A Scenario that lands us both Sewell and Smith/Chase | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

A Scenario that lands us both Sewell and Smith/Chase

Kev7

Kev7

Active Roster
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Messages
938
Reaction score
1,924
Age
41
Location
New Jersey
If we stick with Tua which seems likely, I continue to mull over Sewell or a WR at #3. Sewell is a can’t miss prospect so passing on him seems foolish at such a premium position, but we know we also need playmakers. In this scenario I propose the following:

Draft P. Sewell at #3

Trade #18, 36, and 81. 1,625 points on the trade chart for:

Detroit #7 selection valued at 1,500 points

Depending on how the draft unfolds one of Chase, Smith, or even Pitts should be available at 7. I think this is a good price to pay for a sure fire play maker we desperately need. Also, Detroit seems to be a great trade partner as they’ve already deferred compensation in the Stafford trade signaling they are prepared for a long rebuild and may be interested in accumulating more draft capital.

thoughts?
 
Kev7 said:
If we stick with Tua which seems likely, I continue to mull over Sewell or a WR at #3. Sewell is a can’t miss prospect so passing on him seems foolish at such a premium position, but we know we also need playmakers. In this scenario I propose the following:

Draft P. Sewell at #3

Trade #18, 36, and 81. 1,625 points on the trade chart for:

Detroit #7 selection valued at 1,500 points

Depending on how the draft unfolds one of Chase, Smith, or even Pitts should be available at 7. I think this is a good price to pay for a sure fire play maker we desperately need. Also, Detroit seems to be a great trade partner as they’ve already deferred compensation in the Stafford trade signaling they are prepared for a long rebuild and may be interested in accumulating more draft capital.

thoughts?
Click to expand...

Doing that trade up may equate to something like this -

Sewell + Chase/Smith

VS.

Chase/Smith + Najee Harris + Elijah Moore (WR)

Personally, door #2 is more attractive to me.

Purely an academic exercise since Sewell WILL NOT get past the Bengals at #5 after Burrow likely got PTSD from 2020.
 
I just can’t justify giving up more picks to take a player who’s same position we took in the 1st and 2nd last year and both played decent for rookies. There’s also no such thing as can’t miss. Robert Gallery was a can’t miss linemen yet he missed. I’d consider Long as a miss after being only able to put up 4 or 5 good seasons. We need a wideout too bad to take a tackle then lose assets that could grab us a starting runningback and more
 
One, why are we killing ourselves to get Sewell? You can get a starting caliber OT that will play at a high level for quite some time in the teens (Slater). But personally, I dont want to draft another tackle. Trust your coaching and player development, and build off of a solid rookie campaign (Hunt), a rollercoaster rookie campaign (Jackson) and a guy who started off SUPER hot and dwindled down the line (Kindley) but ALL THREE SHOWED FLASHES OF BEING QUALITY STARTERS

You can get Waddle and Chase for the cost of your 3 + 18, you just have find two willing teams.

1. A team wanting to make a move for Fields or Wilson or Sewell UP TO 3
2. A team that was hoping that Fields or someone would fall to them @ 11-14, and they decide they'd rather amass some draft capital.

Either way, you WILL find a buyer. It may be at a discount, but thats why you trust your board versus other teams, you extract value out of current assets and you lock in on your targets throughout. Personally I cant see why you'd draft at 3. Other teams have dire need to overpay, you dont. Let Carolina make a big jump for their 2nd and a future 2nd. Yes, yes yes THE DRAFT CHART!!! but this isnt a goddamn currency, that's just a rule of thumb.

So then you're #8, you've got pick #40 in your back pocket, and a future 2nd (aka a starting caliber prospect) for next year's draft. Okay, we've gotten the savings account out of the way, now let's go to the dealership.

