Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Brown42000, Dec 29, 2007.
Yup. Like me stating I think Parcells will make some changes...........
Ginn is a natural returner. He may have had two bad plays all season long. He never looked scared to me, just the opposite he is pretty smooth and has good hands.
Our special teams are HORRIBLE. He showed promise as a WR as well. It's not his fault that he is on a very bad team. He might turn out to be an excellent WR. Have some patience...
I'll take your word for it.
Meanwhile, Patrick Willis and Amobi Okoye are *already* worthy of the 9th overall pick.
Good riddance to Randy Mueller.
Both players are doing well, but hindsight is 20/20 and patience is needed with WR's. Lets not forget that going into the draft last year we had the #4 defense and added Joey Porter, so defense wasn't the focus, fixing the offense was.
using hindsight doesn't make your point any better. We did not need those positions.
Do we still draft Ginn if Welker was re-signed? I've always wondered that.
No way. We would be too stocked at WR and other needs could have been addressed.
But we needed a KR and unpolished WR at 9?
And I flatly reject the notion that we didn't *need* LB or DL help.
yea, 38 yr old keith traylor was more than adequate at DT
please. lots of people were saying we needed to address our old front 7
but, as usual, mueller reacted instead of being proactive
Reacted to what?
Welker wasn't going to be retained. Miami couldn't afford to pay a #3 WR the type of money that he was looking for, we had too many holes to fill. NE on the other hand was able to afford that luxury. With that pick we were able to select Satele and help solidify our OL for many years to come.
A very good C > a very good #3 WR
Well the FO disagreed with you. They were expecting some of the younger guys to step up, and unfortunately they didn't. Again, hindsight is 20/20, but at the time the offense was the problem.
If WR and the offense were such huge needs, why didn't we actually draft a polished player? One that could come in and contribute? Perhaps Dwayne Bowe. More hindsight, I suppose, but everyone and their dog knew Ginn was very unpolished as a WR (even a #3).
And like2god, I know the Welker trade was a wise move. I never contended otherwise.
Because we had Chambers, Booker and Hagan already here . . . .everyone knew that Ginn was here to give us a boost in the special teams on returns and develop into a nice WR . . . and he has done that in his first year. Why is everybody complaining about the pick now.
Most receivers are considered "unpolished" when they are drafted. Ginn was just like any other player that needed to come in and learn the playbook and routes. Part of the reason that he didn't contribute right away was that he had 2 very good vets ahead of him. Another reason was Trent Green didn't have the arm to best utilize Ginn's speed and Lemon just doesn't have the accuracy downfield. And once Ronnie went down, opposing teams no longer feared the rungame. There are alot of reasons that Ginn didn't light it up right away, but most people didn't really expect him to.
Gotcha, my bad
because the polished ones available didn't have the potential of greatness Ginn has ??... all things being equal he gave us immediate help in the return game.. made three td's.. we hadn't had one in three years.. and who's to say what impact he would have had as a reciever.. he had no chance.. none really. The important thing is when they threw to him he caught it, and if he had been hit while open instead of underthrown or missed, he would have had 3 or 4 more td's receiving.
And that is it, right? you object to him at 9, not necessarily him? because brother this kid is gunna make you smile.. you can't get the pick back, just be patient and look forward to what is to come.
Mueller is probably cleaning out his office and packing his bags as we speak.
That's a good summary. I would have been fine with Ginn at, say, 20. But not 9. Hope he proves me wrong. As always, we shall see.
Other teams were set to pick him ( the Texans at 10) if we didn't. And word is that if he hadn't suffered that injury that he would have been a sure top 10 pick. Either way, we'll get a chance to see him develop and grow as a player.
I dont see why everyone hates Randy. He had a solid draft class this year if you think about it. Satele is our starting center and stud for a good decade, Ted Ginn can do good things if there were a consistency at QB and if he can even have the ball thrown to him. How bout Lo-Booker in the third round, what a steal he was. Booker is incredibly fast and a playmaker who could really help Ronnie Brown some next year. John Beck also could possibly be our future QB.Regan Mauia is also our starting full back and he has done good things.Dont see why Randy gets the axe.
While I agree that the draft class has loads of potential, I guess it comes down to philosophy. Parcells is going to build this team the way he wants to and Randy may not share that view on players, draft picks, etc.
I am happy we have Ginn. It was a surprise move to take him at 9 because he was gimpy then. Cam showed tremendous gonads to pass on Quinn. If time proves him right, you will have to admit that took guts. Cam probably knew we needed to get cap friendly and acquire picks. Thatâ€™s why the Welker deal, the Chambers deal and getting rid of McMichael. We did fill Welkers dual role with Ginn, and Ginn has a lot more upside than Welker. I think Trent would have lit it up with Ginn, if onlyâ€¦ dang Cam sure had a bad year, I gotta shake my head in disbelief at the bad luck.
You take what the mighty Tuna said about the harm in taking the wrong guy with the top pick, how it can really mess you up for years, and think about Brady Quinn being somebody that there was a lot of doubt about for whatever reason and it seems to me Cam/Mueller is right in line with Parcels philosophy right there. Forget popular opinion, draft guru’s and all that. They did what they thought was the right thing to do. Just like Parcels would have done.
I'm trying to dig it up. I read it about two years ago, but my google-fu is letting me down. It was an article written by physiotherapists discussing comparative injury rates over various football codes, so it looked at NFL, european soccer, international rugby and Australian rules. One of the conclusions they came to was that no team on no code had come up with an injury prevention system that was better than their peers, but you could put in place conditioning programs that would help getting already injured players back on the pitch quicker.
Most people said it was a garbage site when they broke the Saban story months in advance and stuck to their guns....
2002-3 ? (Fiedler, Wanny & Spielman)