Reasonable outside look from media | Page 3 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Reasonable outside look from media

Kamelion4291 said:
Are you serious with this? Go home.
Click to expand...
Damn right I'm serious!

I want to the franchise to make POWER decisions

that are based on WINNING not coddling certain players!

>>> And thanks for the offer!

:lol:
 
BigNastyFish said:
Damn right I'm serious!

I want to the franchise to make POWER decisions

that are based on WINNING not coddling certain players!

>>> And thanks for the offer!

:lol:
Click to expand...
Mr nasty sir, I’d appreciate it if you’d be a bit more delicate with myself when responding but I’d like to suggest that some (me) may believe bringing in a QB at 3 is a waste when we can use it on needs positions which to them (again, me) QB isn’t one
 
GrieseMarinoTua said:
Mr nasty sir, I’d appreciate it if you’d be a bit more delicate with myself when responding but I’d like to suggest that some (me) may believe bringing in a QB at 3 is a waste when we can use it on needs positions which to them (again, me) QB isn’t one
Click to expand...
I think I get the argument AGAINST the choice. Pretty obvious.

My point is counter ----- the pick is a GIFT and there's absolutely nothing wrong with

investing additional resources into the MOST CRITICAL position in football.

And it's NOT EVEN CLOSE!

Absolute worst case scenario we have excellent QBs on the roster -- and of course QBs are always in demand.

So it's not like we'd be throwing the pick in the garbage can! IMO it's the smartest move we could make.

Perhaps a tad future oriented vs. the most immediate satisfaction. But the most wise decision

considering all variables coupled with the additional resources we have to address core needs.

For me it's a no brainier! No reason to burn that kind of commodity on a WR or OT.
 
BigNastyFish said:
I think I get the argument AGAINST the choice. Pretty obvious.

My point is counter ----- the pick is a GIFT and there's absolutely nothing wrong with

investing additional resources into the MOST CRITICAL position in football.

And it's NOT EVEN CLOSE!

Absolute worst case scenario we have excellent QBs on the roster -- and of course QBs are always in demand.

So it's not like we'd be throwing the pick in the garbage can! IMO it's the smartest move we could make.

Perhaps a tad future oriented vs. the most immediate satisfaction. But the most wise decision

considering all variables coupled with the additional resources we have to address core needs.

For me it's a no brainier! No reason to burn that kind of commodity on a WR or OT.
Click to expand...
I hear ya, thanks for taking the time nasty
 
Jeff Saturday sounds like he was born to be an analyst. Very natural.
 
BigNastyFish said:
Yeah, and of course positional competition (depth and development) is "unreasonable!"

Hogwash! Folks don't want us to be loaded at that position. Plain and simple.

Burn the #3 pick on a super skinny WR! Now that's "reasonable!"

:oops:
Click to expand...
Size can be changed easily within an NFL regime. If you have other points, use those. I'm saying that and Im not even high on Smith. Skinny isnt really a valid reason not to select a receiver. Pick 3 on a receiver, fo sho do not do that.
 
E30M3 said:
Size can be changed easily within an NFL regime. If you have other points, use those. I'm saying that and Im not even high on Smith. Skinny isnt really a valid reason not to select a receiver. Pick 3 on a receiver, fo sho do not do that.
Click to expand...
That's your take. I think the kid looks too fragile (lacking in body mass) to withstand NFL level punishment.

Would you rather I term him "thin?"

What PC term would be OK?
 
BigNastyFish said:
That's your take. I think the kid looks too fragile (lacking in body mass) to withstand NFL level punishment.

Would you rather I term him "thin?"

What PC term would be OK?
Click to expand...
Dont care what term, any person can get bigger in the NFL pretty easily in the weight room. He is skinny now for sure, but he has massive speed. Conditioning will be a thing for him, but thats his only missing piece IMO and that can be fixed fairly easily is all im saying.
 
BigNastyFish said:
I think I get the argument AGAINST the choice. Pretty obvious.

My point is counter ----- the pick is a GIFT and there's absolutely nothing wrong with

investing additional resources into the MOST CRITICAL position in football.

And it's NOT EVEN CLOSE!

Absolute worst case scenario we have excellent QBs on the roster -- and of course QBs are always in demand.

So it's not like we'd be throwing the pick in the garbage can! IMO it's the smartest move we could make.

Perhaps a tad future oriented vs. the most immediate satisfaction. But the most wise decision

considering all variables coupled with the additional resources we have to address core needs.

For me it's a no brainier! No reason to burn that kind of commodity on a WR or OT.
Click to expand...
Would you consider using #3 on some other position and using #18 to draft a potential challenger? I know the thought is anyone worth anything will be gone but I’m interested in the kid from NDSU. Trey Lance I think.

I think it could be better to have an athlete in case Tua proves himself and we could utilize a package for Lance to get value out of him as a backup.

God knows this package will frustrate a lot of people but I’m just trying to think outside the box for a happy medium between the warring factions.
 
1 dol fan said:
Would you consider using #3 on some other position and using #18 to draft a potential challenger? I know the thought is anyone worth anything will be gone but I’m interested in the kid from NDSU. Trey Lance I think.

I think it could be better to have an athlete in case Tua proves himself and we could utilize a package for Lance to get value out of him as a backup.

God knows this package will frustrate a lot of people but I’m just trying to think outside the box for a happy medium between the warring factions.
Click to expand...
Problem is who do we take with that super premium #3?

A WR? And OT?

Not enough for me. I want us to be ruthless and greedy!

Only player who deserves that value is a QB.

Or trade the pick for a bounty and get a QB there.

I think folks are seriously discounting the immense lucky gift we have @3.
 
BigNastyFish said:
Golly that's a spin I've never heard before! Poor li'l Tua didn't have anyone to play with!
Of course blame everything and everyone else for poor production, wounded ducks and
none of that nonsense changes the FACT (1) competition makes players better and (2) we
have OODLES of draft capital to get you a shiny new WR and RB and what else does li'l Tua
need to be comfy! I get the feeling some folks are actually scared of competition at the QB
position! Don't know why? If Tua is indeed the answer and he's up to the challenge then
I would think folks would have a "bring it on!" kind of bravado. And of course we have ZERO
additional development talent at the MOST CRITICAL position in football. So let's just pretend
we're stocked @QB and busting at the seams but of course malnourished everywhere else!
We have a unique opportunity this year ----- literally a GIFT pick! Don't be stingy with it!
Invest in the POSITION that's by far the most critical and most in demand!
Click to expand...
..... it would be such a waste of a high pick. You want some competition? Fine draft someone like Ridder later on, but not the #3 pick. I'm on board with Parsons, or Sewell if not, or trading down to keep building value.

Why draft a QB just for the hell of it? You want the #3/4 qb in this draft? Because Fields is likely a Jet. If you some of you guys are so obsessed with adding a shiny new 1st round QB to challenge (or immediately overtake) Tua, why not wait a year or two, see how Tua progresses and develops, AND THEN, you can consider drafting a new qb.

Youre not going to know in this new guys rookie year if he is the answer or not either. FFS, nothing is set in stone yet on anyone. Herbert, Tua, or Burrow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom