"You want a better quarterback? Get Penei Sewell!" | Page 9 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

"You want a better quarterback? Get Penei Sewell!"

GUH-sick-EE said:
'

What gave you that impression? "Hunt will be given the chance to fail at Tackle." That quote is straight from the Dolphins FO. Hunt was also very highly graded at RT the last few games.



Are you saying you wanna draft a guy a #6 overall and have him switch positions?


(BTW I totally agree we should draft a center in the 2nd.)
Click to expand...
I don’t get the thinking that Hunt should be moved. Is it just the narrative because watching the games certainly doesn’t produce that level of thought.

He played incredibly well at RT and I wouldn’t think of moving him as he is the least of our problems.
 
Hoot said:
Jeff Saturday and Domonique Foxworth shares their thoughts on which path a team should initially go in the draft if it desires to make its QB better. We are all high on the the receiving options up there. Would love any of them. But I would be thrilled if we went this route as well. Jeff Saturday's comments stuck out after Kurt Warner's breakdown of Tua and his need to work on his 2nd reads.

"The big skill guys are what allow that QB to find the reads, to find that 2nd look. We talk about it all the time, can the quarterback get through his progressions? I can tell you when he can't get through his progressions...when he is on his back." -Saturday"

"It is malpractice (to take WR over a LT) when there is a player available like Penei Sewell." -Foxworth

"Average QBR for all QBs in the NFL, where there are no losses along the front line, as far as blocking is concerned, is 75. That makes your QB Russell Wilson. The average, when there is at least one loss on the offensive line is 48. That makes your QB last year's Carson Wentz. You want a better QB, get Penei Sewell. He will make your bad QB okay, your okay QB good, your good QB great. That is who you want." -Foxworth

They end the segment with "just look at the Super Bowl." Mahomes had all the weapons but no protection.

Click to expand...


<yawn>
 
Kamelion4291 said:
Then draft one of the second round rated tackles in the second round.
Click to expand...
Or draft one of the first round Tackles at #6. That's an option too.
Both Tackles are expected to go before 10. Sewell, was projected to #2 overall until the Sam Darnold trade. He is a steal at 6.
There will be plenty great WRs in round 2.
 
Wait. This guy is an option too? Sooo many decisions at 6. Pretty good place to be.
 
KingHydra said:
Or draft one of the first round Tackles at #6. That's an option too.
Both Tackles are expected to go before 10. Sewell, was projected to #2 overall until the Sam Darnold trade. He is a steal at 6.
Click to expand...
#2 has been Zach Wilson for months now. The Jets were never, ever going to draft a LT #2 overall, especially one who has smaller arms than people would like for a tackle.

Tackles don't score points, dude. I don't understand how people continue to think that the NFL in 2021 is the same NFL as 1985 where having an elite LT is super important. It's not anymore.
 
Of course, Sewell may not be there. If I'm Cincinnati I have to take him.

In principle, ceteris paribus , they make a decent point. But there are so many variables for which that idea does not account.

1) we drafted two tackles in round 1 and 2 last year. How highly does the FO regard those OTs and their future? We don't know.

2) How much do they value the OTs not named Sewell relative to other talent. In other words, it's not just positionally OT vs WR. It is going to vary based on how you value the talent at OT vs the talent at WR.

In 2019, the top two tackles drafted were Andre Dillard and Tytus Howard. Anyone willing to trade one of the top 3 WRs for either of those OTs?

So it comes down to how you actually value the relative talents of the players. Always. That's where their analysis becomes complex and problematic.

Are they really saying that you would draft Jesse Davis before Smith or Waddle? Anyone think that the team that drafts one of those will trade him for Davis?

I have no problem taking an OT early - If, and there's the rub, If they think the OT on the board is as talented as the WR on the board and is going to dramatically improve the OL and they can utilize one of the drafted OTs at OG. And we don't know how the staff or FO see that.

For me the issue is - which one of the OTs we drafted are we going to shift to OG and will that work? Or, if Sewell is on the board, should we just put him at OG? (personally, in today's game, OG is underrated as a vital cog in both pass pro, run block, and screens - in their ability to move into space, to get to the next level, etc. And great OTs don't mean much if the interior OL is sievelike or getting pushed back into the QB so he has no pocket or throwing lane). And then if one of the OTs don't pan out we could just shift him. I'm actually okay with that track.

I do agree that protecting Tua is vital. In the mocks I do, I usually go WR at 6 but then come back around and try to get both C and either an OT or OG later on (like an Aaron Banks). Yet, at the same time, having a group of receivers who get little separation is going to hurt the passing game and even the protections.
 
Kamelion4291 said:
#2 has been Zach Wilson for months now. The Jets were never, ever going to draft a LT #2 overall, especially one who has smaller arms than people would like for a tackle.

Tackles don't score points, dude. I don't understand how people continue to think that the NFL in 2021 is the same NFL as 1985 where having an elite LT is super important. It's not anymore.
Click to expand...
you need both elite LT and QB..elite LT our more easy find than qb.
 
Da 'Fins said:
Of course, Sewell may not be there. If I'm Cincinnati I have to take him.

In principle, ceteris paribus , they make a decent point. But there are so many variables for which that idea does not account.

1) we drafted two tackles in round 1 and 2 last year. How highly does the FO regard those OTs and their future? We don't know.

2) How much do they value the OTs not named Sewell relative to other talent. In other words, it's not just positionally OT vs WR. It is going to vary based on how you value the talent at OT vs the talent at WR.

In 2019, the top two tackles drafted were Andre Dillard and Tytus Howard. Anyone willing to trade one of the top 3 WRs for either of those OTs?

So it comes down to how you actually value the relative talents of the players. Always. That's where their analysis becomes complex and problematic.

Are they really saying that you would draft Jesse Davis before Smith or Waddle? Anyone think that the team that drafts one of those will trade him for Davis
Click to expand...
The difference is if we draft Waddle or Smith it's ok with me. All 4 picks would help us fill our needs with good value.
Are OTs glorious and exciting? Nope. But they are just as important. I think all O-line picks are about as exciting as watching grass grow but great Tackles are so valuable.
 
The Ghost said:
I get why fans want a shiny new toy on offense, it’s exciting.

QBs will take the OL first every time.

I got Pitts and Sewell at 1A and 1B and that’s only cause I flip flopped about 3 weeks ago. Sewell’s was my target for 6 months prior.
Click to expand...

Can we just do away with the "shiny new toy" mantra? It's an ad hominem.

I grow weary of the "shiny new toy" remark. Yeah, there are times there's some truth. But it's really a non-sequitur and a rhetorical put down with no argument. A large chunk of people on these boards who want receiver could care less about the "shiny new toy." They happen to have watched some of the worst receiving separation on Miami in human history last year and also happen to value Waddle, or Smith, or Chase very highly. While also recognizing more help is needed at OL.

If we took that "shiny new toy" literally, then we should never draft WR in round 1-2. Ever. Always go meat and potatoes over 'shiny new toy.' We may have 7 Pro Bowl calibre O-linemen - but, don't go WR, you just want the "shiny new toy."

If you were a Niners fans, ca. 1985, would you be saying, "I get fans like the shiny new toy in Jerry Rice, but we need Refrigerator Perry to clog the middle, or Trevor Matich to help out on the IOL."

It has nothing to do with toys. It has to do with a) a desperate need for talent at WR; b) there are some uber talented WRs - in the minds of those who want one; c) a sense that we drafted 3 OL from last year who should improve; and d) Also a recognition that OL is still needed.

I do think we still need more help at OL. Esp. OG & C. I am okay with Sewell at 6. But I also think there is a great chance we will be passing up a massive WR talent in Waddle or Smith. I'd probably prefer to trade down to 9 and see if one of those makes it there. And, I also see value on the OL at 18 and to a lesser degree at 36 and 50.

So it's not ignoring OL needs to go WR at 6. It's simply saying, we love this guy here and we want to wait to later and shore up the interior OL.
 
KingHydra said:
The difference is if we draft Waddle or Smith it's ok with me. All 4 picks would help us fill our needs with good value.
Are OTs glorious and exciting? Nope. But they are just as important. I think all O-line picks are about as exciting as watching grass grow but great Tackles are so valuable.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the point. Nothing I argued there goes against anything you are saying?

I'm okay with OT at 6 as well. I'm simply arguing that the theory is dependent on 20 other working parts and my point is in no way devaluing OT.

A great QB is really valuable as well. The most important position on the field. Would you argue we should have traded up from 3 to 2 to get Zach Wilson? Or should we have stayed at 3 to draft a QB?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom