Am I the only one that cringes at EVERY single trade up scenario ? | Page 17 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

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

I'm sure someone else has responded to this, or its been brought up, but I haven't read through the next 7 pages of replies.

But lets say the cost to move from 5 to 3 (or 2) is one of our late firsts and then a 2nd or 3rd. 2 picks....

So what precludes us from building a team and surrounding any young QB with talent around him? Just by losing out on 2 out of what, like 13 picks? I think it would be fine. Dont forget there is a whole free agent period as well..

Why do people think to trade up exclusively means we are doing nothing else to upgrade the team beats me

A number of posts have noted almost all here would be willing to move up. the debate is cost
 
A number of posts have noted almost all here would be willing to move up. the debate is cost
Okay, well the question at hand, for those AGAINST the trade up (which is a fair number of people, specifically the poster I quoted) - what is stopping us from building a team by giving up a couple of picks ?
 
According to the chart:
Moving from #5 to #3 is roughly the value of our 2nd round pick, #39
Moving from #5 to #2 should cost the value of #18 overall
 
So true … are injuries and surgeries included in the educated projection of how they will translate to the NFL? … Just curious
Absolutely, but I've never put much stock in someone being injury prone. I can't even count how many times I've heard this claim about certain players and they've gone on to have great careers. Just off of the top of my head this was said about Frank Gore, Phil Simms, and Robert Smith. Hell, people were saying it about Devante Parker but now that he had a breakout season many fans on here want to tell you the Dolphins are set at wide receiver. I just think if you play football long enough you are going to get hurt. Tua has had one major injury but now they want to go back and lump in every bump or bruise he has ever had into "he's injury prone". I just don't buy it. Is there reason to be concerned about the hip injury, sure but the other issues don't bother me in the least.
 
Okay, well the question at hand, for those AGAINST the trade up (which is a fair number of people, specifically the poster I quoted) - what is stopping us from building a team by giving up a couple of picks ?

I'm on record as OK with moving up some. There are two extremes
NO moving up
Give up whatever it takes.
Both are too absolute for me. Two picks? I'll listen
 
If Tua is healthy and available @5 Draft him, if not draft BPA and roll with it
 
To answer the question in the title of this thread.......hopefully you are.
 
If the plan was to get Tua, the whole reason for the tank yet we get him at 5. That is a win. Use our other picks on building our championship. If he isn't there at 5 , draft a building block 10 yr all-pro. Win Win. Good to great
 
I'm on record as OK with moving up some. There are two extremes
NO moving up
Give up whatever it takes.
Both are too absolute for me. Two picks? I'll listen
Fair enough

I’m curious on how losing let’s say one first and a second would set us so far back we can add talent, from anyone?

@EJay
 
Last edited:
I doubt he retires especially if Brady leaves town. It would be another opportunity to prove that he can do it with any QB.

Can't forget to give ardent respect for their front office. There were a set of years wherein they seemed to have it all figured out; getting rid of star players a year early, having 2 first round picks year after year, drafting/sigining well.

It sucks to say that the Pats are a very well oiled machine from top to bottom and with a genius (almost gagged)... genius (there it goes again)... genius like Belicheat as the conductor that train is not going to run out of tracks soon. Brady played horribly this season compared to others and they were still the Pats.

It will be fascinating to see what happens if Brady leaves. I have mixed feelings. I've never been the guy to hope Brady gets injured or retires. I want to beat the best to be the best. But it'll be interesting to see how the front office handles the transition and what Belicheat will do with the new starter.
Sadly I feel the same way. Bill Walsh was a self-proclaimed genius ... and if we're being honest, he was right. He designed the West Coast Offense for Ken Anderson as the OC in Cincinnati because Paul Brown told him he needed a passing game that didn't throw the long ball because Anderson didn't have it anymore. So, Walsh set about designing a quick passing game to simulate running plays. It worked, he tweaked it extensively, and by the time he went to San Francisco, he had a system that nobody in the power-based NFL could defend ... smaller, quicker, faster, OL who only needed to pass protect for a couple of seconds and were more interested in pulling and getting to LB's than they were of pushing DL's. The system was indefensible with the power-merchants of the day. He dominated. Arguably, he had a guy I always liked, but disagree with many saying he was the greatest QB of all time, Joe Montana, and the West Coast Offense fit him to a T. Long on leadership, accuracy and touch, and short on arm-strength, Joe threw darts .... and that's all they needed. No long outs that require velocity or forcing it into deeper receivers when DB's have time to react ... just spread 'em out, get a long handoff into the gazelle's hands (Jerry Rice, etc.) and watch them rack up the RAC.

So what happened after Joe Montana? Well, the 49'ers, much like the Indianapolis Colts of recent times, had an embarrassment of riches, so they pushed out Joe Montana to usher in the Steve Young era. Didn't miss a beat. Sure, Young was another fantastic QB ... but you see my point. Great coaches go from one to another. Whether it's Farve to Rodgers, Manning to Luck, Montana to Young, or Unitas to Griese to Marino (with some filler in-between), great coaches seem to find and showcase great QB's as much as the great QB's make their teams better. And with all the QB's learn under those great coaches, by the time they're veterans and do move on ... they continue to dominate. IMHO, it doesn't change the fact that the coach is the one who makes that team great, and even without the marquee QB, the same coaches just seem to keep making teams with frachise QB's.

Andry Reid may be the most recent example ... Donovan McNabb fulfilled his potential under Reid, as did many other QB's, and now we're seeing it really blossom with Mahomes. I just don't think it's coincidental or accidental. I, like your @marino13zach54 , credit the coaches.
 
Back
Top Bottom