My Camp reports may 8th... | Page 3 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

My Camp reports may 8th...

Originally posted by rickeyrunsover
Why is it that I am a homer because I am a realist. I never sid wow these moves and these things get us in the super bowl bowl for sure. That is what some of you do, you say someone hasn't done thsi or that won't do this cant do that, that is called negativity. How do you know? past always predicts the future? Jay never did nything well? Wanny never made a good decision? You are such an expert that you know Moore would have been available later, or Griese will the second coming of Dan, that any of the moves you guys want will always 100% pan out? You read the posts and get learning comprehension. I never said you wanted us to fail, merely point out that all areas we needed to address, noone says that all will pan out, just choose to looked at it as positive, rather than take the gloom and doom approach.
Click to expand...

So when you say "you sound like, remind I said sound like, you are rooting for these guys to fail so you can say "Told ya so"", that didn't mean that I come across as someone who wants the Phins to fail so I can say "I told you so"? You're right, my reading comprehension must be shot. As for my posts however, I'd like you to point one out which states that someone "can't" succeed, or a post which says that Wanny definately blew the draft. All my posts have said was that in MY opinion, we passed up on a couple of much better players in bigger need positions, for a player who was a reach. The only thing I've stated as ABSOLUTELY being a mistake on the part of Wanny was trading our 2nd next year to the Pats for a 3rd this year. That was a desperation move and we got screwed...no two ways about it. I'm also not thrilled with his draft history over the last 3 years...but that isn't speculation, that's looking at what we've gotten versus what other teams have gotten. Oh, and I didn't call you a homer...I called you an individual who is ready to jump all over anyone who questions Wanny of Fiedler. The fact that you're willing to misrepresent me seems to prove that point in my opinion.
 
Basically because he felt the need to take a shot at the "Wanny bashers". As I said, if the rookies had looked like crap, and someone had come on proclaiming that Wanny was proven to have screwed to pooch, I'd have done the same thing. Get excited, have fun, just don't act like one mini camp proves anything, and use that false proof to take shots at people. If you're going to throw down the glove, you have to expect a response.
Click to expand...

You couldn't ignore one little comment? You couldn't let that pass?
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


The only thing I've stated as ABSOLUTELY being a mistake on the part of Wanny was trading our 2nd next year to the Pats for a 3rd this year. That was a desperation move and we got screwed...no two ways about it.
Click to expand...


Two recent examples in Dolphin history do not substantiate your claim that trading higher future draft picks for present ones are absolute mistakes.

In 1998, the Dolphins traded their 2000 first round choice to Carolina for their 2nd round choice. We selected Patrick Surtain. No CB we could have drafted with our 2000 first pick has played as well as Surtain has since. (In fact, the Panthers even drafted a CB with the pick they received from us in this trade, Rasheed Anderson.) Clearly we made a good move by trading the higher future pick.

In 2001, we traded our 2002 2nd round pick to Philadelphia for their pick in the 3rd round. We drafted Morlon Greenwood. The OLBs drafted after our 2002 2nd round pick, #59, were: Ben Leber, SD (#71), Will Witherspoon, Carolina (#73), Rocky Calmus, Tennessee (#77), James Allen , New Orleans, (#82), Akinola Ayodele, Jax, (#89), Kevin Bentley, Cleveland (#101), David Thornton, Indy (#106), Larry Foote, Pittsburgh (#128), Rocky Boiman, Tenn (#133), Scott Fujita, KC (#143), Courtland Bullard, St. Louis (#167), Nick Rogers, Minnesota (#177), Maurice Rodriguez, KC, (#221), and Quincy Monk, NY Giants (#245). Of those, here are the OLBs with significant contributions to their teams: Leber (41 tackles, 5 sacks), Witherspoon (51 tackles), Ayodele (57 tackles, 3 sacks), Fujita (61 tackles). Greenwood has started for us for two years and had 37 tackles for us last year, playing mostly first and second downs. You could argue that you'd rather have one of those guys instead of Greenwood, but it is not an absolute slam dunk. There are no clear stud OLBs in that group. Also, you'd have to assume that with pick #59 we'd have picked Leber, Witherspoon, or Fujita and not Calmus, Allen, or Bentley (knowing how much of a crap shoot the draft can be). I agree that the Moore selection was, in part, a response to the lack of production from our OLBs (as well as our lack of LB depth, LB youth, and need for ST'ers). However, how much better could we have done if we had kept the 2002 2nd rounder? I am not sure the trade of the future higher pick was a poor choice.

For this year's trade that you criticize, the question that needs to be asked is: will we be able to find a better OLT prospect with our 2nd round pick next year than what Wade Smith will be with one year of experience? We need to address the OLT position and having Dixon there for another year is a stop-gap response. Better to start developing a OLT for the future now than having to wait another year.

Perhaps we have screwed ourselves with that draft pick swap (your terms), but I do not think it is as clear as you state. Our recent history does not support this conclusion. The variables of 1) how good Smith turns our to be and 2) what players are on the board next year at our 2nd round pick remain unanswered. Therefore, I do not think we have any absolute answers to this question. In fact, there is a decent chance that this will turn out to work in our favor.
 
Originally posted by DannyNoonan



Two recent examples in Dolphin history do not substantiate your claim that trading higher future draft picks for present ones are absolute mistakes.

In 1998, the Dolphins traded their 2000 first round choice to Carolina for their 2nd round choice. We selected Patrick Surtain. No CB we could have drafted with our 2000 first pick has played as well as Surtain has since. (In fact, the Panthers even drafted a CB with the pick they received from us in this trade, Rasheed Anderson.) Clearly we made a good move by trading the higher future pick.

In 2001, we traded our 2002 2nd round pick to Philadelphia for their pick in the 3rd round. We drafted Morlon Greenwood. The OLBs drafted after our 2002 2nd round pick, #59, were: Ben Leber, SD (#71), Will Witherspoon, Carolina (#73), Rocky Calmus, Tennessee (#77), James Allen , New Orleans, (#82), Akinola Ayodele, Jax, (#89), Kevin Bentley, Cleveland (#101), David Thornton, Indy (#106), Larry Foote, Pittsburgh (#128), Rocky Boiman, Tenn (#133), Scott Fujita, KC (#143), Courtland Bullard, St. Louis (#167), Nick Rogers, Minnesota (#177), Maurice Rodriguez, KC, (#221), and Quincy Monk, NY Giants (#245). Of those, here are the OLBs with significant contributions to their teams: Leber (41 tackles, 5 sacks), Witherspoon (51 tackles), Ayodele (57 tackles, 3 sacks), Fujita (61 tackles). Greenwood has started for us for two years and had 37 tackles for us last year, playing mostly first and second downs. You could argue that you'd rather have one of those guys instead of Greenwood, but it is not an absolute slam dunk. There are no clear stud OLBs in that group. Also, you'd have to assume that with pick #59 we'd have picked Leber, Witherspoon, or Fujita and not Calmus, Allen, or Bentley (knowing how much of a crap shoot the draft can be). I agree that the Moore selection was, in part, a response to the lack of production from our OLBs (as well as our lack of LB depth, LB youth, and need for ST'ers). However, how much better could we have done if we had kept the 2002 2nd rounder? I am not sure the trade of the future higher pick was a poor choice.

For this year's trade that you criticize, the question that needs to be asked is: will we be able to find a better OLT prospect with our 2nd round pick next year than what Wade Smith will be with one year of experience? We need to address the OLT position and having Dixon there for another year is a stop-gap response. Better to start developing a OLT for the future now than having to wait another year.

Perhaps we have screwed ourselves with that draft pick swap (your terms), but I do not think it is as clear as you state. Our recent history does not support this conclusion. The variables of 1) how good Smith turns our to be and 2) what players are on the board next year at our 2nd round pick remain unanswered. Therefore, I do not think we have any absolute answers to this question. In fact, there is a decent chance that this will turn out to work in our favor.
Click to expand...


I didn't say we should NEVER swap future higher picks for lower rounds now, I said THIS swap was a horrible idea. First of all, we did it to move up in the draft, not to have an extra 3rd rounder. They ASSUMED that they would be able to package the pick to move up...but they should have made sure before they did it. Secondly, we still had a 3rd round pick to use on Smith, so you should be asking whether Taylor Whitley was worth a 2nd round pick next year. Lastly...we gave that pick to the PATS!!!! Next year they'll have 2 1sts, and 2 2nds, and as such will be able to maneuver around for virtually any player they want regardless of how they do as a team next year. When you combine trading a 2nd round pick for a 3rd round player with helping out a league rival...that's a BAD move no matter how you slice it. As for Greenwood, we may have gotten two years out of him...but we also just spent a 2nd round pick to try and replace him. That means in total the Morlon Greenwood pick has already cost us a 2nd rounder(to move up to get him), a 3rd rounder, and ANOTHER 2nd rounder this year to replace him. That's a HECK of a lot of picks for a position which is only on the field for 40% of the downs.
 
Originally posted by inFINSible
Is that your way of avoiding the question?
Click to expand...


Lol...okey dokey...No, I couldn't ignore that one little line from his post. It sounded smug and contrite, and very accusatory. As such, I felt it was my moral obligation to take him to task for it. Does that satisfy your morbid curiosity on the matter?:rolleyes:
 
Take who to task? Are you referring to the Sounds like Exactly what does sounds like mean to you? To me and this what was meant, that the manner in which you present your position leads to a perception you want us to fail ven though that isn't wht you intend. meaning that is the appearence you give on some posts. Tke that to task. How do you know tradig that pick this year will suk? crystal ball? What if Smith becomes s good as Webb was, would it be horrible then? what if Smith erns the starting spot THiS year? Tht is all I am saying you do not know if the drft will turn out good or bad nor if the players passed on will turn out good or bad. You do not have a crystal ball.
 
RRO.....he was referring to the original poster....sorry, 1227....
 
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



I didn't say we should NEVER swap future higher picks for lower rounds now, I said THIS swap was a horrible idea. First of all, we did it to move up in the draft, not to have an extra 3rd rounder. They ASSUMED that they would be able to package the pick to move up...but they should have made sure before they did it. Secondly, we still had a 3rd round pick to use on Smith, so you should be asking whether Taylor Whitley was worth a 2nd round pick next year. Lastly...we gave that pick to the PATS!!!! Next year they'll have 2 1sts, and 2 2nds, and as such will be able to maneuver around for virtually any player they want regardless of how they do as a team next year. When you combine trading a 2nd round pick for a 3rd round player with helping out a league rival...that's a BAD move no matter how you slice it. As for Greenwood, we may have gotten two years out of him...but we also just spent a 2nd round pick to try and replace him. That means in total the Morlon Greenwood pick has already cost us a 2nd rounder(to move up to get him), a 3rd rounder, and ANOTHER 2nd rounder this year to replace him. That's a HECK of a lot of picks for a position which is only on the field for 40% of the downs.
Click to expand...


First point: I think the FO assumed they had to have the extra 3rd rounder to be able to make an offer with the hope of moving up...I do not think they assumed they would automatically be able to move up with it. It would be difficult to swing the double deal during the draft (the trade with N.E. and the trade with the other team to move up in the draft order)...look at how Minnesota ran out of time trying to complete a two-team swap while on the clock.

Second point: You assume no other team would have selected Smith between our two 3rd round picks. Perhaps you are correct, but that is not a certainty. That's quite a risk to take if we truly had him rated way above the remaining OTs on the board. I do not agree with this assumption and do not think that you can turn pick #78 into pick #87 for the sake of this discussion.

Third point: If we make out on this trade (a possibility), then trading with the Pats can work in our favor. I agree it is a risk to take, kind of like doubling the bet...if this does not work out for us (like you say is a certainty), it can hurt doubly because our division rival benefits from the increased value. If, however, this works out for us (like I am willing to think is a possibility), then our division rival has missed out, and we've gotten the better of them.

Finally: I saw an response in a thread a week or so ago that addressed the topic of how much Greenwood cost us to acquire. The response was an attempt to correct the false notion that Greenwood cost us two picks, a 3rd rounder in 2001 and a 2nd rounder in 2002. I guess that thread was not viewed by many. In fact, Greenwood cost us one pick, the 2nd rounder in 2002, which we traded to obtain him. [if you spend $5000 on a car and then and then swap the car for a boat and then swap the boat for an entertainment center, the entertainment center did not cost you $5000 AND a car AND a boat...it cost you $5000] Before the trade: we had our 2002 2nd rounder and no Greenwood or extra 2001 3rd rounder...Afterwards: we had him but no 2002 2nd rounder or extra 3rd rounder. Therefore, he cost us our 2002 2nd rounder.

