First on CB's: While I realize there is more to playing CB than having great speed, speed is in fact a factor; there will be times when a CB will get beat by a step on a good move by a veteran WR and that's where recovery speed is huge. Great speed also frees a CB to gamble more on passes (see Deion Sanders). And, for whatever reason, the CB's in this draft are not that fast, especially relative to the WR's. In the 2009 Combine, 20 WR's ran under 4.5; 7 ran 4.41 or better. But only 2 CB's ran under 4.5 and barely under at that (Webb 4.46; Davis 4.49). In the 2008 Combine, 24 WR's ran under 4.5. In contrast to 2009, 15 CB's ran under 4.5, including 9 under 4.4. Again, while speed is not everything and some fast CB's will never make it, it does have a bearing on where one should be drafted. A CB who shows great ability and runs a 4.4 or better is more than likely a solid 1st round selection. However, a CB who runs a 4.5 or worse - while having good speed - is going to carry a greater risk. For this reason, I'm not high on selecting a CB in round 1. At the same time, I think there are several CB's that have decent ability and don't see a massive differentiation from the top corner to the 6th or 7th rated CB. I think there will be some decent players available in round 2. For WR, it's simply the repeated point that WR's generally take time to develop, and numerous first rounders do not ever pan out (unless one gets fortunate as Denver has the past couple of years or as Arizona did with Boldin). But, many good WR's can be had in rounds 2-4.
All the 40 times were down this year, thats not because the 2009 class drastically slower than in 2008 it is because fow whatever reason the track was slower. Deion and the crew elaborated on this during the 40 times. If your sole reason for not wanting to address those positions early is 40 times you should look again because it wasnt a problem with the players.
The fact that the 2009 group was sooo much slower makes me think that they were running on a slower track.
The DBs ran last, and they were the group with the most surprisingly slow times. Also it wasn't so much the handheld times, as the electronic times. The disparity between the two was greater than normally they are. Most all the old scouts trust only their hand helds. Some of the time differences were 1 second. Usually they are no more than .5. One I recall off the top of my head, was Brandon Hughes. After he ran, they gave his time as 4.36 on NFLN. Then I saw an electronic time for him of 4.5 compared to the official hand held times of 4.4, 4.41, 4.42 and 4.47. Two of Darius Butler's official hand held times were under 4.45 but his ET was 4.53 The schools of thought here are all the positions running ahead of DBs did something to slow the track, or something wasn't right with the electronic timer during their runs. The electronically timed times are started manually at the take off too btw. I sure would NOT use the combine 40 times as a rationale to not draft a CB early. By early I'm guessing you mean in round 1 or 2? Or you're just saying not in round 1?
I would not be in favor of drafting a CB at #25. I don't think the position is that valuable anymore and I think there will be similarly talented CBs available in the 2nd rd or later. The only CB I would consider at #25 is Sean Smith but it's mainly b/c I see him as a S, which I believe is a position with more impact. I would only be in favor of drafting a WR at #25 if you think he has a chance to be the next Fitzgerald type. The only guy who I think fits that mold is Nicks, who I believe best compares to Michael Irvin. I would consider Britt at #44 but I think he's a step down from Nicks.
But, they weren't slower for the WR's in 2009. They ran the same track as the CB's. That's why I made the comparison: 20 WR's ran under 4.5, including 7 at 4.41 or better. But, only 2 CB's ran under 4.5. Now, as Mr. Clean noted, perhaps there was a problem with the timing mechanism. And, again, I'm not basing the evaluation of CB solely on 40 time but I do think it is a factor. If a player runs a 4.35 in a pro day, that might change. Even at that, I'd rather have a Def. front 7 player in round 1.
There are a lot of successful CB's who don't run 4.40's and run a 4.5+. Antoine Cason ran around 4.45 to 4.5. Brandon Flowers ran slower than 4.5. Marlin Jackson ran a 4.52. Bryant McFadden ran a 4.53. And if you look at the CB's being drafted in the 1st rounds as of late. They've been successful and starter as well as sometimes right off the bat as starters. 1st rounders in recent years: Calvin Johnson, Dwayne Bowe, Anthony Gonzalez, Santonio Holmes, Roddy White, Braylon Edwards, Larry Fitzgerald, Roy Williams, Lee Evans. I'll even throw in Michael Clayton who had a 1000 yard 1st year. Even guys like Ginn, Meachem have contributed to their teams. That's about a 50%+ success ratio. And take time to develop? Bowe, Johnson, Fitz had immediate impact. If you scout wisely (i.e. look beyond the numbers and physical specs), you have a great chance at finding a good WR in the 1st round.
