Finheaven's view of the Dolphins draft was quite positive. 60% of people thought it was above average or great. See the survey results and comments within the thread (and carefully read the OP right after the survey as well if you didn't), many of which were over the moon happy with it:
https://finheaven.com/threads/grading-the-dolphins-draft.387079/
The pundit's view (national and local), compiled by
@Finsup1981, by and large was that the Dolphins draft was not very good. Mel Kiper had them ranked as the third worst draft in the entire NFL. Even one of the local pundits, Hal Habib from the Palm Beach post, panned the Dolphins, and the local guys are loathe to do that:
https://finheaven.com/threads/full-draft-grades-and-reactions.387092/. Here is another one. Matt Miller from ESPN said we had the worst draft in the entire NFL:
https://finheaven.com/threads/matt-miller-just-said-we-had-the-worst-draft-overall.387102/
Please avoid the "we won't know anything for three years" response. I disagree it takes three years, I think you often know in a year. But that is not the point either. We have a show to do today. Analyzing the draft is fun. You work with the information you have. That is what we have to go on now, of course things can change.
Where do people disagree with the pundits that were negative on the draft?
Were the pundits not high enough on the talents of the individual players the Dolphins took? Or was Finheaven too positive about the talents of the individuals we took? Do the draftnicks on Finheaven know more than the pundits, and have access to more tape, more college coaches, and more evaluators than the pundits do? Or are the pundits just complete and utter idiots with an agenda?
Were the pundits not high enough on how the Dolphins managed the board, who they took where, what they traded up and down to do, and the number of picks they made and where they ended up making them due to how they managed the board? Or was Finheaven too positive about these same issues?
Were the pundits not positive enough on the amount of needs that were filled? Or was Finheaven too positive? Do the pundits not have the ability to evaluate the Dolphins draft, because they are not familiar enough with the Dolphins and their issues and needs? If that is the case, why would they be more familiar with the other teams and their needs and be better able to evaluate other teams drafts than they can evaluate the Dolphins draft?
Now a small public service announcement.
Whether you like them or not, the pundits are the most objective evaluators of a teams draft. They also have access to the most information and they have the most time to analyze it. That does not mean they will be right. That is a different issue. But based on what we know now, they are the most objective view that there is. We are all fans of the team and have biases. The pundits could care less. They have to evaluate every teams draft. Some of the pundits probably have some bias, but on average, they are just trying to do their job and give you their view. They have no real axe to grind. Guys that are negative on the Dolphins draft this year have been very positive in the past.
Those of us that were not positive about the Dolphins draft are aligned with the pundits, who are the most objective data point that we have. We were not trolling, nor do we have some sort of agenda. We were just being objective, and funny enough, our objective view equaled the objective view of many of the national pundits.
Being a Dolphins fan does not mean you have to be positive about everything they do. I understand why fans view things through rose colored glasses, and I do not fault anyone for that. In fact, I wish I had a lot more of that in me. It would make being a Dolphins fan more fun. However, what I object to is that when someone's view is not positive, it is referred to as trolling, or agenda driven. It is not. We are just being objective (in most cases). The fact of the matter is, those that have not been positive have been right, for about 24 years running. As long as the views are respectfully and reasonably stated, it is not trolling. Go back to my OP in my thread about the draft. Read it. It is plainly and objectively stated in a straightforward and logical fashion. Many of the pundits, with no axe to grind, came out in the same place.
That does not mean I and they will be right. That does not mean the other opinion is wrong. We will find out over time. Hopefully, this go around the rose colored glasses crowd turns out right. I am rooting for you guys, and I will be happy to turn out wrong!
PS, this is what happens when you are smart about how you build your team. If you go into the draft without huge holes you need to fill out of pure desperation, you can take the BPA. And it is all circular over time, because taking the BPA is part of what puts you in a position to keep taking the BPA. Hit rate becomes much higher too when you are not forced to reach. This is why year after year, teams like the Ravens and the Eagles seem to have good drafts. Ravens are smart, they just sat where they were and let the player come to them - that also shows mastery of the board. The Eagles also picked last, and the pundits loved what they did. Sadly, Grier put us in a position where we had to make our draft picks out of desperation, and that included having to trade UP for a guard:
What was your favorite pick of the entire draft?
Reid: Malaki Starks, S,
Baltimore Ravens (No. 27 overall). Once again, the Ravens allowed the board to fall to them and simply took the best player available. Starks doesn't play a position of immediate need, but the Ravens don't bypass talent to reach for needs at certain positions. With the recent
release of
Marcus Williams, Starks could start right away at free safety and be another crucial performer for an already versatile secondary.
