If Dennis Hickey was a better trader we could have had...

[Rev Kev]

I'll go a step further with it....James better become a Pro Bowl Right tackle or real near it...or this pick was a failure just based on the talent we passed on...based on Morgan Moses still being on the board at 50.

Again I like James....I just think we missed an obvious trade down...and it concerns me about the intelligence level of our organization.

History will also show Bitonio would have been there late first round as well....................

I agree with everything you said here -> James better be a top 5 RT in years to come, the politics of the PB may prevent Jmes or any other Phin from selection -> seeing RT step up with confidence (in the pocket) to deliver is proof in the pudding enuf

 

[jim1]

Because some guy in a basement with an agenda writing for a retro-90s website declares that the pick was not worth it or could have been made later does not make it any more true than the reports sprinkled through these related threads that if Hickey didn't take his first "best of the rest" choice when he did to fill a critical need, then there were other teams queued up soon after to grab James.

Drawing a hypothetical analogy, if you were intent on marrying a woman you loved who had other options, would you have stalled making a commitment risking losing her just because there were sexier women who meant less to you whom you think you could have had? I think not!

Now I understand that there are followers of the team who are looking for Hickey to fail in order for the house of fins cards to come tumbling down as a good thing. I for one was not pleased with him but said from the start that nothing would delight me moreso than to be proven wrong. IMO, I'm not the only fan who hopes for the best to take that approach. Say what you will but Hickey has done a better job with what he had to work with than Farmer who I think crapped the bed and than seasoned GMs like Jerry Jones traditionally have done and de-facto GMs like Belicheat has done more often than not including this year. Room for improvement, certainly, but IMO it was a good hybrid "need and BPA" first draft accounting of himself. :up:

This is a garbage post. The reason why I brought up perceived notions re: James is that in a trade down, perceived notions are critical. Well, it's almost a universal opinion among those who cover the draft for a living (as opposed to your inane comment about basement dwellers) that while Ja'Wuan James is a very good football player, he was a significant reach at #19 and almost certainly would have been available at #27.

The rest of your post about people criticizing Hickey's draft day moves because they have an agenda for him to fail is an even higher caliber of garbage.

 

[finfanaz]

So tired of hearing fans cry about trading back in the first. None of you know which trades were available. You make it sound as if someone was offering a second to move up to our spot and Hickey turned them down. Everyone knew we needed OL help and weren't in position to take the player they wanted.

 

[jim1]

No way to prove anything you just said

In a thread full of obtuse comments, this one is at or near the top.

Other than that, if you had an idea of what you're talking about you would have been at least considering whether or not Trai Turner and Martavis Bryant would have been available at the traded spots. Apparently not.

Btw, do you make a habit of passively aggressively suggesting that posters are lying, as you did at least twice on this thread from what I've seen, to both me and ITS!MATEO? If so that's pretty pathetic, especially for a poster who's shown pretty much zero in football or draft knowledge from what I've seen.

 

[ITS!MATEO]

Way to go out on a limb, you THINK?

If our #19th overall selection doesn't start day one, Philbin and Hicks are DONE! In fact bartring injury Hicks better have selected an 8 year starter

You never know, man...

---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 AM ----------

They could have had players you wanted? Interesting.

Those were the next players taken at those picks.. That's why I chose them.

 

[jim1]

So in your opinion, what where the "chances" that if we had traded back, we would have still gotten James? 31%? 42%? 98%? And since it often takes two to trade. Which teams would we have traded with? Who do you know wanted to move to our spot?

My best guesses were

- James would have been available at #27, easily

- we could have gotten Trai Turner or Martavis Bryant with the extra 3rd rd pick

- we would have had a shot with Martavis Bryant at #116 going ij to the 4th rd, and I was surprised that he lasted into the 4th rd. I figured that the chances of him making it to #125, especially with the teams drafting #116-124 were not good. That's not rocket science, just legitimate concerns.

 

[Vaark]

This is a garbage post. The reason why I brought up perceived notions re: James is that in a trade down, perceived notions are critical. Well, it's almost a universal opinion among those who cover the draft for a living (as opposed to your inane comment about basement dwellers) that while Ja'Wuan James is a very good football player, he was a significant reach at #19 and almost certainly would have been available at #27.

The rest of your post about people criticizing Hickey's draft day moves because they have an agenda for him to fail is an even higher caliber of garbage.

If ever there was justification to insert the acronym IMHO, your opinions which you try to present as almost-certain "facts" scream out for it (IMHO) That's exactly what your Hickey-hard-on contentions are!

Fact: your opinion has no more credible traction than the ones through either your agenda or cloudyed pride of authorship that you dismiss out of hand - perhaps even less so considering the manner in which you're trying to justify them.
But really, keep on keeping on cuz it becomes all the more apparent that having one's rebuttals labeled as "garbage" by someone with your modus operndi is, in a convoluted way really a compliment- you know like being lectured by Mark buttfumble for not protecting the football. :up:

 

[jim1]

If ever there was justification to insert the acronym IMHO, your opinions which you try to present as almost-certain "facts" scream out for it (IMHO) That's exactly what your Hickey-hard-on contentions are!

Fact: your opinion has no more credible traction than the ones through either your agenda or cloudyed pride of authorship that dismiss out of hand - perhaps even less so considering the manner in which you're trying to justify them.
But really, keep on keeping on cuz it becomes all the more apparent that having one's rebuttals labeled as "garbage" by someone with your modus operndi is, in a convoluted way really a compliment- you know like being lectured by Mark buttfumble for not protecting the football. :up:

Yet another garbage post, which if anything exposes how little you know of the draft. If it didn't cross your mind that not getting that extra 3rd might cost us a shot at Trai Turner, if it didn't cross your mind before the beginning of the 4th rd on Saturday that trading away #116 could very well cost us a shot at Martavis Bryant- then maybe you're better off just sticking with your graphics.

 

[NYPhinzFan]

?? He isn't talking about hidsight, he is talking about foresight. These are things we all saw DURING the draft not afterwards.

And after the future becomes the past its always easy to say "should've done this and could've done that", why? Because you know how it played out. There's no such thing as foresight in the draft, they're all gambles.

 

[Vaark]

What it proves is how little self-awareness you have... as the posters in this agenda-driven thread you started have collectively dressed you in a mini-skirt and vinyl boots and sent you out to make some money. But as this is the last time I'll stoop to your level, more constructively I'll add that my biggest problem with Hickey was passing on Stankey and Hyde by trading down as I consider the #26 rushing game in dire need of an infusion, even now with dependable tackles, high potential guards, and a blocking, red zone TE threat. However, apparently being more open minded than you including willing to concede I was wrong and jumped the gun, his snatching of a potential game-breaking, sure handed, catch in traffic WR neutralized that fleeting sense of displeasure.

 

[greasyObnoxious]

My best guesses were

- James would have been available at #27, easily

- we could have gotten Trai Turner or Martavis Bryant with the extra 3rd rd pick

- we would have had a shot with Martavis Bryant at #116 going ij to the 4th rd, and I was surprised that he lasted into the 4th rd. I figured that the chances of him making it to #125, especially with the teams drafting #116-124 were not good. That's not rocket science, just legitimate concerns.

any rumors or links we were even interested in those guys or is this entire thread just a sneaky way by you to say "i wanted Trai Turner and Bryant, but Hickey failed"

 

[Irishfinfan1]

If Hickey rates James significantly higher than the tackles picked later then I'm glad he did what he did, I think he has significantly improved the fins with this draft and there was no point in taking the risk from a trade down if James had high value to him.

 

[jim1]

any rumors or links we were even interested in those guys or is this entire thread just a sneaky way by you to say "i wanted Trai Turner and Bryant, but Hickey failed"

Dude, these were players that I liked, plain and simple. If I recall correctly I saw reports, probably from Barry Jackson Sports Buzz at the Miami Herald, that Martavis Bryant was brought in for a visit and that the Dolphins were interested in Trai Turner. To what extent Dennis Hickey was interested in Trai Tuner or Martavis Bryant I have no idea.

Also, I'm not at all saying that Hickey failed, the draft was ok and he did a good job of filling holes in the roster. What I am saying that trading down from #19 and getting an extra 3rd was in my opinion a risk well worth taking. I am saying that the trade up in the 3rd round for Billy Turner was costly. I am saying that after all the Hickey maneuvers he netted a lower 4th rd pick than he originally had and an extra 5th rd pick, a significantly lower 2nd rd pick and a higher 3rd rd pick to get Billy Turner. I am saying that it was a costly move to get Turner when IMO the chances were good that would have been there at our original 3rd rd pick anyway. I am saying that after we passed on the #19 trade down some of my first thoughts were whether that would end up costing us Trai Turner or Martavis Bryant. It also crossed my mind that it would end up costing us a shot at DE James Gayle, and I was shocked that he wasn't drafted at all. I am saying that as the 3rd round progressed and ended I was becoming increasingly agitated at the notion of Martavis Bryant being available at the traded #116 pick and not at #125, and that happened.

Here's your requested proof, as an online fan site expectedly sinks to the lowest common denominator:

### He said Clemson receiver Martavis Bryant’s “physical skill set is so awe-inspiring he’s probably going to go in round two. He has some maturity issues that have to be addressed.” The Dolphins brought in Bryant for a visit.


Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/sports-buzz/page/2/#storylink=cpy

 

[Kdawg954]

 

[greasyObnoxious]

Dude, these were players that I liked, plain and simple. If I recall correctly I saw reports, probably from Barry Jackson Sports Buzz at the Miami Herald, that Martavis Bryant was brought in for a visit and that the Dolphins were interested in Trai Turner. To what extent Dennis Hickey was interested in Trai Tuner or Martavis Bryant I have no idea.

Also, I'm not at all saying that Hickey failed, the draft was ok and he did a good job of filling holes in the roster. What I am saying that trading down and getting an extra 3rd was in my opinion a risk well worth taking. I am saying that the trade up in the 3rd round for Billy Turner was costly. I am saying that after all the Hickey maneuvers he netted a lower 4th rd pick and a 5th rd pick, a significantly lower 2nd rd pick and a higher 3rd rd pick to get Billy Turner. I am saying that it was a costly move to get Turner when IMO the chances were excellent that would have been there at our original 3rd rd pick anyway. I am saying that after we passed on the #19 trade down some of my first thoughts were whether that would end up costing us Trai Turner or Martavis Bryant. It also crossed my mind that it would end up costing us a shot at DE James Gayle, and I was shocked that he wasn't drafted at all. I am saying that as the 3rd round progressed and ended I was becoming increasingly agitated at the notion of Martavis Bryant being available at the traded #116 pick and not at #125, and that happened.

in short, you're basing everything on assumptions. you might think the chances of those guys being available later were good, and they might have been, but we weren't quite in the position to take the gamble. if we had traded down and missed out on James, there would be others complaining about Hickey not having the necessary "foresight".