with any position unit. You're complaining about poor coaching, and it's not indicative of what good coaches can do with better players. Rational enough for you?
I don't like Rokwan Smith, seems overrated to me. Watched film on him and he has trouble shedding blocks and working through traffic, he is no all that fast or explosive either and is not very good in coverage. He is somewhat similar in his strengths to Reakwon McMillan who we picked in the second round last year although I think McMillan is actually better. I would not touch him until the second or third round. I would select Tremaine Edmunds instead. Edmunds is bigger, longer, faster and more explosive and is better at getting off blocks and working through traffic and also better in coverage which is what we need.
Look, you know your football, i'll give you that, but you described what a good portion of a guard's job actually is. You can do those things with an average guard, just less consistently. Again, I'm not saying there's no difference between a great guard and an average guard, I'm just saying the difference isn't big enough to warrant the 11th pick when we have bigger holes at places like DE, OLB, CB, TE, C. There is a HUGE difference between average guard and awful guard play, but it's not equidistant between average and great, in terms of the overall line success. Try it from, this angle, great guard play over average guard play is a luxury, not a need.
Ok I see what your saying, is taking the guard more important than the other positions of need, if we can just be average at guard next year.. I think it’s a good question, I mean I’ve been thinking about it as I’m studying the prospects and thinking about my own personal plan.. I keep coming back to this might be the year to do it if I think the guard is the david decastro type.. It all depends on what’s available at 11, if the linebacker, def end, safety, tight end is a better player than the guard then I won’t select the guard, but if the guard is better than I believe I would go there unless I can arrange a trade down. I guess my answer to you is the talent level of the prospects will determine the fate of the question.. As far as what a great guard can do over an average one and is it more important then other needs a team might have, I would say Carmen summed it up what a great one can do over an average one, but your asking is that increment of improvement more important then filling another need? I would say it all depends on the player at the other position. I look at it like this, we need guard and linebacker..we needed guard and linebacker two years ago, you know how I wanted to draft Myles jack, if he and decastro was on the board I would of taken Jack..even though I thought Decastro was one of the best guards I ever evaluated..
Haven't followed him or know enough of him but if he is as good as most so called "in the know" claim I agree he'd be a great pick at 11. This team needs more than a couple players to begin to be considered more than mediocre. Nelson could be a good start if what they say he is, he actually is. Of course I remember the Larry Little, Dwight Stevenson, Jim Langer, Richmond Webb's and the importance and levels of success they brought to the team. Not a glamorous pick and do have big needs in other areas but OL some consider a critical base to build success around and its hard to disagree with that. Instead we Afraid that we will see another round of Free Agency with cross your fingers of hasbeen fill of OLmen like the last several years... If not, that would be a good sign someone in the organization has a clue..... But to be fair we have to wait and see.....and try to keep hoping..
maybe the front office goes a bit unconventional, And selects the guard and commits to making the line the best unit on the team, and then sits back and sees how that play trickles down throughout the whole team.
First of all, relative to this specific draft, there will plenty of top grade talent at other positions when we pick. Secondly, great guards are luxuries. If you have average level guard play, then you take a stab at a great guard IF you don't have holes elsewhere. Having said that, let me explain what I consider a "hole" on a roster. A hole is when you have a terrible player at a position (Turner and Thomas, for example.). It is not a hole if you have an average player at the position (Except, IMO, 3 positions: QB, DE, S). But it is a sliding scale. If the worst players you have are average, then you can start calling average a hole. (I don't know that this has ever happened.)
Consistency wins football games. Especially when the difference b/w two evenly matched teams comes down to a handful of plays. If I can find a great player, or two, on the line that can block top defenders in the front 7 one on one and swing help to different areas, OR even better, free up my TE to directly release upfield and/or be able to call less chip or scat protections so my RB can also be immediately involved in the passing game, I like my chances of winning a lot more than having to keep in two playmakers b/c my line can't get the job done b/w the 5 of them. Lineman matter; all of them; and they matter a lot more than people give them credit for. All in all, the conversation about getting Nelson at #11 is null and void b/c he'll be gone long before that . . . b/c offensive lineman are very important pieces in building a football team. That "adage" could be applied to any position.
http://dailydolphin.blog.palmbeachp...-mcdonald-be-a-deceptive-hybrid-weapon-in-18/ Minkah Fitzpatrick, anyone?
What we need is a linebacker that can run with and cover tightends, not some hybrid safety. We haven't had a good coverage linebacker on this team since forever. That is the reason tight ends always kill us, not our lack of a "hybrid".
What's the difference? Teams run nickel like 50% (maybe more) of the time anyways. TJM is big enough and fast enough to cover tight ends while not being a complete liability in run support. Fitzpatrick is great at diagnosing plays and through coverage.
Tweeners dont work because they are not great at anything, McDonald is big for a safety, but he is still significantly smaller than most Tight ends and he is really not known for his coverage skills, he is not the solution. The solution is having at least two linebackers on the team with both the size and speed to lineup and cover tight ends without having to move guys like McDonald out of position.