You're sitting there #8, #18 and you've got THREE second round picks (36, 40, 50). Im using one of those picks and potentially a future mid rounder to get my ass from 18 up to 13 or 14 to jump New England. Then you're playing keep away - grab whatever stud falls (and one will fall, I promise you) and keep him away from New England. Pitts? Nah, he's ours. Slater falls? Thank you very much!

Personally I want to keep Pitts outta NE, and give him to Tua. Tua would be looking at a Waddle/Smith + Pitts. All for... 3 + 18.

(Boy the benefits of having a similar coaching style but a GM that's world's better)
 
Last edited:
I'm hoping one of them falls a little. We can dream right? One of the few times I'd be interested in trading up if it meant securing Sewell and Slim Reaper.
 
CANDolphan said:
One, why are we killing ourselves to get Sewell? You can get a starting caliber OT that will play at a high level for quite some time in the teens (Slater). But personally, I dont want to draft another tackle. Trust your coaching and player development, and build off of a solid rookie campaign (Hunt), a rollercoaster rookie campaign (Jackson) and a guy who started off SUPER hot and dwindled down the line (Kindley) but ALL THREE SHOWED FLASHES OF BEING QUALITY STARTERS

You can get Waddle and Chase for the cost of your 3 + 18, you just have find two willing teams.

1. a team wanting to make a move for Fields or Wilson
2. A team looking to jump Cinci for Sewell (lol enjoy being fired whoever this GM is)

Either way, you WILL find a buyer. It may be at a discount, but thats why you trust your board versus other teams, you extract value out of current assets and you lock in on your targets throughout. Personally I cant see why you'd draft at 3. Other teams have dire need to overpay, you dont. Let Carolina make a big jump for their 2nd and a future 2nd. Yes, yes yes THE DRAFT CHART!!! but this isnt a goddamn currency, that's just a rule of thumb.

So then you're #8, you've got pick #40 in your back pocket, and a future 2nd (aka a starting caliber prospect) for next year's draft. Okay, we've gotten the savings account out of the way, now let's go to the dealership.

You're sitting there #8, #18 and you've got THREE second round picks (36, 40, 50). Im using one of those picks and potentially a future mid rounder to get my *** from 18 up to 13 or 14 to jump New England. Then you're playing keep away - grab whatever stud falls (and one will fall, I promise you) and keep him away from New England. Pitts? Nah, he's ours. Slater falls? Thank you very much!

Personally I want to keep Pitts outta NE, and give him to Tua. Tua would be looking at a Waddle/Smith + Pitts. All for... 3 + 18.

(Boy the benefits of having a similar coaching style but a GM that's world's better)
Click to expand...

Bingo

1612553848172.png
 
I like Sewel, advocated if we stay put at 3, he's the BPA for us. But I wouldn't do this. If we are going to double up on blue chip players, I'm going Pitts and one of the top 3 WRs, that's easily doable without giving up the farm, through trading back and up.
 
The more I watch Jamar Chase the more I like him. I know Smith had a great year....But to me Chase is special. If I had to choose today....It would be Chase.
 
The more I think about this the more I want a receiver with pick 1A. We can trade down but I wouldn't go out of the top 10. We saw Smith in the Championship game, he was all world. Just take him if he's there but, he won't be and neither will Chase and maybe even Waddell. So, we better be careful with this first trade down or it could be super costly. We can fool around with this imo because we need one of the top 3 receivers. Maybe trade down to 6 or 7, risky business. 1B needs to be Najee.
 
Kev7 said:
If we stick with Tua which seems likely, I continue to mull over Sewell or a WR at #3. Sewell is a can’t miss prospect so passing on him seems foolish at such a premium position, but we know we also need playmakers. In this scenario I propose the following:

Draft P. Sewell at #3

Trade #18, 36, and 81. 1,625 points on the trade chart for:

Detroit #7 selection valued at 1,500 points

Depending on how the draft unfolds one of Chase, Smith, or even Pitts should be available at 7. I think this is a good price to pay for a sure fire play maker we desperately need. Also, Detroit seems to be a great trade partner as they’ve already deferred compensation in the Stafford trade signaling they are prepared for a long rebuild and may be interested in accumulating more draft capital.

thoughts?
Click to expand...
For me personally that’s just to much to give. For the record nothing is sure fire. Especially when we’re talking about WRs. I totally agree that I think Chase/Smith will be really good but chances are between Chase/Smith/Waddle that 1 will be great 1 will be average and 1 will bust. That’s usually how it goes. So to me I want more swings at the board rather than throwing all my chips in and praying that the 1 we choose works out. I’m playing the % but that’s just me.

I’ve actually come around on the idea of Kyle Pitts. The more I think about it the more I like the idea of Gesicki/Pitts. I’ve thought from the start that Pitts will be a superstar player I’ve never questioned that. I just felt like MG is really starting to come on and I feel like he really does all pro potential. But the thought of MG and Pitts together just makes sense. It would give us a gigantic advantage in the middle of the field which should open things up on the outside for our WRs to get more 1 on 1 coverage. I could deal with them trading down from 3 to 7/8/9 and taking Kyle Pitts as he’s really just a hulked up WR. But I don’t like the idea of taking Sewell at #3 and then trading away a 2nd and 3rd round pick to move back up for a WR. I’d rather just sit tight and get a WR in the 2nd bc they’ll be plenty of quality guys there.

If we just can’t trade down I want to take Sewell at 3 for purely value purposes. I’ve stated many times I just feel #3 is to high for a WR and I absolutely love JaMarr Chase but it’s just to risky. But if we can trade down from #3 I’d be on board with taking Kyle Pitts instead of 1 of the WRs if that’s what they chose to do. If we can trade down my preference would be to take a WR at 7/8/9 but if they took Pitts I’d be just fine with that decision.
 
CANDolphan said:
One, why are we killing ourselves to get Sewell? You can get a starting caliber OT that will play at a high level for quite some time in the teens (Slater). But personally, I dont want to draft another tackle. Trust your coaching and player development, and build off of a solid rookie campaign (Hunt), a rollercoaster rookie campaign (Jackson) and a guy who started off SUPER hot and dwindled down the line (Kindley) but ALL THREE SHOWED FLASHES OF BEING QUALITY STARTERS

You can get Waddle and Chase for the cost of your 3 + 18, you just have find two willing teams.

1. a team wanting to make a move for Fields or Wilson
2. A team looking to jump Cinci for Sewell (lol enjoy being fired whoever this GM is)

Either way, you WILL find a buyer. It may be at a discount, but thats why you trust your board versus other teams, you extract value out of current assets and you lock in on your targets throughout. Personally I cant see why you'd draft at 3. Other teams have dire need to overpay, you dont. Let Carolina make a big jump for their 2nd and a future 2nd. Yes, yes yes THE DRAFT CHART!!! but this isnt a goddamn currency, that's just a rule of thumb.

So then you're #8, you've got pick #40 in your back pocket, and a future 2nd (aka a starting caliber prospect) for next year's draft. Okay, we've gotten the savings account out of the way, now let's go to the dealership.

You're sitting there #8, #18 and you've got THREE second round picks (36, 40, 50). Im using one of those picks and potentially a future mid rounder to get my *** from 18 up to 13 or 14 to jump New England. Then you're playing keep away - grab whatever stud falls (and one will fall, I promise you) and keep him away from New England. Pitts? Nah, he's ours. Slater falls? Thank you very much!

Personally I want to keep Pitts outta NE, and give him to Tua. Tua would be looking at a Waddle/Smith + Pitts. All for... 3 + 18.

(Boy the benefits of having a similar coaching style but a GM that's world's better)
Click to expand...
Exactly this. Love the line of thinking here. Plus, I'm a big fan of Pitts.

Not much to add, but if you keep those three #2's in the trade scenario, there's potentially one more starter to add to the lineup.

I really like the talent in early R2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom