Locked On First Round...i Like It

[39wildman]

Taking a QB in this draft will likely get you fired in 3-4 years.

you go get fired without one too. every coach dolphins have had got fired because they didn't have qb. you should know this by now. it don't matter how good jets, bills and dolphins defense is . they cant score point. that why N.E win division every yr.

 

[mmikel30]

I love the idea of trading back however I think it’s going to be hard to because everyone wants to trade back because this draft is loaded in the first three rounds with talent.

 

[Digital]

Oh, I dont doubt for a second the teams moving up would make those trades, they are getting the better end of the deal.

That's the point!

You cant negotiate from a position of weakness, you have to be willing to walk away from a bad deal.

Honestly, If you want the BEST value in a trade, you need to trade for future picks, not picks in this year's draft.

If the team is in a rush to fill out the roster with a bunch of 3rd and 4th round picks, we are in for a bumpy ride.

Personally, I dont like the thought of trading a potential pro bowl caliber player for a couple more bodies, who may, or may not be starting caliber players.

Now if we are getting future pick ammo to make a move on a franchise QB, im down.

If we are getting a great deal that involves second round, or fringe first round guys that drop into the top of the second round, im game.

If we are getting late 3rd round picks, I'm not gonna be a happy camper.

Maybe you and Travis aren't using the same draft value charts ….. as the numbers do change with time. But his analysis was that we lost a little on the first trade and made back a little on the second trade. But, those were the picks available for teams who wanted to jump ahead of other teams to secure the last of a tier of a certain position who fits their system. All in all, there isn't a big appetite for moving up, so we lost a little trading down the first time. But the situation was such that the second team trading up was more desperate.

All in all, this fits with the Grier/Flores strategy to get more picks to accelerate the rebuild. Not defending it, although I'd be happy if we did it. Just letting you know his explanation since you didn't want to listen.

I'm the messenger bro. :)

 

[Avigatorx]

Maybe you and Travis aren't using the same draft value charts ….. as the numbers do change with time. But his analysis was that we lost a little on the first trade and made back a little on the second trade. But, those were the picks available for teams who wanted to jump ahead of other teams to secure the last of a tier of a certain position who fits their system. All in all, there isn't a big appetite for moving up, so we lost a little trading down the first time. But the situation was such that the second team trading up was more desperate.

All in all, this fits with the Grier/Flores strategy to get more picks to accelerate the rebuild. Not defending it, although I'd be happy if we did it. Just letting you know his explanation since you didn't want to listen.

I'm the messenger bro. :)

Oh yeah, no worries bro! I'm not trying to argue with you guys. Its just that to me, the trades feel like panic moves to get whatever we can get.

We have the unfortunate situation of having our cards on the table atm. Everyone knows we are rebuilding. The only question is time. Are we in desperation mode? (As these trades indicate to me) Or are we willing to take our time with the rebuild?

If we are patient with the rebuild (or at least portray ourselves in that manner) we will be able to garner better value for those picks. I'd rather see us get higher quality picks in a future draft than settle for whatever we can get to move out of the spot.

Depending on who is on the board when we pick will mean all the difference in the world. If a team is hot and heavy on a guy, we can use that to our advantage. If we dont like who is available at 13 maybe you pull the trigger on a trade just to get another pick. But I dont like getting picks just for the sake of getting picks. There needs to be a method to the madness. I'd hate to see us give a probowl player away just to get a couple more bodies in later rounds.

 

[SCLSU Mud Dogs]

you go get fired without one too. every coach dolphins have had got fired because they didn't have qb. you should know this by now. it don't matter how good jets, bills and dolphins defense is . they cant score point. that why N.E win division every yr.

If you take one in the first round this year, the clock starts ticking. And I can guaran-damn-tee you that Miami does not have the nucleus of players to help a rookie quarterback win this year, or even next.

If the plan this year is to assess the state of the roster and identifying pieces in the draft that you can build around, with the plan of taking one of the top 3 QBs next year, the leash is longer.

There isn't a single QB in this draft that is far and away the No. 1 QB. Nobody has separated and all have red flags. And possibly the best pro QB out of all of them is like a reincarnated version of Tannehill.

Get an alpha at QB and this team has the chance to compete for a while. Do it right, don't rush it.

 

[Fin Fan in Cali]

I love the idea of trading back however I think it’s going to be hard to because everyone wants to trade back because this draft is loaded in the first three rounds with talent.

We will have to see when and how many Qb’s go because that pick at 13 may look very good to a team. See how it unfolds.

 

[mwestberry]

the trades feel like panic moves to get whatever we can get.

I get it.... But if you had listened you would know that in this "mock"....

We fill a need with a projected dynamic O-Lineman who is mean, nasty and finishes plays.... projected starter out of the gate and cap help for 5 years while we pay Tunsil (no desperation in that plan)

We add 2picks in the top 100 in a defensive filled draft

So in this mock we add a potential plug n play guy in the first rd. and nab 2 extra picks where we only had 1 before....

With the holes we have I don't see what's not to like....

what "potential" 10 year starter did we overlook, in your opinion, when we traded back to the Vikings and again to the Texans?.... I guess that would add some meat to your perspective

 

[kevphin]

I want davis playing RT so no

 

[mwestberry]

I want davis playing RT so no

I like depth talent and flexibility along the O-line...competition or even trade bait.... extra picks for what is sometimes a crapshoot.... but that's me... to each their own

 

[BlueFin]

Its not "enough" value.

You can look at the trade value charts as a rule of thumb. Alot of the info is old, but if the culmination of moving down that far is only two 3rd round picks, you are getting taken to the cleaners.

Yes, we need more picks, but lets not be silly about it.

I think he admits it’s tad under value based on the charts.

You have to have somebody willing to move up... and twice in this example... not easy.

If I was GM....the player I really want better be there at 23 if I’m moving down 10 spots for middle to late 3rd rounders... otherwise I’m taking a great player that slips to 13....kind of following the mode we took with Tunsil and Fitzpatrick.

That assumes that the QB I like is not there at 13 of course.

 

[BlueFin]

Didnt listen to the podcast and im not going to.

I hope our FO has stronger negotiation sills than those guys, because no matter how you slice it, those 2 picks are not enough value to replace a top 13 player in this draft.

I tend to agree with that... with the caveat being if I have 11 guys I equally like at 13?....and don’t care which one I get?....then obtaining extra picks is smart.

However...that scenario is highly unlikely.

Often an elite player slips into that range... and should’nt be passed on.

I think back in the past of trading down and losing Earl Cooper for Jared Odrick....Randy Moss for John Avery.

Having more picks versus higher ones is not always a great thing...it’s definitely situational.

 

[kevphin]

I like depth talent and flexibility along the O-line...competition or even trade bait.... extra picks for what is sometimes a crapshoot.... but that's me... to each their own

that's fine but you are taking the 1st pick and filling a spot that really doesn't need addressing. Davis is the cheap guy opposite Tunsil. you are making more holes not more flexibility, Travis even said he couldn't play LG well neither can Davis. IMO so what does this solve?

 

[mwestberry]

IMO so what does this solve?

Good point... I'm not sure what it solves other than it gives us youth and depth on the O-line along with 2 more chances to draft or trade …. It depends on your strategy I suppose... either way you want your plan to succeed long term

 

[Ray R]

Risner can play T,G or C which gives you a lot of value

When a player can play effectively at more than one position, he does have a little more value, but not as much as if he could play all those positions at the same time. When it comes to the draft, the real value of having a versatile player available when its your pick is that there are likely to be more trading partners available.

This means a versatile players' greatest value is during the draft. This is because he is desirable by a wider number of teams. Once that player has been picked, his value immediately decreases simply because he will typically play just one position most of his career while only being used occasional in other positions.

He is always more valuable because he can play other positions, but a varied skill set is most valuable during the draft. This is because there is likely to be a wider base of interested teams due to his varied skill sets.

Assuming the case for an offensive lineman that can play guard, tackle and center. He would be attractive to teams that need a guard or a tackle or a center or any combination of those positions. This would imply that there would be 3 times as many teams interested in trading a draft position to be able to get him as opposed to being skilled at just one of those positions.

In our situation the question is:

Can we improve the team more by getting two potentially good draft picks as opposed to one very promising draft pick with higher expectations?

With a new coaching staff and our release of some big contract players, I feel increasing the number of draft picks at this time is the better choice.

 

[Ray R]

In that case, we got raped twice...

Anyone can trade down, really. The issue is getting value for the pick. Trading down just to trade down isnt smart. You need to get the value.

I would expand on "You need to get value".

By reading this as a clerical accounting technique, you can only go on some general assumptions about relative trade value vs. draft position. You may do better or worse, but you won't know with any kind of certainty how well you did for two to three years. With this in mind, are you more willing to take a chance on getting good players from a fewer number of picks or a larger number of picks?

By reading this as a mandate to pick players who can be coached up enough to justify, or more than justify their selection in the draft; then you are hitting the nail on the head.