Any word on Igbinoghene?? | Page 5 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Any word on Igbinoghene??

Feverdream said:
Heh! Every Front Office misses as many picks as they hit upon. The bust rate in the first round alone... has to be about 50%.

...and that brings us back to the entire theory of BPA vs. need.

I firmly believe that you shoot for hall of famers in the first round... and fill holes later. That you take the premium positions in the first round... and the cheaper positions later.

We had three picks and we took the youngest OT, the youngest CB, and a QB. Even if all three bust, I'm going to be happy with the approach. ...and we really won't know for another 2-3 years.
Click to expand...

I get your point and don't disagree entirely. Not a terrible strategy for teams with 2-3 holes. Not a strategy for bottom dwellers.
 
fansinceGWilson said:
I get your point and don't disagree entirely. Not a terrible strategy for teams with 2-3 holes. Not a strategy for bottom dwellers.
Click to expand...
Boy, I completely disagree on that one.

I think teams that only have 2-3 holes are the ones who draft for need, (Chiefs Helaire) while the rebuilding teams like us don't worry so much about the holes and instead try to hit home runs.

But think that multiple approaches are fine.
 
fansinceGWilson said:
Don't know AFU's response, but it's safe to say he was the best player on Miami's board. Whether that was a good decision may have to wait til '22
Click to expand...
No need for me to wait. He might turn out to be a good player in time but the BPA he was not.
 
Feverdream said:
Boy, I completely disagree on that one.

I think teams that only have 2-3 holes are the ones who draft for need, (Chiefs Helaire) while the rebuilding teams like us don't worry so much about the holes and instead try to hit home runs.

But think that multiple approaches are fine.
Click to expand...

I anticipate we will never agree. The few teams I remember that drafted pure BPA for even a few positions tended to be top teams (e.g., PIT). I remember no bottom ten teams drafting BPA. I understand you are expressing an opinion and, for that reason, can't say you're wrong. I tend to stay with what 32 FOs do. I'm confident they have some logic/experience.
 
fansinceGWilson said:
I anticipate we will never agree. The few teams I remember that drafted pure BPA for even a few positions tended to be top teams (e.g., PIT). I remember no bottom ten teams drafting BPA. I understand you are expressing an opinion and, for that reason, can't say you're wrong. I tend to stay with what 32 FOs do. I'm confident they have some logic/experience.
Click to expand...
Sorry... but 32 FOs do not all do the same thing.

Your argument is a poor one there... you might be right about how to do this, but that part of your argument was called an appeal to authority.

Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Authority (thoughtco.com)
 
Danny said:
No need for me to wait. He might turn out to be a good player in time but the BPA he was not.
Click to expand...
OK... then who WAS the BPA? And am I wrong in guessing that the players you select will all be from positions that you wanted to draft?
 
This pick still irks me, didn't like it at the time, and it's not gotten any better since. You don't waste round 1 picks on development prospects like him, he was way too raw to be drafted at the time he was. We passed on a lot of talent still on the board, like CEH, Swift, McKinney, Gross Mato and Kyle Dugger before we took Hunt at the top of the 2nd round. He was not value and could have been gotten much lower down.

Of all the moves they made in the off season, which they should rightly be applauded for, this was the worst in my view, along with the curious case of Curtis Weaver(but that was only a 5th rounder wasted).

Even if he goes on to be a contributor to this team, which personally I think is far from certain, it was never a value pick, as Danny said we needed weapons for Tua and this was a golden opportunity to address a big hole such as RB or find a WR like Shenault for example that can offer Tua a skill set he can work with.
 
Geordie said:
This pick still irks me, didn't like it at the time, and it's not gotten any better since. You don't waste round 1 picks on development prospects like him, he was way too raw to be drafted at the time he was. We passed on a lot of talent still on the board, like CEH, Swift, McKinney, Gross Mato and Kyle Dugger before we took Hunt at the top of the 2nd round. He was not value and could have been gotten much lower down.

Of all the moves they made in the off season, which they should rightly be applauded for, this was the worst in my view, along with the curious case of Curtis Weaver(but that was only a 5th rounder wasted).

Even if he goes on to be a contributor to this team, which personally I think is far from certain, it was never a value pick, as Danny said we needed weapons for Tua and this was a golden opportunity to address a big hole such as RB or find a WR like Shenault for example that can offer Tua a skill set he can work with.
Click to expand...
Like Danny... your argument comes down to need over BPA.

...and ignores that there were serious doubts about X Howard and his health.
 
Feverdream said:
Sorry... but 32 FOs do not all do the same thing.

Your argument is a poor one there... you might be right about how to do this, but that part of your argument was called an appeal to authority.

Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Authority (thoughtco.com)
Click to expand...

Obviously all 32 FOs don't do the same thing. That's why I mentioned I have see what appears to be pure BPA picks.

Going back to my college days, I'm not arguing "Appeal to Authority." IIRC, that type logic relies on 'My boss say this is true and I accept that as fact.' I'm not even saying 32 FOs actions are correct. I stated those FOs have some logic - right or wrong, I don't know. They have experience. My position is 32 FOs act in a certain way. Right or wrong isn't relevant. They will continue to act in that 'wrong?' way until evidence or reality forces them to change. That's more an appeal to human nature. I tend to go with how have people/organizations acted historically and project those tendencies. Again, right or wrong is of no consequence.

In this case, I expect almost all teams to draft according to needs. That the historical tendency. If you have data on bottom teams drafting pure BPA with frequency, I'm willing to concede
 
Geordie said:
This pick still irks me, didn't like it at the time, and it's not gotten any better since. You don't waste round 1 picks on development prospects like him, he was way too raw to be drafted at the time he was. We passed on a lot of talent still on the board, like CEH, Swift, McKinney, Gross Mato and Kyle Dugger before we took Hunt at the top of the 2nd round. He was not value and could have been gotten much lower down.

Of all the moves they made in the off season, which they should rightly be applauded for, this was the worst in my view, along with the curious case of Curtis Weaver(but that was only a 5th rounder wasted).

Even if he goes on to be a contributor to this team, which personally I think is far from certain, it was never a value pick, as Danny said we needed weapons for Tua and this was a golden opportunity to address a big hole such as RB or find a WR like Shenault for example that can offer Tua a skill set he can work with.
Click to expand...

ignoring the baseless claim that player x could have been had way lower in the draft, if Igbinoghene turns out to be our worst off-season move, we have a very bright future ahead of us.
 
fansinceGWilson said:
Obviously all 32 FOs don't do the same thing. That's why I mentioned I have see what appears to be pure BPA picks.

Going back to my college days, I'm not arguing "Appeal to Authority." IIRC, that type logic relies on 'My boss say this is true and I accept that as fact.' I'm not even saying 32 FOs actions are correct. I stated those FOs have some logic - right or wrong, I don't know. They have experience. My position is 32 FOs act in a certain way. Right or wrong isn't relevant. They will continue to act in that 'wrong?' way until evidence or reality forces them to change. That's more an appeal to human nature. I tend to go with how have people/organizations acted historically and project those tendencies. Again, right or wrong is of no consequence.

In this case, I expect almost all teams to draft according to needs. That the historical tendency. If you have data on bottom teams drafting pure BPA with frequency, I'm willing to concede
Click to expand...
This is asking for data that is unmeasurable. As if there is a value chart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom