Again, why do I need to take a breath? Last year I was told players weren't willing to come to Miami because.......Ireland!!! This year that's been proven wrong. I don't need the season's W/L record to be happy that FA are coming here.
I wish you owned a dictionary farm, and were growing the definition of strawmen. Nothing I said was extreme or made up.
You don't have to do anything. If you want to keep being angry and upset about stuff that purportedly happened last year that's your business.
You keep bringing this up but you keep ignoring the stats. Martin let up FOUR...that's FOUR hits to Tanny. Well in line with most tackles when you combine the sacks/hits. It's the pressures that Martin needs to cut down on where he wasn't strong enough to keep from being pushed back into the pocket and forcing Tanny to throw earlier then he'd like. There's no statistical fact whatsoever that lends credence to this theory that Martin will get Tannehill hurt that you keep throwing around. On other subjects....man is Grimes wife loco. She's going to be a source of a few threads around here by the time all is said and done. I wouldn't cut any of these cornerbacks as long as we don't need the cap. Let em compete and don't buy into the Richard Marshall BS. He sucked for one game, but he was all right in others and graded a bit higher then Smith. As a #2 CB I don't see a problem with him...keep him until someone beats him. If Miami grabs a RT before the draft we could go literally anywhere but I could see Ireland filling out costly positions and/or positions that are FA's next year. Ex: I could see Ireland take advantage of the deep DT draft to groom a replacement for Soliai/Starks or both (both DT's up for FA next year). Or just the 1 and finally slide in Odrick to the other spot. I could still see us double up at corner. Grimes is basically a transition player to allow us to draft a couple young guys. If they both work out then you won't need to re-sign Grimes and can get rid of Marshall or Patterson's contract next year (or this year if they really shine in camp). I also expect a guard to be taken high. Our new RG is on a 1 year deal and Incognito is up for FA. Also, we are probably drafting a TE high. So in the first 5-6 picks I could see in no particular order RB (partner with Miller),CB, TE, G and DT. With the wild cards being WR (if they go after Tavon etc), DE (Lets see what they really think of Odrick/Vernon on the end), Safety (Clemons 1 year deal).
The frustrating part is the ability to find clarity about the situation when everyone was in chaos..patience being the understanding that Ireland needed a fair platform for which to be judged, chaos being the majority judging him based on Parcells moves. Basically people probably unfairly judged the man..calling him names, affecting his family life, for what?, because Parcells was a complete fairlure and he had to take the hit.. Fin was right last year, and that projection is kinda coming to fruition.
IMO, the main reason he struggled most in those situations were a lack of viable targets. Bess was out in those games too. Ryan had Hartline, and Fasano, and not much else to throw to.
I think that Ireland is probably going to trade the 12th pick, plus one of the second round picks to move up and select one of the top three LT's in this draft. The selection of another offensive lineman in the first round probably isn't going to be exciting for the majority of the fan base, but the offensive line is now the biggest need on this team. Tannehill needs a LT who can protect his blind side and I don't believe Martin is that LT. I also don't think Philbin believes Martin is that player and that is why I expect Ireland to trade up in the first round and draft a new LT for the Dolphins offensive line. I would love to see them draft Eifert with their first round selection, but I am realistic enough to see that the offensive line is much more of a need at this time than TE or any other position on offense.
It's pretty obvious that to get FAs here, we are having to pay more than anyone else was willing to pay. That's just how it is. If and when we start winning more games and making the playoffs on a regular basis, that won't be the case anymore. I'm hoping that time has come and that this is the start of the climb upward.
Yes, that's how it is unless you're a team that looks like it's heading to the next Super Bowl, then you might be able to sway someone to play for less money. There's always the exception though. To hear Wallace's father tell it, the speedy wide receiver's pay day could have been even higher. Mike Wallace Jr. claims his son actually turned down more money from the Minnesota Vikings. The St. Louis Rams and Seattle Seahawks were among the teams that also showed interest, according to Wallace's dad. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...offered-mike-wallace-richer-contract-dad-says
Well, you're going to pay a bit more early in FA vs later, that's true. Wallace supposedly took less to play here. Long was offered the same money here and chose to move on. Cook took more to play elsewhere. It appears that Ellerbe did take more from us than Baltimore was offering but they didn't have more to offer him. Smith certainly took more money to move on than we were willing to pay... I didn't see anything about anyone else offering Wheeler anything. Keller took less to play here than he was offered in NY. I don't see that statement as very valid...?? Looks to me like it's a mixed bag across the board... At any rate, you're right that winning will cause us to be a FA magnet once again. I think the big difference in this years FA than in the past is there are more guys with fewer flaws available than in the past. Seems like guys coming off their first contracts are more willing to go into FA rather than be re-signed by their respective teams...guys that are/have developed into good players...
He may have taken less per year in actual dollar amount, but with no state income taxes on his wages, he will probably end up making more money per year playing in Florida than he would have in any of those other cities. He also wanted to play for a team in a warm weather site and Miami meets that criteria better than any other team in the NFL.
well we are not buffalo, thats for sure, we don't have to pay 100 million to get the best free agent of the class to play for us, i think there is no prove to your statement that we had to pay more to get guys here, actually if you listen to mike wallace's dad, that wasn't even the case with his son
What if this signing of grimes is philbin and Ireland's way of saying we are going to have the best cb tandem in the league.... And trade up for see Milner...
Well, what's his incentive to fabricate such a story then? I think the odds are high he's telling the truth in absence of such motive or incentive.
Are you serious? "My son could've had even MORE money if he just wanted money! Why, this OTHER team offered him even MORE, but my son wants to win a SUPERBOWL!" It's pretty damned obvious that his motive is to make his son look like something other than a money-chasing whore, which is what the sportswriters (especially in Pittsburg) are portraying him as.
Reports of the Vikings offering $13M/yr were coming out the day before FA started... where there is smoke, there's fire.
I don't have to prove why his dad said what he said. People who believe that Minnesota offered a better contract than Miami need to prove it. I was giving a possible reason why his father might have exaggerated the offer, because someone said "why would he do it?" Until shown evidence to the contrary, I am going to go with what the existing facts suggest: that Mike Wallace went with the best offer he had.
Proof: His dad said it. He is closer than anyone else who has commented on this. Until Minnesota says he is lying, I believe it. With such a damaging statement out there, it's in Minnesota's best interest to dispel it if it's not true. So far they haven't.
I tend to side with people who say "we need a firm rejection of his statement" before any other proof is required.
Believe what you want. I'd rather be grounded in reality than wear aqua and orange colored glasses. Been there, done that, got the T shirt.
How is your stance grounded in reality when your stance is not backed up by any facts? When a statement is made, the people that reject that statement are the ones that need to prove their stance if they get to claim their stance is reality based. I mean, we have a statement from a person in the know, Wallace's father. For you to justifiably call that statement false or not based in reality, the burden of proof is on you. We have a statement, you have a theory.
Ah yes, the ol "Whatever, disagree with me and you're just a homer." I used to be filled with cynicism much like yourself but then I grew up and started taking people at their word, unprovoked. Why would his father say that randomly? See, it goes both ways, bub.
How is claiming his father must be lying, oh well just because you choose to believe he is, being grounded in reality? It looks more to me like creating a conspiracy when there is no proof one exists. Like I said before...what does his father stand to gain by lying, as opposed to just keeping his mouth shut and not commenting either way?
Umm...my stance is backed up by all the facts we have. The father's statement is not a fact, it's an assertion. If the Vikings stated "yes, that's the offer we made," then it would be a fact.
That assertion is considerably more than you have, which literally nothing. The father's statement exists. Its your job to prove its not true, if you are claiming the mantel of reality.
Negative. I have the lack of other recorded offers reported from reputable news agencies that were greater than the Dolphins' offer.
And it constantly amazes me how some people will drag things out. I made a statement relating to the SUBJECT of this OP, Brent Grimes' signing, saying that until the Dolphins improve their performance on the field, that they won't be the number one target for FAs unless they pay them more than anyone else offers. Somehow, this is a controversial statement, despite the fact that it's borne out by the experence of the last several seasons, and it seems to have ruffled the feathers of serveral people to the point where they are ready to attack me personally. Amazing.
Um, that's not proof for anything. I mean by that line of thinking, then I could easily say, there's a lack of recorded denials from reputable news agencies saying Wallace's father was lying. If your lack of proof is proof, then so is mine and they cancel each other out and we are left with where we began....the statement made by Wallace's father and you need to refute it with evidence, facts or something tangible....or stop claiming purview over reality.
Yes. it's proof that no reputable news agency made a report that any other team made an offer for Wallace greater than Miami's.
No reputable news agency made a report when I got married. Clearly my wife is fictional. Again the absence of an article is not proof something did or did not happen. Wallace's father's comment did show up in article though...so there's that. There were articles mentioning interest of other teams and Wallace. Minnesota was one of them, btw.
