Am I the only one that cringes at EVERY single trade up scenario ?

[juicifer1269]

There’s the rub.

It’s hard enough hitting on a player when they are healthy. Who knows what these kids will do in the NFL? Now add a big time injury to the equation.

Also, doesn’t the odds of us hitting on a star player exponentially increase when you are taking 3 of the best 32? I mean, if Grier can’t hit on 1 of 3 first rounders, it’ll be evident that he’s gotta go.

If the injury didn’t occur, I wouldn’t be happy giving up a ransom but I’d be proud of this organization for nutting up and going to get their QB.

And everyone swears Tua is not going to fall. What does anyone know? How far did a healthy Rodgers fall?

Tua had a much better college career than Rogers and was regarded as a much better prospect than Rogers was coming out of Cal. Rogers has played himself into being an all-time QB. He even sat on the bench for two years before he played, another detractor for those who don’t want like Tua:
The failed logic about wanting to trade down and continuing to wait on QB and not trade up can be shown as recently as the 2017 1st round. The Browns, needing a QB traded down for pick #12 to Houston who used that selection on Deshaun Watson. CLEVELAND selected Deshawn Keizer in the 2nd round.

 

[Mach2]

A little OT, but FH needs to come up with ONE descriptive term for the desired QB. In this thread, we see "elite," "Franchise," and "good." Maybe "top 10," I forget. I think everyone wants a "good" and "top 10" QB. I can live without elite. Someone has a "franchise" definition in their sig, but I doubt most fans use that definition.

As for trading up, it seems there are 3 positions,
1) "whatever it takes"
2) I'll spend a little, grudgingly, to move up
3) Never
My inclination is Miami won't spend big to move up

I strongly agree that those terms are highly subjective, and lack any specific definition.

I also think that ppl get way too caught up in the extremes of philosophy.

Everyone wants a good/great QB. That is not even an arguable point.

The fact that some Ppl want to bring a specific player into the discussion is what makes it more a matter of opinion.

The extremes range from Tua has Chuck Norris for a houseboy, and will singlehandedly bring a fistfull of rings to Miami, to he's a talentless undersized cripple, who will be a perennial mainstay on IR.

It's not that ppl disagree with the value of having a "franchise" QB, so much as do they believe an, inarguably, smallish injury afflicted guy is a wise choice, particularly if you have to kick in extra picks for the privilege of the risk.

 

[Phinatic8u]

You‘ve got it completely backwards with Tennessee. When Henry and the o-line was dominating, their play action passing game worked. Tannehill was successful. Like every other freaking QB in that same situation.

When the rush attack was slowed or stopped, what game did Tannehill step up and win by slinging it play after play when the defense knew he was going to do it? You’re killing me, Smalls.

Regarding the 49ers, again, they are led by their defense and offensive line. Not their freaking QB!

Did you miss the SB or something?? When the chips were down and his team needed him to throw them back into the game and to win, what’d Garoppolo do?

I live around 49ers fans. It’s funny, pretty much every single Niners fan I know recognizes Jimmy G for what he is. An average-to-slightly-above-average QB. He’s nothing special. And that’s the freaking point.

Nick Bosa was the most impactful addition the Niners had this season. Ask Arik Armstead, who owes Bosa for saving his career.

It’s crazy how little of a clue some fans here have about the 49ers. Or Tennessee.

Neither of their QB’s are better than an ancient Ryan Fitzpatrick. They just play on far better teams.

Unbelievable.

So you wanna build a team, that proves to lose more than not?

Interesting, very interesting.

 

[marino13zach54]

Tua had a much better college career than Rogers and was regarded as a much better prospect than Rogers was coming out of Cal. Rogers has played himself into being an all-time QB. He even sat on the bench for two years before he played, another detractor for those who don’t want like Tua:
The failed logic about wanting to trade down and continuing to wait on QB and not trade up can be shown as recently as the 2017 1st round. The Browns, needing a QB traded down for pick #12 to Houston who used that selection on Deshaun Watson. CLEVELAND selected Deshawn Keizer in the 2nd round.

Well, it just goes to show that the draft is a crapshoot. That even in trading up for a healthy Tua- which I would've agreed with- is a who knows situation. Tua could very well **** the bed in the NFL even if healthy and a plethota of you are betting that Burrow is definitely going to do so. And Burrow is most likely going #1 so there you go.