I guess my disagreement with you over the trade is that you refuse to accept that this trade has any possibility of working out...that no matter how good Smith turns out to be or who is left next year in the 2nd round, this trade was a bad move. I agree it could turn out to be a poor decision, but I am willing to hold out judgement until the returns are in (maybe two years from now). It was a risk, but one that I think was not a ridiculous one to take. The one thing that I like about the trade is that it was used in an attempt to be aggressive in addressing our team needs. Now, at least, we have a decent prospect at OLT to groom for next year.
 
Anythings possible...and it could turn out to be a happy accident. But the odds are against it. Wanny could give up a 1st rounder to take a 5th round player and it COULD turn out to be a good thing...but the odds would be against it. If you want to assume that every move Wanny makes is likely to be good for the team, that's again, your right. And had he traded that 2nd round pick to Chicago, I'd even be inclined to give the trade an even chance at working out. But given the fact that we gave the Patriots a big boost in next years draft, and failed to get the impact lineman that Wanny wanted...I think this particular move stands as a failure until proven otherwise. The rest of the draft remains to be seen, but this particular aspect of our draft is on the wrong side of the "burden of proof" in my opinion.
 
Originally posted by rickeyrunsover
Take who to task? Are you referring to the Sounds like Exactly what does sounds like mean to you? To me and this what was meant, that the manner in which you present your position leads to a perception you want us to fail ven though that isn't wht you intend. meaning that is the appearence you give on some posts. Tke that to task. How do you know tradig that pick this year will suk? crystal ball? What if Smith becomes s good as Webb was, would it be horrible then? what if Smith erns the starting spot THiS year? Tht is all I am saying you do not know if the drft will turn out good or bad nor if the players passed on will turn out good or bad. You do not have a crystal ball.
Click to expand...


What if Deon Dyer suddenly figures out how to catch a football like Mark Duper? He'd be the AFC Probowl Full-back until the end of his career. "What-if's" are only as useful as the odds of them coming to fruition. Yes, there COULD be a Zach Thomas in any given 5th round...but the odds are against it. The difference between a realist and a homer is that the realist thinks it's unlikely that the undrafted rookie will be starting in September...but hopes for the best. The homer is already planning on buying the kids jersey.
 
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Anythings possible...and it could turn out to be a happy accident. But the odds are against it. Wanny could give up a 1st rounder to take a 5th round player and it COULD turn out to be a good thing...but the odds would be against it. If you want to assume that every move Wanny makes is likely to be good for the team, that's again, your right. And had he traded that 2nd round pick to Chicago, I'd even be inclined to give the trade an even chance at working out. But given the fact that we gave the Patriots a big boost in next years draft, and failed to get the impact lineman that Wanny wanted...I think this particular move stands as a failure until proven otherwise. The rest of the draft remains to be seen, but this particular aspect of our draft is on the wrong side of the "burden of proof" in my opinion.
Click to expand...


Yes, but we're not talking 5th rounder and 1st rounder here. We have already established that it's not the trading of future higher picks for present picks that you don't like. As long as the rounds are close, then it is not necessarily long odds for the swap to work in your favor. You just don't like this particular swap.

I do not assume that every Wanny move is solid...there are plenty I have questioned when made...if fact, I 'm not sold that this draft swap will work out in our favor. I'm also thinking--even after reading up on the players--that selecting Washington-Smith-Crowell would have been better than Moore-Smith-Whitley, but I'm willing to see how things work out. However, you say the pick swap is a failure until proven otherwise. We are two years away from making a preliminary decision on it. How can it be a failure with so much missing evidence?

To address the Patriots-with-multiple-picks problem, well they had plenty this year and some have criticized their draft. They already had plenty for next year...we added a (I'm hopeful) low 2nd rounder. They can continue to trade in present picks for future higher ones...it doesn't mean they'll improve...I wouldn't mind it if they traded our 2004 2nd rounder for a 2006 first rounder...let then keep trading it away...I'll take the players in the present.

The FO had two choices in using the extra pick (#78) to address our OT need: use it with another pick to trade up to draft a ready-to-step-in OT or use it at #78 on a solid OT prospect. When option #1 turned out not to be a possibility (thankfully, considering what other picks we'd also have had to surrender), they went to option #2. I think they did a decent job of using it for that option. Wade Smith has a decent chance to be much more ready to play OLT for us in 2004 than what is typical for any rookie OT selected at the bottom of the 2nd round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom