Why draft O Line over WR?

[Mach2]

You think working for 3 weeks, setting up 2 trades contingent, keeping the other teams quite, leaking nothing to the public isnt chess strategic? (And in the end doesn't effect the player drafted)

That wasn't the context of my reply.

The poster suggested that the plan all along was to move back down, to possibly pick up a 2nd or 3rd.

Given the fact that we gave our #1 to Philly to move back up, no, I don't see that as a particularly wiley move. At the end of the day, it may end up that way, but that would be a matter of unforseen circumstances, rather than intuitive brilliance, IMO.

 

[MrChadRico]

We take an olinemen at #6, i would be shocked honestly.

I've said this before, but taking a mulligan on Hunt or Jackson after 1 season (where both played well as rookies) makes as much sense as taking Fields or Mac Jones at #6.

Its simply not happening.

Its Pitts, Parsons or one of the WRs

 

[Lovethefish]

Honestly, if you have a bunch of picks like Miami does, you can afford to continue to spend early picks on OL. OT in particular is a good investment. But, all those picks also give you plenty of opportunities to draft the guys you need to score at a high rate - receivers. If you have a WR and OT with similar Ceiling/Floor projections, WR will make a bigger impact - so long as you're not desperate for an OT. If you are, you have to fill that need before you can do much of anything.

I don't think Miami is desperate at OT. They've put themselves in the position where they have to feel comfortable rolling with Jackson and Hunt at OT. Jackson is young and flashed some good play before the injury, and Hunt was good for a rookie at RT.

36 is a good spot to target OL (agreed). Pitts + D. Smith/J. Horn/E. Moore or Smith/Chase/Waddle + Horn/Moore/Marshall and then OL at 36 is going to make a bigger long-term impact than any scenario with OL at 6 or 18.

You're either adding two proven playmakers or a playmaker and a star CB, who perfectly fits what Miami needs out of its CB's. Forget about needs. You don't pass on that kind of talent unless you have a similar blue-chip talent at a position more valuable or as valuable but you need more.

Agree 6 & 18 must result in impact type players.
The types that opponents must prepare for or take away in a game plan.
These players are typically WR, (Pitts falls in this category), Edge, CB.
An edge player that must be double teamed or a true shutdown CB can take away a portion of the field / WR.
I really don’t see that edge in this class but maybe my lack of exposure to the group.

 

[ANUFan]

We take an olinemen at #6, i would be shocked honestly.

I've said this before, but taking a mulligan on Hunt or Jackson after 1 season (where both played well as rookies) makes as much sense as taking Fields or Mac Jones at #6.

Its simply not happening.

Its Pitts, Parsons or one of the WRs

Lol, why is it viewed as a mulligan? If the best player on the board is a receiver then you don’t take them because you drafted one last year?

I don’t get your logic and others that say something similiar.

It’s okay to have more than one good player at a position.

 

[fansinceGWilson]

Lol, why is it viewed as a mulligan? If the best player on the board is a receiver then you don’t take them because you drafted one last year?

I don’t get your logic and others that say something similiar.

It’s okay to have more than one good player at a position.

Mulligan, IMO, is the wrong word. Take the best player at a position of need. If Miami took a WR last year, but the WR corp is still the biggest hole, yeah, do it again. Teams don't take turns at drafting positions

 

[Mach2]

Lol, why is it viewed as a mulligan? If the best player on the board is a receiver then you don’t take them because you drafted one last year?

I don’t get your logic and others that say something similiar.

It’s okay to have more than one good player at a position.

I agree with your premise in abstract theory, but it is not nearly so simple in practice.

First of all, the. Idea of strict BPA is both flawed and subjective from the start. How do you directly compare a WR to a corner to determine which is the best player, for example? You can make a judgement on which might have more value to a specific team's circumstances, but that's not the same thing.

Second point would be that teams don't make those choices in a vacuum. We drafted 3 O-line players last year, with the assumption that they would likely take time to develop to their full potential. Do you really even know for sure what we have at this point?

Yeah, if a guy we took has some inherent flaw that isn't likely to be overcome, then replace him without delay. If that is not evident, then we have to move on with building the rest of the team.

It's a balance, because resources are not unlimited.

I'm not against any rational path, and the current regime has given me no reason to distrust their big picture plan.

If they think Sewell is the best way to go, or Parsons, or Pitts, I'll let it play out.

 

[j-off-her-doll]

Agree 6 & 18 must result in impact type players.
The types that opponents must prepare for or take away in a game plan.
These players are typically WR, (Pitts falls in this category), Edge, CB.
An edge player that must be double teamed or a true shutdown CB can take away a portion of the field / WR.
I really don’t see that edge in this class but maybe my lack of exposure to the group.