Who knew what Watson was going to become? Hell, there was talk of converting him. Didn't he go an entire half without completing a single pass once upon a time?

Having killed a corral of horses, add a freak injury into the mix of an already gambling situation and of course there's a bunch of us not wanting to give a kings ransom for the best QB prospect.

 

[fansinceGWilson]

I strongly agree that those terms are highly subjective, and lack any specific definition.

I also think that ppl get way too caught up in the extremes of philosophy.

Everyone wants a good/great QB. That is not even an arguable point.

The fact that some Ppl want to bring a specific player into the discussion is what makes it more a matter of opinion.

The extremes range from Tua has Chuck Norris for a houseboy, and will singlehandedly bring a fistfull of rings to Miami, to he's a talentless undersized cripple, who will be a perennial mainstay on IR.

It's not that ppl disagree with the value of having a "franchise" QB, so much as do they believe an, inarguably, smallish injury afflicted guy is a wise choice, particularly if you have to kick in extra picks for the privilege of the risk.

Agree. And some people send mixed messages. 'All I want is a QB who can get Miami to the SB,' but, add, 'do whatever it takes to get Tua.' Or, 'if Flo loves a guy, he should go get him,' when we all know Flo better pick HIS guy. And we get naive comments (hope you're not THAT guy) . . . try EVERY year until you get an elite QB. Yup, like every team has done in this century.

You're right . . . top 10 makes me happy. I'm not even going to judge the next starter after 4 games. I want to see progress, sure, but not analyze every throw.

To be fair, it's one thing to have a preferred pick. After all, the goal is for Miami to win a SB. I have no problem with someone being 'absolutely certain' Tua is the guy, nor do I have an argument with those wanting to prioritize the trenches. I consider it extreme when those opinions seem to evolve into denying another opinion is 'wrong.' I have a problem when anyone seem to forget it is Flo's opinion that matters, that he ALSO wants to win a SB, it is HIS job at stake, and he will pick who he believes helps Miami the most. I've said elsewhere, anything involving humans is messy. No absolutes. No way to predict intelligently.

As for definition, I admit, "top 10" is ambiguous. Who decides top 10? What stats make someone a top 10? Nonetheless, that's what I want. I don't think Miami has to sell the farm in a trade up to get a top 10 QB.

 

[marino13zach54]

The only issue with wanting to build a team like the 49ers / Titans is they all come due.

49ers won't be able to keep all those pieces that lead them to a SB, they'll all need big money and it is not feasible. Then what? Pray you get lucky in the draft again and hope the next decade brings that many top 5 picks to hopefully become all pros? They will also have regression, a team lead be defense and running game can't sustain it for multiple years straight, it won't happen and it can't happen. To many variables involved for it to work unless the qb you have can win with his arm while the other parts go through rebuilds like all great teams do. Seattle is a great example.

Brotha, but we should know better. We had the greatest of all time and we couldn't get him a ring because the pieces weren't there.

How Marino only saw one SB is beyond my understanding. But I know his D consistently put him in positions where he had to outscore and we never, ne eh eh ver had a running game.

 

[clownfish]

I wonder if the Mods can offer a new award next year for most redundant poster?

You’d win.

 

[Phinatic8u]

Brotha, but we should know better. We had the greatest of all time and we couldn't get him a ring because the pieces weren't there.

How Marino only saw one SB is beyond my understanding. But I know his D consistently put him in positions where he had to outscore and we never, ne eh eh ver had a running game.

Was Miami consistently competing? Were they always in the hunt?

Then Marino did his job. All these picks aren't going to hit, most FAs won't work. Quickest way to compete is with a elite qb. Secure that then let the chips fall as they may, there's so much luck involved with winning the SB, but you make it easier when you have a guy that can win it for you.

 

[mwestberry]

You’d win.

Cool … thanks for your support and vote

 

[rent this space]

And there was a bout a 10 year gap where NE didn't win a SB. Either factors other than Brady count, or Brady wasn't very good those 10 years.

A ten year gap where they didn’t win a Super Bowl? That’s your criteria?
Never mind they were actually in 2 other Super Bowls in that time and only missed one division championship since 2001.
I dunno, maybe using the team with the GOAT might be a bad example of why to build a team with a middling QB.
also, think of how many DEs, LBs, CBs, WRs and RBs they have gone through in that time. The one constant on that field is Tom Brady. The Patriots are actually a great example of why you should get your QB and then worry about everything else.

 

[fansinceGWilson]

A ten year gap where they didn’t win a Super Bowl? That’s your criteria?
Never mind they were actually in 2 other Super Bowls in that time and only missed one division championship since 2001.
I dunno, maybe using the team with the GOAT might be a bad example of why to build a team with a middling QB.
also, think of how many DEs, LBs, CBs, WRs and RBs they have gone through in that time. The one constant on that field is Tom Brady. The Patriots are actually a great example of why you should get your QB and then worry about everything else.

A number of posts here consistently bring up Brady's 6 SB, wait for it . . ., WINS. No mention of appearances. Yes, those are important. Yes, NE has been a consistent top team. But, many here, including me (notice I didn't say 'myself') want a SB win. If Brady is considered great because of SB wins, then, by definition, he's 'less' great for that 10 year gap. Except, IMO, there are factors other than an elite QB. And, as a reminder, I want a top 10 QB - minimum

 

[NBP81]

This argument that Fins have to many holes to trade up doesnt make sense to me. First not all holes are created equal. I dont think anyone here disagrees that QB is by far the most important position in football, so its the absolute biggest hole you can have on a football team. When the ship is sinking, what hole would you plug first?

Then there's this argument that QBs need a good team to win, well no ****! I havent seen someone bang the table for giving up 3x 1st to trade up and give the rest of our picks to charity and use the 100M cap space to build a waterpark outside the stadium.

If the Fins only had 1x 1st this draft with all else being equal, would you be against picking a QB with that pick because we have to many holes? Of course not, you pick the QB and still have 4x 2nd rounders plus all your other pick to fill the rest of your smaller gaps.

I get the injury part, I really do, I personally dont care but I respect the argument. What I dont get is the argument against trading up for a QB because... Too many needs.

 

[fansinceGWilson]

This argument that Fins have to many holes to trade up doesnt make sense to me. First not all holes are created equal. I dont think anyone here disagrees that QB is by far the most important position in football, so its the absolute biggest hole you can have on a football team. When the ship is sinking, what hole would you plug first?

Then there's this argument that QBs need a good team to win, well no ****! I havent seen someone bang the table for giving up 3x 1st to trade up and give the rest of our picks to charity and use the 100M cap space to build a waterpark outside the stadium.

If the Fins only had 1x 1st this draft with all else being equal, would you be against picking a QB with that pick because we have to many holes? Of course not, you pick the QB and still have 4x 2nd rounders plus all your other pick to fill the rest of your smaller gaps.

I get the injury part, I really do, I personally dont care but I respect the argument. What I dont get is the argument against trading up for a QB because... Too many needs.

Don't disagree. There are ways to plug holes other than the draft. I'm not against spending a little to move up, but the debate is how much is too much? The problem is no one will know until results are in. For now, there is uncertainty is Tua or whoever gets to #5 or if he's Flo's target.
You're right . . . Everyone knows the importance of QB and everyone wants one. The question is price, both in picks and loss of options

 

[Lovethefish]

Hindsight is always 20/20.

You’re conveniently listing a couple examples that worked. But how about the ones that didn’t? I guarantee you there are more examples of those.

Furthermore, the situation for KC was different than the situation MIA is in. In many ways.

One example would be that KC moved up 17 spots from 27 to 10. It cost them only 1 additional 3rd round pick from that same draft. They also traded a 1st rounder from the next draft.

And, again, they moved up 17 spots. And didn’t target a player with a questionable injury history and recovery.

However, in the Dolphins case, the cost to move up just 2 or 3 spots is much, much more expensive. And much, much more risky.

It‘s an apples to oranges comparison.

Without a QB rest in safe mediocrity.

 

[NBP81]

I'm not against spending a little to move up, but the debate is how much is too much?

Its too much when what you have to give up prevents you from executing a sound strategy going foward. As of right now, I havent seen such a crazy projection that fits this definition...

Again, I doubt it takes all 3 1st round picks to get the QB, I really doubt it, I use it strickly to illustrate that even if that was the case, the Fins would still be in a better position than 90% on the NFL when it comes to assets for the next 2 years, with a very good QB prospect on the team.

People being scared that all those assets might not be enough to put Miami over the hump are focusing on the risk of Tua's hip. In reality, if your GM requires that you have 2x 1st, 2x 2nds and a plethora of picks and cap space year in and year out to succeed, this is where you should be seriously concerned.