I would rather move up in the draft and take

[PPPP]

Dear Internet, please stop misquoting me - Albert Einstein

 

[JTC111]

Taylor Lewan, or Jake Matthews and pay Rookie money then spend the farm on a FA LT. For one both of these rookies grade out better then any of the LT free agents and will cost far less money.
Also with Lewan he can play any position on the line, and is perceived to be a perennial pro bowler at guard or LT.

Maybe even if we could get a LT FA and also move up and get Lewan for Guard. We would have a solid OL to start building on.

Yes we would loose a couple of picks but we would solidify our line in the process.

And what if whichever guy we pick doesn't adjust well to the next level? We gambled with the LT position last year, and it cost us big. You didn't learn from that? And this money that you're concerned with saving, you're saving it to spend on what? What's more important right now than protecting our QB's blind side?

And with all the holes we have, how can you even think about giving away picks?

 

[PPPP]

This is academic. We don'thave enough to move up with unless we want to give away our whole draft to take an OT in the top 10. It's not happening. If anything, we might move down.

Ozzy rules!!

19+81 can get us to 15 which is close to where Lewan is mocking. It's possible.

 

[Spesh]

I agree we need more play makers however every time I suggest we need another play maker WR I get lambasted on here with everyone telling me we are good. In my perfect world we would move up and take Sammy Watkins or Mike Evans.

Ive seen this forum argue that Jeff Ireland wasnt "really" GM but we should totally keep him regardless of his "lack of work". Ive seen people adamantly maintain that the talent on the field is totally dependent on how many fans go to games. And much, much more. And those werent just once in a while things, i saw those views expressed repeatedly over years. You cant take it to seriously, debate it when its fun and roll your eyes when its not. This forum has a "ignore" option, feel free to use it.

For the record: we aren't good at receiver. Ive debunked that myth more than a few times myself. Hartline gets tackled by ghosts and couldnt find the endzone if the fate of democracy was at stake, Wallace will never be a "number 1" type of receiver even if he does start to learn how to not drop the damn ball, and Matthews is nothing more than a project. As is often the case when you miss on entire draft classes for years on end, this roster is littered with average players and the receiver group is more than guilty of hording mediocrity. We need a dominate player at a position that puts points on the board and every single team in the entire league always needs talented players.

Id absolutely love Watkins, im fascinated with the idea of adding a "blue chip" caliber player for Tannehill to work with for the next 10 seasons. That said, value matters. If we had extra picks, id have no problems trading up. But we dont this year(figures that we lack picks in a deep draft class but have a plethora in years that are considered "lacking", thanks Ireland). Watkins is undoubtedly one of the more dominate players in this draft, but we could still walk away with 2-3 great players without trading up. We aren't one player away from being a contender and while we shouldnt draft for need, we should keep the importance of value in mind. We need to draft the best player available so long as it makes logical sense. Drafting a lineman in the first round doesnt make much sense.

 

[Zounds]

Why are those players hitting free agency? Because other teams have figured out you dont need to make a giant investment into the offensive line to have a good offense.

I think you are missing the point of the OP. He is saying we should draft a lineman like Lewan or Matthews so we don't have to make a giant investment in a LT.

Unfortunately, because free agency comes before the draft (which is stupid imo), we have to hedge our bets on acquiring a LT via free agency.

 

[hoops]

you can want any playmaker out there and i'm right there with you...but if they don't fix this flat broken oline the end results are gonna be the same...on the outside looking in

left tackle comes in free agency wouldn't change anything for me...zach martin and you're ability to play almost any position on the oline...come on down

 

[Zounds]

Well we can break it down like this:

1) Pay a slightly above average free agent LT about $10 million a year

-OR-

2) Spend a 1st round pick on a rookie LT and pay about $2 million a year

I think option 2 deserves a hard look

 

[hoops]

Well we can break it down like this:

1) Pay a slightly above average free agent LT about $10 million a year

-OR-

2) Spend a 1st round pick on a rookie LT and pay about $2 million a year

I think option 2 deserves a hard look

sure it does...but who's that plug and play rookie left tackle at #19...i love zach martin but i wouldnt say that's auto plug and play at left tackle and lewan may not even be on our board frankly and even if he is could easily go top 12 even...

joe philbins not gonna let his future ride on a rookie blindside protector unless he absolutely has no choice...at least that's how i see it...

 

[artdnj]

Well we can break it down like this:

1) Pay a slightly above average free agent LT about $10 million a year

-OR-

2) Spend a 1st round pick on a rookie LT and pay about $2 million a year

I think option 2 deserves a hard look

Another positive about option 1 is that it allows a top pick at another position of need which we also need.

 

[Gonzo]

you can want any playmaker out there and i'm right there with you...but if they don't fix this flat broken oline the end results are gonna be the same...on the outside looking in

left tackle comes in free agency wouldn't change anything for me...zach martin and you're ability to play almost any position on the oline...come on down

I would have absolutely no problem with taking Martin, but let's assume he's gone (I don't think he will be, but just a "what if."). Do you take the next O-lineman on the board just because you are so desperate to fix the line, or do you take a playmaker worthy of the spot? For some here, you take the next O-lineman, regardless of whether he's actually capable of starting immediately or worth a 1st round pick (redundant, IMO).

I'd be happy with Martin at 19, again, because of the versatility you mentioned in your great write up a few days ago; but outside of him and the few top LTs, I take BPA.

 

[Zounds]

sure it does...but who's that plug and play rookie left tackle at #19...i love zach martin but i wouldnt say that's auto plug and play at left tackle and lewan may not even be on our board frankly and even if he is could easily go top 12 even...

joe philbins not gonna let his future ride on a rookie blindside protector unless he absolutely has no choice...at least that's how i see it...

I was entertaining the idea in the OP about trading up for the LT blue-chippers. If Matthews or Lewan is there at pick 16 or 17, its worth seeing what the price to move up is. I don't think Matthews will be there, but there's a decent chance Lewan could be. I'm not talking about mortgaging the farm, but if we could move up for a 3rd or 4th, I'd give it a hard look.

 

[hoops]

I would have absolutely no problem with taking Martin, but let's assume he's gone (I don't think he will be, but just a "what if."). Do you take the next O-lineman on the board just because you are so desperate to fix the line, or do you take a playmaker worthy of the spot? For some here, you take the next O-lineman, regardless of whether he's actually capable of starting immediately or worth a 1st round pick (redundant, IMO).

I'd be happy with Martin at 19, again, because of the versatility you mentioned in your great write up a few days ago; but outside of him and the few top LTs, I take BPA.

no you don't...u stick to your board...but if say xavier sua filo has the same grade as a lb or safety or whatever any tie breaker that hasn't been filled in free agency should auto go to the oline...the oline is the elephant in the room right now...

they need to not only establish a starting 5 but 2 quality depth options with position versatility as well...

you could have sammy watkins but if the qb can't even get out of his drop before contact or the pockets are always collapsing from the outside in it's not gonna matter at the end of the day...

 

[Gonzo]

Well we can break it down like this:

1) Pay a slightly above average free agent LT about $10 million a year

-OR-

2) Spend a 1st round pick on a rookie LT and pay about $2 million a year

I think option 2 deserves a hard look

I'll take option 1 because it frees us somewhat from the desperation of reaching for an unworthy LT at #19 AND potentially provides some much needed veteran leadership.

That is, of course, assuming that none of the top LTs fall to us. It would be crazy to bet on that.

 

[hoops]

I was entertaining the idea in the OP about trading up for the LT blue-chippers. If Matthews or Lewan is there at pick 16 or 17, its worth seeing what the price to move up is. I don't think Matthews will be there, but there's a decent chance Lewan could be. I'm not talking about mortgaging the farm, but if we could move up for a 3rd or 4th, I'd give it a hard look.

lewan may fall right in your lap staying put...if his off the field and character concerns have him off boards...if he gets past #15 i'd say you'll know why...and why he probably will continue to drop right past us...miamis not gonna mess around with potential distractions like that when they dont have to...

he's either on boards and going in front of us or off and sliding right past us...

 

[ITS!MATEO]

Why do people think that taking a playmaker in the 1st round requires that you do absolutely nothing to fix the offensive line? Totally flawed.

Personally, for me there isn't 1 playmaker that will be there @19 that is better value then Martin. Mosley won't be there.. Ebron won't be there.. Pryor won't be there..