Imo you're not missing anyone at Edge. There's a thick group of solid guys to consider at 36, 50, and maybe even 81, but I don't see guys separating themselves from the pack - not much anyway. Do have Oweh, Turner, and Paye as the top/real options at 36, along with Collins at OLB. But, Oweh and Paye could already be off the board, and Payton Turner reminds me a lot of Chandler Jones, who was a late riser.

If Miami misses on that group, or prioritizes a different position, there will still be good options at 50 and possibly 81. Baron Browning and Elerson Smith stand out to me.

 

[gregorygrant83]

I would say great blocking has a better impact on a team than having a great wr. Or great blocking can make your wrs, qbs and rbs look better than they are. A great wr might make your qb look better, even the rbs might look a little better due to defenses focusing on the passing game. However, I don't think a great wr really makes the oline look any better. A great oline has a much larger impact on the team. The flip side of the coin is drafting a great tackle doesn't always mean you will have a great oline, so much depends on the play of the other four members of the line and how the all mesh as a unit. It's like buying one great tire for your car and having the other three be sub par. I think that's one of the reasons Miami moved Tunsil... having a great tackle is meaningless if the rest of the unit is crap.

 

[Dan13Forever]

Who were the best 15 OTs last year, and where were they drafted?

Facts, inconvenience truth.

Fruit for thought for the OP, I can play that game for every position.

 

[Danny]

That's my point! Even a great QB with geat weapons looks average to terrible(see Brady/Manning) when they're under duress and get hit.

right but also, brady looked like crap his last year in NE where he had no weapons. Then he goes to Tampa where he had playmakers and boom, SB win.

 

[KBEE]

That wasn't the context of my reply.

The poster suggested that the plan all along was to move back down, to possibly pick up a 2nd or 3rd.

Given the fact that we gave our #1 to Philly to move back up, no, I don't see that as a particularly wiley move. At the end of the day, it may end up that way, but that would be a matter of unforseen circumstances, rather than intuitive brilliance, IMO.

Maybe Miami only wanted to trade down if they could stay in the top 10, but picks 6-9 were not willing to trade up or give enough to trade up. They found a willing partner with SF to give them the haul they wanted but they would drop to 12. Now, they need to get back into the top 10, but maybe picks 7-9 didn't want to move back for fear if a Qb falls they will miss our. Philly was willing to move back and not up and the deals were done.

Now Miami sits at 6 and may still be happy anywhere in the the top 10. Teams 7-9 could be willing to deal for 6 because the cost is not as much as it will be for get to 3. Miami could move back a spot or two and pick up a 2nd rounder and still get one of the players they targeted originally. Long story short - Miami may have wanted to just move back in the top 10 but this was the only way to accomplish it.

 

[Mach2]

Maybe Miami only wanted to trade down if they could stay in the top 10, but picks 6-9 were not willing to trade up or give enough to trade up. They found a willing partner with SF to give them the haul they wanted but they would drop to 12. Now, they need to get back into the top 10, but maybe picks 7-9 didn't want to move back for fear if a Qb falls they will miss our. Philly was willing to move back and not up and the deals were done.

Now Miami sits at 6 and may still be happy anywhere in the the top 10. Teams 7-9 could be willing to deal for 6 because the cost is not as much as it will be for get to 3. Miami could move back a spot or two and pick up a 2nd rounder and still get one of the players they targeted originally. Long story short - Miami may have wanted to just move back in the top 10 but this was the only way to accomplish it.

Possible, I suppose, but that's a lot of maybes, and a rd1 pick next year given up.

Sounds like convoluted rationalization to explain something unlikely to me.

 

[ANUFan]

right but also, brady looked like crap his last year in NE where he had no weapons. Then he goes to Tampa where he had playmakers and boom, SB win.

Agreed! But generally Brady is at his worst when he’s under duress. As is most “great” QBs.

 

[miamiron]

We take an olinemen at #6, i would be shocked honestly.

I've said this before, but taking a mulligan on Hunt or Jackson after 1 season (where both played well as rookies) makes as much sense as taking Fields or Mac Jones at #6.

Its simply not happening.

Its Pitts, Parsons or one of the WRs

Pro Football focus had Jackson ranked 37th out of 38 tackles rated ( that's not playing well) as for Hunt he managed a 20th out of 38 ( decent if you consider his rookie season. Kindley joined Jackson with a poor ranking of 38 out of 40 guards ranked. Conditioning and injuries were probably why his play suffered.

Another year of NFL conditioning and experience could help our 2nd year players take the next step but if they don't this team is going to be in a world of hurt no matter how many new shinny offensive weapons we draft.

 

[Ikema]

I don't think anyone here would disagree with you. The question becomes what capital are you using to invest in those parts?

Are we talking about middle to late rounds which i don't think anyone would argue with or the high premium picks which is the heart of the debate.

Right now some are understanably uneasy about spending a potential 6 overall pick on another 1st round OL prospect for this team.

I've seen your preference and I am well aware of your philosophy.