40 times don't make a WR. A prime example is Jerry Rice. Now while you want that guy that runs a 4.31 there are guys that can really play who are only slightly slower. Some guys can play in the NFL while others can't. I think we need a guy like Hakeem Nicks or Kenny Britt rather than a huge speed guy.
I have stated in other threads that I would like a CB. I would be happy with interior lineman, linebacker with the first couple picks as well. We have a lot of money tied into the Oline and drafting good guys for backups at some point in the draft is possible. As far as the first few rounds? I just hope it's on defense somewhere.
At least Mel is on my side 40 times don't make a WR - no doubt. But, that's not what I'm arguing. They also don't make a CB and a player can be a good CB with a 4.5 40. That's also not what I'm arguing. The point is, that when you drop below 4.5 the odds are more difficult to be a dominant player at that position. As to WR's in round one - several of those are good players. But, I have to say, Ginn has not played like a #1 draft pick (esp. a top 10 pick). Bowe certainly has played like a top 10 pick. Do you want a "contributor" or do you want a player who starts and is one of the better players on either offense or defense? That's the issue. As to Michael Clayton - he's had one year; I would not want him as a #1 pick if we got the productivity he's had the following four years. And for all those guys mentioned there's also: Mike Williams, Troy Williamson, Mark Clayton, Reggie Williams, Michael Jenkins, Rashaun Woods, Bryant Johnson. Calvin Johnson, Edwards and Fitzgerald were top 5 picks. It's different if you are talking about a Larry Fitzgerald or Calvin Johnson talent. I'd take one of them (and would have taken Calvin Johnson without question). But, when you get to the late first round where we are actually drafting - the % of successful WR's drops below 50%. The other point you are missing, Regan, is that Bryant McFadden and Marlin Jackson aren't worth first round picks! It's not, "don't draft a CB period" it's don't draft one with the first round pick. Would you seriously trade our first round pick for one of those players? If we did that, this site might literally explode into oblivion.
Mel tabbed Derrius Heyward-Bey for us. That actually makes a McShay pick look more plausible. Mel's good but he's got his goofs. Unfortunately, you're missing all my points and I wonder if there's even a point to discuss with someone who loves his odds and 40 time correlations so much. I never said McFadden and Jackson are worth 1st round picks (though Jackson's a great run-support corner in his own right). But are they busts if they produced like this as a low 1st round pick? No. To say we shouldn't draft a CB with a 1st rounder just because of a 40 time at Combine or the "odds" of failure because of that is hilarious. I'd use a 1st on Antoine Cason and his 4.51 time any day. I'd draft Sean Smith with our 1st as well. ****, I believe he bucks those odds. Bowe was picked 23rd. Not far from where we stand. Ginn may not have played like a top 10 pick but neither do some defensive linemen, linebackers, and offensive linemen either and he's not quite a bust. A contributer is definitely better than a bust. You draft hoping he turns out to be the best but you can accept it if he just contributes. No one has a crystal ball. As for Michael Clayton, he's had his issues but the talent is still there and Tampa thought enough of his mild comeback last year to re-sign him. And there's lots of factors that went to his dropoff. And who's to say he can't bounce back up. The player himself isn't the end all. Coaching and circumstances can factor in as well. You can list a pile of WR busts but you can also do the same in recent years with DE's, DT's, LB's, OL. It's just that the WR names are more evident in the general public's eye. Let's take a look at the 2005 draft. 6 WR's selected 1st round. 2 have had 1000+ yard seasons and Pro Bowl caliber(Edwards, White). 1 came close despite poor QB play (Clayton). 1 was a converted QB (still productive), and 2 flops. 4 out of 6 are entrenched starters who contributed and/or more or could've been more if the team had a decent QB. That's as good as odds as any other position. (2004's draft of glut WR's had similar results) Let's take a look at the 2003 draft, 6 DE's selected 1st round. 1, Kevin Williams(though converted to DT) was a top guy. 2, Warren and Pace (albeit much later when converted to OLB, looked like a bust at DE until then), produced. 3 were flops who ended up elsewhere as backups. 3 out of 6 are starters and 2 of those are not even DE's anymore. When guys like Kenny Britt and Hakeem Nicks become available in the late 1st round, they're more than worth the pick. So don't give me the odds because odds are just bunk when you reach this stage. Individual scouting and progression are what counts. Not statistics. Plus, there are guys who succeed in the 20's in the WR spot. Dwayne Bowe is one. Meachem looked good this season until injuries. Anthony Gonzalez is replacing Marvin. Holmes is SB MVP. White's got btb 1200 yard seasons. Jenkins is on the cusp after languishing with Vick.
Mel can be a real dingleberry. I think his hair hat is fastened down too tight. A lot of the hand held times are pretty good. It's just for some reason this year, there was often a bigger disparity between them and the ETs, especially for the DBs, who also ran last. That also makes me wonder if them being last to run meant the constant running before them effected the speed of the track somehow.
Believe in Now= Add players that can make an immediate impact. Taking a WR would take at least 2-3 years to develop. (most likely) Judging by our FO (mainly Parcells) attitude towards the CB position, I can't see blowing a 1st on one. What does that leave us with? LBs, LBs, LBs.
Playing football is not all about speed, except in madden. Speed is a part of it and the 40 times are a bit off as far as importance is concerned IMO. The 40 was originally put into scouting because it determines roughly the amount of field a guy would cover on K/P returns IIRC. I would be more concerned about press coverage and ball skills and where they ranked than 40 times. That said, if a guy is a clod hopping cow and your WR is a burning fast super hero then we're screwed regardless.
Habits being what they are I think we will be looking a front 7 type player with our first pick . Big guys who can rush the QB and disrupt offenses.Maybe the first two picks could be these type of players . As much as we have heard the noise about our interest in WRs I dont think we will draft one high .Here again I am only going on habits.This regime likes to develop undervalued WRs it seems . I think we will draft a CB with one of our second round picks .The times at the Combines were off and we should pay more attention to the Pro Day times.
My guess is that they will be looking for play-makers at #25. That will either be a WR or a pressure player. At WR the only guy I would seriously consider is Nicks but I think they might consider Harvin. Among the pressure players, I think they'll look at English primarily but will also consider Sintim, Barrow and Johnson. English is the only one I'd like at #25, although I'd be happy with any of the others at #44 or later. So my guess/hope is that it will be Nicks or English. I prefer Nicks b/c I think he can be special and b/c I have high expectations for Wake. But I don't mind English b/c I also think he can be special and I do see some nice possibilities in London becoming our big WR. IMO, though the odds of Wake becoming a stud are greater than the odds of London becoming a stud.
First, if you don't want to discuss it then don't discuss it. Second, I didn't miss your point at all. If you are going to bring up McFadden and Jackson in an argument over whether we should draft a CB in round 1 - then either you are arguing they are valued at a late first round pick or your argument is a non-sequitur. I'd value a ton of CB's in late round 2 or 3 who may become decent players. But, my whole argument is drafting one in round 1. Either there are a ton of CB's in the NFL who run 4.5's who pan out and are worthy of 1st round picks or there are not. I think you are taking a bit more of a risk, personally. That's why I'd wait until later to grab one. I think Kiper is right, even if he does make mistakes. I'm not saying I agree with him b/c he's Kiper - but he's got a point. Third, the information you are noting is largely anecdotal. Anecdotal arguments don't demonstrate anything. But, most of the more in depth studies - that look at percentages - I've read through the past 4-5 years show that WR's take time to develop and that they are a greater risk in the 1st round (esp. at the end of the round). While, of course, there are exceptions like Bowe - the exception does not prove a rule.
You are taking what essentially is an empty marketing slogan for a developmental philosophy. That's a whole lot less Bill Parcells and a whole lot more Harvey Greene.
You still continue to miss my points and now I wonder why I bother. Would I trade a 1st round pick for Marlin Jackson or McFadden as they are now? No, because they have some wear and tear, which is why at this point they aren't valued at a late 1st rounder. But would I value Marlin Jackson if he just came out in this draft with a late 1st and I believed he would produce as he has? Would I use a 1st round pick on a guy just like Marlin Jackson in this year's draft or someone with a 4.5 40 like Sean Smith? Absolutely to both. Kiper has us drafting Vontae Davis in the 1st and you use him to argue why we shouldn't draft a corner in the 1st. That's all I gotta say. If anything, using statistics to argue why we shouldn't draft so and so is what's truly anecdotal (ironically the anecdotes you say I posted are not that dissimilar from what you've written in your 1st post). The day when probabilities and percentages replaces scouting in the GM's office is the day they've gone all mad. There are exceptions (not necessarily rare) because players are different and unique. That uniqueness, a human trait, is why you cannot apply simple statistics in the NFL. You don't look at odds to draft players. You look at on-field play, physical specs, character, etc. Boiling down a player into just a statistical value for probability computations is ridiculous and that's exactly what you're doing. Statistics in drafting do not demonstrate anything anything more than "anecdotal" points because they ignore the backgrounds and subjective values of scouting.
Not really. I've definitely heard Sparano say it and it goes right along with "Why not us?" Same thing, same idea. Do you really think we wana spend high picks on guys and positions that will take 3 years to develop when at least 2 of our most important players (Chad and Porter) only have a few high level years left? I'm not saying we're gonna go out there and pick up flashy FA's, like we're close to contending for a Superbowl. (obviously we wouldn't and haven't) I'm saying that our FO believes in bringing in players that make an impact on DAY 1. Especially with our 1st and 2nd round picks.
IMO that's a highly speculative statement. And not necessarily in the team's best interest. The team's best interest is to pick the best players. It's short-sighted to only pick day 1 players that are going to have an immediate impact. Most of the more successful NFL franchises take the longer view. I also don't think this regime would have picked Henne in rd 2 if it believed that.
Don't forget that we didn't have Pennington before we picked Henne. Henne, by all accounts, could have been our starter last year before we picked up Pennington. Look at our FO moves so far and you'll see a lot of reasoning in not picking up many "developmental" players, at least not with high draft picks. What you say is short-sighted, has also been very effective so far.
Not really, you could argue that any of the conversion projects to OLB are developmental picks. The two ends we picked last season were apparently a surprise at how quickly they contributed. Even though we didn't have CP the assumption was still that Beck or McCown would start and that Henne would be developed. I haven't seen anything from this regime at all to say they won't pick a guy, for example a WR, if he may take time to develop.
If you're assuming Beck or McCown would start (considering they both showed nothing good IMO), then we should throw out the whole QB assumptions bc both of us have diff opinions (which are based on facts). Sure, college DE's do undergo a conversion process to OLB. Now is it anywhere close to the length and difficulty of developing a WR in the NFL? Def not, IMO. I'm just judging what the regime has done so far, what they've said to indicate which positions they value the most, and our needs, to formulate my theory.
I wasn't just an assumption. McCown and Beck were splitting the 1st team reps. Henne was the third guy. These are facts. And frankly anybody who's ever watched the NFL knows that the odds were against any 2nd rd QB coming in and starting right away. It wasn't until Henne played surprisingly well and McCown and Beck were disappointing that Henne was even seen as a possible starter. So, there's no way Henne was not a pick that would reasonably need development and this regime picked him in the 2nd. I see no justification for your contention that this regime will only pick players who are expected to make an immediate impact on day 1.
Who was so suprised Henne played well? The media? Us? The league just had 2 rookie QBs come in this year and play very well. If our own coaches are saying he's as good as Matt Ryan then maybe there's some validity to the idea that he would of been our starter this year. I see picking a WR in the 1st as a luxury that we can't afford. Maybe in the 2nd if Nicks happens to fall and we feel confident that we have/can get the impact players we need on D. As has already been documented, this FO doesn't seem to value CBs so why would we take one on Day 1? Unless the best CB in the draft happens to fall to us by some miracle, I don't see it happening until at least the 3rd. I still stand by my argument that we're only taking immediate impact players Day 1. = the trenches and LBs.
I think it's incredible that you or anybody would have thought that at the moment we drafted Henne the Dolphin's plan was for him to be the starter that year. That's simply not a reasonable expectation. The reasonable expectation was that he would take time to develop. And therefore, the contention that we wouldn't take a a player that isn't expected to be an immediate starter is false.
Different scenarios. If the FO felt Henne was the best QB and we never brought in Pennington, then he would of started. Against Beck and McCown would that really seem that impossible? It shouldn't. Even if Henne didn't start, wouldn't you expect to see him half-way into the season at the latest? Point being, if Pennington didn't land here, Henne would of most likely seen a starting role well within a year. That time frame is much smaller than what it takes most WR's to develop and make large contributions. I said that developing a position that we don't deem that valuable, or a luxury position (posession WR) is not likely at all, IMO.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. IMO we have a dearth of play-makers on our offense. Finding those is not a luxury. It's a necessity.
Build the trenches men. Build the trenches. Isn't that the philosophy that rings true from Parcells, Ireland and Sparano. The front seven on Defense has to be the emphasis in the 1st day. ILB, OLB, DT. We need to shore up the trenches and the pressure will be on their QB and not on our DB's. This approach works and is where the battles are won. Build the trenches.
Ronnie and Bess are both legitimate playmakers. We just don't run an explosive offense like Arizona or SD or NO. Our style is more slow and efficient. 8 yard pass here, 8 yard pass there, a few 5 yard runs, etc. And for the most part, it was effective. I think we finished somewhere around 15th in total offense. The only explosive element of our offense right now is when we use the Wildcat and all the gadgets that come with it. I think our opinions vary so much because you see our offense as needing a lot of upgrades, where I see it as our D needs to be bulked up, NOW. Our D is what killed us last year IMO. If Porter didn't play his *** off, we might not have even broken .500 .
My main disagreement with you is the idea that taking a player or position who may need to develop is something this regime won't do. They have had one draft and took a player/position that was exactly that. And philosophically it's counter-productive. What you don't take a player/position that may need to develop while you're building and then when you're close you don't take a player/position that needs developing b/c you're in a "win now" mode? The better philosophy is that you take the best player and in the long run you'll become the best team. As for the offense, I don't think it's horrible but it needs more play-makers. The Dolphins know that and it's why they are bringing in a guy like Harvin (whom they've now had several contacts with). Personally, I'm not a big fan of drafting Harvin at #25, but Nicks is IMO a guy who has shown the tools and production to be special. You don't pass that up for a lesser player who may have a more immediate impact. I don't see any other WRs who I would consider at #25. As for the defense, I don't see CB as a high impact position (short or long term) so I wouldn't use #25 on one. I do think it is a very good CB class though so I would consider a CB in the 2nd. Generally I'd prefer to get CBs later but in this draft there is value there.
Alright I'll rephrase it: I don't think a BP team will take a WR instead of a very promising pass rusher if both are available. IMO, there will def be at least one of the three there at #25: Johnson, English, Sintim. We have needs at WR and LB, but LB is a much more glaring hole IMO. I'm guessing one of those is our 1st round pick. And if by some miracle, one of them or a lesser talent at LB, happens to fall to 2a, then I think we go LB there as well.
Somebody made a comment I saw the other day that sums it up very succinctly: a dominating front 7 makes all-pro dbs. I haven't followed the draft closely in years, but if there is a dominating NT, I'd take him in the first. Failing that, ILB / DE, or trade down.
I think it depends on what they think of Wake. I see him as a very comparable prospect to English. If the trifecta agrees then the OLB you get early is probably your 4th stringer and once he develops an eventual starter. I don't know that that is a greater need than a potential #1 WR.
The problem with Wake is that we really won't know what we have in him before the draft. Yea, we'll have a few workouts and things like that, but I would imagine that it's going to take more than working out for a month for him to really adjust to everything. I would really think that we wouldn't be able to count on Wake for anything when considering what positions to draft. Besides, even if he turns out to be a beast at OLB, you can never have enough talented LBs in a 3-4.
We know as much or more about Wake as we know about any OLB we could take in the draft. We'll probably roster 4 OLBs and just looking at the money side we have 3 that are just about locks. So it wouldn't make much sense to take OLBs with our first two picks.
