If Fletcher and Greenwood get beat out... | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

If Fletcher and Greenwood get beat out...

P

PhinPhan1227

Why is there a watermelon there?
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
15,644
Reaction score
7
Age
55
Location
No matter where I go, there I am.
...and wind up leaving the team in the next year or so...that would leave us with what, 3 starting players who really contributed in three years of drafts? I love the moves that we've made in free agency over that period, but DAMN we need to get some better talent evaluators for the draft!!!!
 
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
...and wind up leaving the team in the next year or so...that would leave us with what, 3 starting players who really contributed in three years of drafts? I love the moves that we've made in free agency over that period, but DAMN we need to get some better talent evaluators for the draft!!!!
Click to expand...

McMicheal, Konrad, Todd Wade, Chris Chambers. Seth McKinney could be a future one. Not bad for a team with 1 first rounder in those 3 years.
 
Re: Re: If Fletcher and Greenwood get beat out...

Originally posted by VanDolPhan


McMicheal, Konrad, Todd Wade, Chris Chambers. Seth McKinney could be a future one. Not bad for a team with 1 first rounder in those 3 years.
Click to expand...

You should add to that list RW, who was acquired for two draft picks
 
Konrad was drafted in 99, which was 4 drafts ago. Picks from the past 3 drafts (not counting the most recent draft, since we don't know how they'll play yet) who start or are significant contributors: Chambers, Wade, McMichael, Minor, and Ogunleye (college FA signed right after the draft who we obviously had on our draft board). Also, even if Greenwood doesn't start, he'll at least be a top back-up at OLB and could start once again when Seau leaves. The same could be said of Freeman, who was drafted in '00 and has started, will probably be a top reserve this year, but may start again in the future. McKinney looks to start either this year or next. Lowe could be the one who takes the playing time away from Fletcher.

Overall, we've had decent drafts the past three years. We've had some players who have not played as well as their draft status would merit: Fletcher and Greenwood come to mind (okay, Ben Kelly was a bomb for a 3rd rounder). We've had some great finds: Chambers and McMichael. And we've had a number of players who have been decent but not outstanding (at least not yet). Part of the problem, as mentioned earlier, is the lack of firepower at the top of the draft board. We haven't had first round picks, and we've been in the lower half of the draft order. Part of that comes from success on the field, and part of that comes from the other roster moves we have made (trades).

Maybe some of what you are saying, PhinPhan, is true--that we need to do better than a "decent" job at our drafts if we want to be among the elite teams in the league.
 
Bottom line though is that out of the last three years of drafted players, we've gotten three players who look like solid contributors. The rest have either been busts or back-ups. Yes, we haven't had many first round picks to play with, but even with that it seems to me that a LOT of teams have gotten more bang out of their draft buck. Yes, we've found some real gems in Chambers and McMichael(probably), and Todd Wade is rock solid. But for every gem we've found, there are at least as many busts. To me, that says "mediocre", which is FAR below the standard Wann/Speil have set for the moves they've made in Free Agancy. That's the thing, they've done GREAT in getting proven players, but that tells me that they need to get someone who is a better evaluator of the UN-proven players. I'd put WannSpeil up against the best personell man out there(Donahoe) in Free Agency, but they need help on the draft side of it.
 
I think if half of your drafted players make the team and contribute as solid backups to starters than you have in reality had a very solid draft.

Good teams rarely have all their picks make the team, we've had a decent run of gems to backups and that's all you can ask for.

Look over past drafts and pick out the number of stars after the first round. I bet Miami has done just as well as any other team at the positions that were of need to us. ie we wouldn't be counting DE's since we've had a ton of depth there and probably wouldn't draft one.

My point is, we've done well with some picks and not so great with others. Just like every other team, and better than most.
 
I'll try and look up the success rate of teams over the last three years. I'd base things on how many players they've drafted over the last three years who are still on the roster as starters.
 
No Phinphan you can't use starters at all as a condition to prove your point for many reasons.

Not the least of which of is the talent on that team. The Bengals have as many starters as anyone, but the fact that players like Artrell Hawkins can start for them would severely limit there value imo. This same player if we drafted them would not count in your scenario since they wouldn't beat out Madison or Surtain. The talent level of a team must be taken into account.

The evaluation should be based on how many players are still on the roster and making contributions, like special teams and such since msot drafted players are cheap and their contributions are invaluable due to helping us keep the star players we have which were drafted earlier.

You have to include any player we used a draft pick to trade for as well since that player is essentially what we used our pick on. This takes away the number of chances we have to hit in your scenario.

After the 1st rd getting a player to make your team and be a solid contributor and player who can develop and take the place of a starters you have is about any team hopes for. Getting a star after the 1st is how many teams become elite teams.

Miami has used their 1sts to get a franchise RB, bust at nickel back. I'll take that.

We got a #1 WR,TE and OLB after the 1st. We have solid depth at every position on the team, many of which you don't know if they can develop into stars based on the fact they already have stars in front of them.

If we keep Gardener last year, we would still think of Wally as a fringe player. The backups we have haven't been given a chance to shine yet, but the fact that they still contribute to the team and save valuable cap spcae in the process makes them a success to me.
 
Originally posted by Phinstd
No Phinphan you can't use starters at all as a condition to prove your point for many reasons.

Not the least of which of is the talent on that team. The Bengals have as many starters as anyone, but the fact that players like Artrell Hawkins can start for them would severely limit there value imo. This same player if we drafted them would not count in your scenario since they wouldn't beat out Madison or Surtain. The talent level of a team must be taken into account.

The evaluation should be based on how many players are still on the roster and making contributions, like special teams and such since msot drafted players are cheap and their contributions are invaluable due to helping us keep the star players we have which were drafted earlier.

You have to include any player we used a draft pick to trade for as well since that player is essentially what we used our pick on. This takes away the number of chances we have to hit in your scenario.

After the 1st rd getting a player to make your team and be a solid contributor and player who can develop and take the place of a starters you have is about any team hopes for. Getting a star after the 1st is how many teams become elite teams.

Miami has used their 1sts to get a franchise RB, bust at nickel back. I'll take that.

We got a #1 WR,TE and OLB after the 1st. We have solid depth at every position on the team, many of which you don't know if they can develop into stars based on the fact they already have stars in front of them.

If we keep Gardener last year, we would still think of Wally as a fringe player. The backups we have haven't been given a chance to shine yet, but the fact that they still contribute to the team and save valuable cap spcae in the process makes them a success to me.
Click to expand...

Amen....

We have had a core of players that are stars in their own rights..The last 3 years has left us very few holes to plug..
Where there was a chance to start..those players are starting...i.e CC..McMicheals..Fletcher at nickel..Wade at RT..but all other positions were filled..and the other upgrades came in FA..ie. trade for Ricky, Jay Williams, Seau ...FA signings..Chester, Rob Burnett..., McKnight, T. Perry, Nails, and now we sign Knight,
Thompson, Buckley..(in part because Flect..is so so). and on the way Griese and who ever else that may be a steal after 1 June cuts..When you look at our core and the FA signed..it leaves very little room for a rookie to truly make and start on this team..Even they are a 1 round player..they would still have to be a superstar to start...I bet Flecther would have started on a lot of other teams. Look who we released in that period..Gardner, Desmond Clark, a solid TE who got a 9 mil/7yr contract and didn't start on this team last, because of a Rookie draftee..Weaver (got signed plus a guaranteed 75.000 base..guaranteed...showed how much they thought of him...and he's a backup on this team. Haley 4/4mil..backup on this team..Team hasn't been below .500 since Marino left..even won the East in the last 3 years..playoff every year until last..now reloading to go farther hopefully.. It's hard for a rookie when you're able to keep 21 of 22 starters..year in and year out. and sign quality FA's..
 
those are some good points. We have to keep in mind that the last few years we have been returninga lot of starters so there's never a chance for a lot of the drafted players to make our team. I do agree that Greenwood was a mistake in that we used the next year's 2nd round pick to get him and I was agaisnt Fletcher in the 1st round too. I like Fletch tho, but a 1st was way too high for him imo.
 
Originally posted by Phinstd

You have to include any player we used a draft pick to trade for as well since that player is essentially what we used our pick on. This takes away the number of chances we have to hit in your scenario.

.
Click to expand...

While the rest of the post has some merit, this point is completely incorrect. If the judgement in question is the ability to rate talent in the draft, than you can't take into account trading for proven players. As I said, I have complete faith in the FO's ability to judge PROVEN players, but am disapointed by their ability to judge YOUNG players. Tell you what, we'll reverse the stats which should take care of your other points. I'll take a look at the number of players who were drafted in the first 5 rounds for the other teams, and I'll see how many of them were CUT, or stuck at 2nd string or worse. If other teams are keeping a higher percentage of players, it should tell the tale.
 
Originally posted by MDFINFAN


I bet Flecther would have started on a lot of other teams. Look who we released in that period..
Click to expand...

"Starting" isn't even the question for Fletcher. Right now it's just staying on the team in any capacity. He's a first round player who looks VERY likely to lose his back-up job in his 3rd year to a player who is on the down-side of his career. That's a failure of a first round pick no matter how you slice it.
 
Originally posted by DannyNoonan
Picks from the past 3 drafts (not counting the most recent draft, since we don't know how they'll play yet) who start or are significant contributors: Chambers, Wade, McMichael, Minor, and Ogunleye (college FA signed right after the draft who we obviously had on our draft board).
Click to expand...


Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Bottom line though is that out of the last three years of drafted players, we've gotten three players who look like solid contributors.
Click to expand...


You can disagree on whether or not Minor is a solid contributor, but I think he is fulfilling the roles he was drafted to play: 3rd down back and occasional fill-in/change-of-pace RB. He is actually quite good at both those roles. I also disagree with your desire not to include Ogunleye in the draft count. Clearly the college FA signings that take place the few days after the draft are part of the draft process. If the draft were extended to 12 or 15 rounds, we would have drafted him. He was high enough on our draft boards that we went after him, but we also knew that he would probably go undrafted by the rest of the teams. That's accurate evaluation. Minor and Ogunleye make 5 solid contributors from the past three drafts.

However, I agree with your primary point in this thread...we have had a spotty record in recent years in evaluating college players. One can argue that every teams' batting average should be higher on assessing veteran talent than it is on college talent (as ours is), and that our draft record is similar to many teams. But we should be better at evaluating the talent available to us on draft day if we want to be an elite team that competes for the Super Bowl each year. As it is, we have done enough to be a 2nd-tier team the past few years, but we have yet to make it to the top-tier. Perhaps not hitting on enough draft picks is one reason why we haven't yet made the jump.
 
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


"Starting" isn't even the question for Fletcher. Right now it's just staying on the team in any capacity. He's a first round player who looks VERY likely to lose his back-up job in his 3rd year to a player who is on the down-side of his career. That's a failure of a first round pick no matter how you slice it.
Click to expand...

That's only one,,plus he's maybe just not a good fit for our system...doesn't mean he's not a good player..1 rd bust for us..maybe someone else's dream DB..but all the other draft picks that were mention either have a hard time starting on this talented team or are bu's...The real question is where would they start on this team with the talent ahead of them...That was the issue I was addressing really...so I think your primus is a little off with how many we keep and start..I say again, over the last 3 years we haven't had many openings for rookies...Can U see where we did..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom