Team building theory 2021 edition. | Page 7 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Team building theory 2021 edition.

What do you do with #3 if no trade down available?

  • QB

    Votes: 9 6.6%
  • WR

    Votes: 62 45.3%
  • T

    Votes: 66 48.2%

  • Total voters
    137

Danny

Finheaven VIP
Moderator
Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Messages
37,945
Reaction score
52,165
Location
Kissimmee,FL
We took "what we needed" last year and drafted Jackson at 18 in a draft loaded with WR's. I think we were going OT there no matter what, and many considered Jackson a reach. We wouldn't be in this position if we simply drafted BPA. Draft BPA.

We have 3 more picks in the first 2 rounds to add weapons. Don't pass on premiere talent to "fill a need" with a premium pick. I can only get on board with a WR if we can trade back.
Not to downplay Sewell but can you post some tape of Sewell beating an elite pass rusher/DE/Edge?
I'm pretty sure there's no need to post take of Smith and Chase beating top talent time and again.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
43
Reaction score
42
Age
55
Location
Los Angeles
My main tenet is that the draft is more of a crapshoot than most people think. Of course higher rated, higher picked players have a better chance of being good, but there's a large degree of randomness Imo. If you REALLY know who's clearly BPA at a given spot you go with that over position value or need (with the exception of qb). However the draft's a crapshoot, you don't know the BPA. You know your needs better (injuries or rapid progression or regression may change them - but you still know them better). And position value changes as schemes and the league evolves. So I prefer trade downs to get more chances, and then draft for need.

I worry that teams at 4-8 will play pokerface like we and the Chargers did last year. If Wilson and Fields are seen as near equals and especially if Lance, Jones and/or Trask outperform at the combine or pro days, then those teams may sit and let the qb fall to them.

I prefer trading down, even without a King's ransom. If not available, I'm almost 33-33-33 Chase-Smith-Sewell. Wait and see the combine.
 

The Ghost

Stamos
Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
5,944
Reaction score
6,363
Location
Allentown, Pa
Let’s see how all of the WRs who were first round picks, impact their teams post season.

If Tampa Bay loses, it will be a short observation. Let’s see how Marquise Brown, Sammy Watkins and Corey Davis convince the Miami Dolphins FO office to take a WR at No.3 overall.
 

NBP81

Yippi ka yay mother******!
Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
11,493
Reaction score
14,229
Location
Montreal
I'm not sure I understand. The ppl that would make the case for QB, if it has nothing to do with Tua, must surely be basing it on the value of the pick, and WR is not commonly viewed as a "value" position that high.

Even if they are unwaveringly BPA, it wouldn't make sense, unless they think the 3rd rated QB is truly the BPA left on the board, and while that could be possible in a given year, It surely isn't the case this year, IMO.
Like I stated in OP... The QB holds more absolute value by a mile, but you have to consider that this value is watered down somewhat by the fact the Fins already have a QB on his rookie contract on the team. LT also hold more value than WR, but you have to factor in that LTs have more value than RTs, when you're drafting a 2nd Tackle in the 1st round in back to back years, you have to factor in the fact that both wont be LTs, lowering the value of the pick...

This is why it isnt as clear cut at it seems to be... Its really close, I dont think drafting either of the 3 is enough of a mistake to make a dent in the future of this team TBH, especially if the right steps are taken in FA to cover all the bases....
 

Mach2

Club Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
9,192
Reaction score
16,169
Age
56
Location
Boynton Bch, Fl
Like I stated in OP... The QB holds more absolute value by a mile, but you have to consider that this value is watered down somewhat by the fact the Fins already have a QB on his rookie contract on the team. LT also hold more value than WR, but you have to factor in that LTs have more value than RTs, when you're drafting a 2nd Tackle in the 1st round in back to back years, you have to factor in the fact that both wont be LTs, lowering the value of the pick...

This is why it isnt as clear cut at it seems to be... Its really close, I dont think drafting either of the 3 is enough of a mistake to make a dent in the future of this team TBH, especially if the right steps are taken in FA to cover all the bases....
I agree, but the post was in reference to the guys you know, and respect, taking the QB, regardless of the current QB.

Then you said they would be open to a WR.

I can't reconcile the two, within the same philosophy, for the reasons stated.

I know our conversation drifted from the OP. One of us lost track. Usually it's me, but I don't think so in this case.....lol.
 

NBP81

Yippi ka yay mother******!
Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
11,493
Reaction score
14,229
Location
Montreal
I know our conversation drifted from the OP
I dont think it has... Its actually exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for... Which one would you pick and why? Value wise, all things considered, I think its a close decision, very close.

So I can clearly see someone saying that either WR or QB is fine because x and y reason but dont like T because of Z... Or any combination.

My stance on the subject is LT if you cant trade down, grab a WR with your 1st pick if you can trade down. I wouldnt pick the QB, but I can certainly see how some arguments make sense for QB regardless of the outlook you have on Tua. So while QB isnt my first choice, Im certainly not laughing at the idea...
 

KentuckyFin

Rookie
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Messages
46
Reaction score
37
Age
52
Location
Miami
It's such a great position to be in with a draft that has three quarterbacks expected to go top 10, maybe top 5.

Ultimately, I think to maximize value, Miami's best move is a trade down.

I agree with you on wide receivers. I think the sweet spot for Smith and Chase is around 6 or 7 overall.

Looking at the quarterback needy teams, Carolina could be a perfect trade partner.
Need to find a way to trade down and turn pick 3 and pick 18 into picks 6-8 and 11-13 plus a second possibly. Trade #3 for pick 6-8 plus a second rounder this year and a 1/2 next year, and then use 18 and the second rounder to move back to pick 10-12. If we can do that we can take Pitts/Smith/Parsons with our first pick, and with our 2nd pick in the first take a WR like Waddle, Chase... With our first pick in the second round we take Harris or Etienne at RB. That would give us either 2 receivers and a RB to help our offense or a receiver, impact defender plus a RB and we still have another 2nd and a 3rd to grab an edge or safety.
 

Gsmack_42

Second String
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
1,868
Reaction score
1,277
Just now voted, and looked at the results so far.

Was surprised that for all the "take the QB" posts I've seen the past few days, it was only 4%.

I chose Tackle, by the way.
If you look at when they joined or amount of posts with years on the site. It’s not hard to till most of them are trolls.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
26
Reaction score
39
Age
47
Location
Scotland
If we can't trade down and aren't sure about value at 3 take the QB and then see how the draft unfolds as I would imagine that quite a few teams would be asking what would it take to aquire say Wilson.
We still have the leverage as teams like the Panthers 49ers Lions still need a young Qb
 

tay0365

Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
14,782
Reaction score
6,148
Location
NJ
Though it would hurt to pick a Receiver that early, picking an O-Tackle, while knowing that Jackson will be a good one in time with experience, and Hunt looking good by the end of the season, would be a waste of a top 5 pick.

Personally if Parsons is still there, take him at 3.
 

Mach2

Club Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
9,192
Reaction score
16,169
Age
56
Location
Boynton Bch, Fl
I dont think it has... Its actually exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for... Which one would you pick and why? Value wise, all things considered, I think its a close decision, very close.

So I can clearly see someone saying that either WR or QB is fine because x and y reason but dont like T because of Z... Or any combination.

My stance on the subject is LT if you cant trade down, grab a WR with your 1st pick if you can trade down. I wouldnt pick the QB, but I can certainly see how some arguments make sense for QB regardless of the outlook you have on Tua. So while QB isnt my first choice, Im certainly not laughing at the idea...
I have to agree that tackle is the way to go, if you absolutely can't trade down.

The problem I have with WR at that pick is that, historically (and I have looked into it in depth), it hasn't proven to have "value" because of the erratic return potential. In other words, it is far more likely you get average, as opposed to "elite". That's not, necessarily, reflective of any specific player available this year, it's just historical fact. In this particular case, even the measurables aren't suggestive of breaking any trends. I've seen some suggest that a receiver has a higher impact than a tackle, but that is a flawed arguement, IMO, because if "average" is the suspected likely outcome, you can get that later in the draft. Even if you have to take two to get one, it is still better value, as far as risk/reward. If a Calvin Johnson type guy were in the discussion I may feel differently, but that is certainly not the case. None of the high rated guys are even close tobthat combination of size, speed, strenth and sheer athletic ability.

I wouldn't have a big problem taking a QB in theory, particularly with the situation we are in, with several other high picks. In practice it, as you say, gets more complicated, and you do have to factor in the situation with Tua. You are almost gauranteed to lose value with one or the other. In the long run, the team may possibly be better off, but that gets into crystal balls and tea leaves. It would come down to does management feel Tua can be "elite". Do they feel he will be above average, and is that acceptable? As you know, there's no gaurantee another guy will be elite either. Is it worth the investment to double down on finding elite? You probably remember, I was a proponent of a more prototypical sized QB before the draft, but now whats done is done.

My current view is that even though I see the same physical shortcomings that I originally worried about, I think giving Tua another year is the best course.

The rest of the team has to continue to be built either way.
 

NBP81

Yippi ka yay mother******!
Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
11,493
Reaction score
14,229
Location
Montreal
I have to agree that tackle is the way to go, if you absolutely can't trade down.

The problem I have with WR at that pick is that, historically (and I have looked into it in depth), it hasn't proven to have "value" because of the erratic return potential. In other words, it is far more likely you get average, as opposed to "elite". That's not, necessarily, reflective of any specific player available this year, it's just historical fact. In this particular case, even the measurables aren't suggestive of breaking any trends. I've seen some suggest that a receiver has a higher impact than a tackle, but that is a flawed arguement, IMO, because if "average" is the suspected likely outcome, you can get that later in the draft. Even if you have to take two to get one, it is still better value, as far as risk/reward. If a Calvin Johnson type guy were in the discussion I may feel differently, but that is certainly not the case. None of the high rated guys are even close tobthat combination of size, speed, strenth and sheer athletic ability.

I wouldn't have a big problem taking a QB in theory, particularly with the situation we are in, with several other high picks. In practice it, as you say, gets more complicated, and you do have to factor in the situation with Tua. You are almost gauranteed to lose value with one or the other. In the long run, the team may possibly be better off, but that gets into crystal balls and tea leaves. It would come down to does management feel Tua can be "elite". Do they feel he will be above average, and is that acceptable? As you know, there's no gaurantee another guy will be elite either. Is it worth the investment to double down on finding elite? You probably remember, I was a proponent of a more prototypical sized QB before the draft, but now whats done is done.

My current view is that even though I see the same physical shortcomings that I originally worried about, I think giving Tua another year is the best course.

The rest of the team has to continue to be built either way.
Pretty much agree with everything here...
 

phin1984!

Scout Team
Joined
Jan 21, 2012
Messages
323
Reaction score
189
BPA is a cover for GM doesn't want to be responsible.
Just for academic sake, the BPA is a cb....we take him? We luck out with Hou, or else the BPA could very well be Surtain.
Or in 1986, the BPA is a qb, we take him?

Sewell = waste pick

All depends if you could push Jackson to LG
 
Top Bottom