AFC East draft outlook | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

AFC East draft outlook

This dude thinks Miami will take Edwards. I believe that this talk is all smokescreen to bait a trade partner. I can see Miami trading down and taking Williams a little further down. Heck, Brown might be there depending on who Miami trades down with.
 
History says you don't select a RB at the #2 spot.... you can get "90%" of the productivity at 50% of the cost in later rounds.... this draft is deep in RB's.... WR's are the new playmakers......
 
I would agree with the premise about replacement value, but then he says that Braylon Edwards would be the logical choice. If the argument against taking a running back is replacement value, then what is the argument for taking a wide receiver? A wide receiver is just as replaceable as a running back, if not more so. Plus, everyone knows that rookie wide receivers rarely ever make the type of impact you want them to make early in their careers.

Regardless of who I think is the better player, if the argument against taking a running back is the idea that you can get 90% of the production at a much cheaper rate, then that argument should apply to the wide receiver position as well.

If this were a draft where there was a legitimate top flight left tackle prospect or a stud defensive lineman, then the pick would be easy to make because those are two of the four positions that carry the most value. This is not the case in this draft, so unless you are completely sold on the quarterback prospects in the first round, you have to base this on a best player basis. The player rankings I did over a month ago for this website have the top two players as Edwards and Benson, and it's because I think they are the two best football players in this draft. They just happen to play the positions that are considered to be the most replacealbe positions on the team, outside of safety and linebacker.
 
KB21 said:
I would agree with the premise about replacement value, but then he says that Braylon Edwards would be the logical choice. If the argument against taking a running back is replacement value, then what is the argument for taking a wide receiver? A wide receiver is just as replaceable as a running back, if not more so. Plus, everyone knows that rookie wide receivers rarely ever make the type of impact you want them to make early in their careers.

Regardless of who I think is the better player, if the argument against taking a running back is the idea that you can get 90% of the production at a much cheaper rate, then that argument should apply to the wide receiver position as well.

If this were a draft where there was a legitimate top flight left tackle prospect or a stud defensive lineman, then the pick would be easy to make because those are two of the four positions that carry the most value. This is not the case in this draft, so unless you are completely sold on the quarterback prospects in the first round, you have to base this on a best player basis. The player rankings I did over a month ago for this website have the top two players as Edwards and Benson, and it's because I think they are the two best football players in this draft. They just happen to play the positions that are considered to be the most replacealbe positions on the team, outside of safety and linebacker.
Click to expand...

I agree KB, the replacement value arguement is nonsense. I would say every position on the field is liable for a top 5 pick if that player is one of the best in their position and can dominate in the NFL. I would say that QB is tops, but RB, WR and LT all blend in, as does DT, DE, CB and LB.

Edwards and Brown are two playmakers that this team (and many other teams) are lacking, and seriously need. Either one we pick will be welcomed.
 
thedayafter said:
History says you don't select a RB at the #2 spot.... you can get "90%" of the productivity at 50% of the cost in later rounds.... this draft is deep in RB's.... WR's are the new playmakers......
Click to expand...

I disagree with this, basically because it is completely false. Let's take a look at the running backs that were drafted in the top 5 since 1989:

1989: Barry Sanders, #3
1990: Blair Thomas, #2
1993: Garrison Hearst, #3
1994: Marshall Faulk, #2
1995: Ki-Jana Carter, #1
1998: Curtis Enis, #5
1999: Edgerrin James, #4
1999: Ricky Williams, #5
2000: Jamal Lewis, #5
2001: LaDainian Tomlinson, #5

Ten runners taken with top five picks over that time span. Out of those ten, only three are considered busts. The only thing this tells me is to not drat running backs from Penn State, because the three busts played for Penn State.

Now, let's take a look at the receivers taken with top 5 picks over that same time span:

1992: Desmond Howard, #4
1995: Michael Westbrook, #4
1996: Keyshawn Johnson, #1
2000: Peter Warrick, #4
2003: Charles Rogers, #2
2003: Andre Johnson, #3
2004: Larry Fitzgerald, #3

Seven receivers were taken with top 5 picks over that same time span. Out of these seven, two were flat out busts. One can be considered a bust for how high he was taken (Warrick). One definitely has not performed up to #1 overall pick standards (Johnson). One has been an injury bust so far (Rogers).

Only Andre Johnson is a complete stud on the field at this point, though Fitzgerald should get better as he gains experience.
 
I would not be shocked to see the Dolphins pass up on a running back, however. Of all the principles that we are used to hammering home at Football Outsiders, the one that smarter NFL front offices seem to understand is the idea that running backs are far more fungible than most fans think, and can often be replaced with 90% of the performance for half the cost.
Click to expand...

worst argument ever :shakeno: i remember last season when this 'genius' said miami would be better without ricky williams and the comitee of travis minor and sammy morris would completely replace and probably even IMPROVE on his production - possibly the worst prediction of all time
 
In years past I would agree WR's were not considered to be top 10 pick material....however the league has changed so much in recent years that the WR position has really become "the" playmaking position outside of QB.... NFL rule changes are in place to make the game more exciting to the fan.... that means more points.... rookie or second year WR's are having more impact than ever before.... if you can hurt them up top.... then eventually you can hurt them on the ground.... Linehans pass to set up the run system would support a WR selection at the #2 spot.....
 
KB21 said:
I disagree with this, basically because it is completely false. Let's take a look at the running backs that were drafted in the top 5 since 1989:

1989: Barry Sanders, #3
1990: Blair Thomas, #2
1993: Garrison Hearst, #3
1994: Marshall Faulk, #2
1995: Ki-Jana Carter, #1
1998: Curtis Enis, #5
1999: Edgerrin James, #4
1999: Ricky Williams, #5
2000: Jamal Lewis, #5
2001: LaDainian Tomlinson, #5

Ten runners taken with top five picks over that time span. Out of those ten, only three are considered busts.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I believe only 5 of those ten have produced enough to warrant their high pick: Thomas, Hearst, Carter, Enis, and Williams were definitely not worth the pick they were drafted at.
 
KB21 said:
I disagree with this, basically because it is completely false. Let's take a look at the running backs that were drafted in the top 5 since 1989:

1989: Barry Sanders, #3
1990: Blair Thomas, #2
1993: Garrison Hearst, #3
1994: Marshall Faulk, #2
1995: Ki-Jana Carter, #1
1998: Curtis Enis, #5
1999: Edgerrin James, #4
1999: Ricky Williams, #5
2000: Jamal Lewis, #5
2001: LaDainian Tomlinson, #5

Ten runners taken with top five picks over that time span. Out of those ten, only three are considered busts. The only thing this tells me is to not drat running backs from Penn State, because the three busts played for Penn State.

Now, let's take a look at the receivers taken with top 5 picks over that same time span:

1992: Desmond Howard, #4
1995: Michael Westbrook, #4
1996: Keyshawn Johnson, #1
2000: Peter Warrick, #4
2003: Charles Rogers, #2
2003: Andre Johnson, #3
2004: Larry Fitzgerald, #3

Seven receivers were taken with top 5 picks over that same time span. Out of these seven, two were flat out busts. One can be considered a bust for how high he was taken (Warrick). One definitely has not performed up to #1 overall pick standards (Johnson). One has been an injury bust so far (Rogers).

Only Andre Johnson is a complete stud on the field at this point, though Fitzgerald should get better as he gains experience.
Click to expand...

With all due respect.... dated thinking.
 
KB21 said:
Now, let's take a look at the receivers taken with top 5 picks over that same time span:

1992: Desmond Howard, #4
1995: Michael Westbrook, #4
1996: Keyshawn Johnson, #1
2000: Peter Warrick, #4
2003: Charles Rogers, #2
2003: Andre Johnson, #3
2004: Larry Fitzgerald, #3

Seven receivers were taken with top 5 picks over that same time span. Out of these seven, two were flat out busts. One can be considered a bust for how high he was taken (Warrick). One definitely has not performed up to #1 overall pick standards (Johnson). One has been an injury bust so far (Rogers).

Only Andre Johnson is a complete stud on the field at this point, though Fitzgerald should get better as he gains experience.
Click to expand...

Great point, i'd also add to this the fact that none of the recievers not named johnson have had a 1000 yard season and only keyshawn has more than 1
 
You could just as well list all the RB taken in rounds 3-4 and see some productive players as well.....
 
thedayafter said:
You could just as well list all the RB taken in rounds 3-4 and see some productive players as well.....
Click to expand...

Correct. A "Garrison Hearst type" RB can be had this year in the 2 or 3rd round.
 
The NFL is a cycle.... the current cycle is slanted towards WR's and the ability to strike quick.... the NFL is all about entertainment (during the regular season).... and defense in the championship games.....
 
KB21 said:
I would agree with the premise about replacement value, but then he says that Braylon Edwards would be the logical choice. If the argument against taking a running back is replacement value, then what is the argument for taking a wide receiver? A wide receiver is just as replaceable as a running back, if not more so. Plus, everyone knows that rookie wide receivers rarely ever make the type of impact you want them to make early in their careers.

Regardless of who I think is the better player, if the argument against taking a running back is the idea that you can get 90% of the production at a much cheaper rate, then that argument should apply to the wide receiver position as well.

If this were a draft where there was a legitimate top flight left tackle prospect or a stud defensive lineman, then the pick would be easy to make because those are two of the four positions that carry the most value. This is not the case in this draft, so unless you are completely sold on the quarterback prospects in the first round, you have to base this on a best player basis. The player rankings I did over a month ago for this website have the top two players as Edwards and Benson, and it's because I think they are the two best football players in this draft. They just happen to play the positions that are considered to be the most replacealbe positions on the team, outside of safety and linebacker.
Click to expand...

I don't think its just about the ability to replace a player, I think its more about finding a playmaker.

I do think its easier to find a playmaker at runningback in the third or fourth rounds than it is to find a playmaker at wide receiver in those rounds.

I also think due to the punishment they receive taking a runner with a top two pick should be reserved for a truly rare player, I don't see that in any of these runners, they all have flaws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom