Always with the negative waves Killahp, always with the negative waves.. Actually there was talk in 09 that Vontae would make a better Safety than Cb, there was some about Smith making the switch but not as much as VD. Scary? Compared to Chris Clemons at FS? And they let Nate Jones walk, they have someone in mind for the nickel, to me JA's play in the Steelers and Patriots games should be enough to move him to that role, though Will Allen is a natural #3 cb imho. Then there is the JA at Fs option.. To me, they were only seeing what Clemons had in OTA's, Culver is the default Starter, maybe JA. And there is a real chance Will Allen will not be 100% for the Season Opener.
Respectfully disagree. Although I do agree that we great depth at the QB position, and I agree it's better than our depth at LT, I still think losing Henne would be a bigger blow than losing Jake. And that's because I think Henne really steps up his game this year. A very good QB can get by with a serviceable LT. But I don't think a pro bowl left tackle helps a mediocre QB play much better. Just my opinion, and I understand yours. I think I'm just seeing a little more in Henne at this point.
9 weeks and hundreds of hours to get it done Killahp. The idea of putting Clemons at FS offers the same problems, only he has less experience, that leaves Culver, and he is not very athletic. It would be great if Rashad Jones of Amaya can surprise everyone in TC and the preseason, because as soon as Wilson was cut, and Nate Jones left, this problem was created, I have to think they have someone in mind for the position.
You can take any rookie cornerback and put him on an island and I promise you that he will have his struggles. If you think any cornerback will come in this league and be a shut down defender, you're fooling yourself IMO. Sean Smith is still new in this league and new to his position. Vontae Davis, for as long as he's been playing his position, he was not as consistent as Smith was coming out. Both of those guys were expected to struggle. IMO they did a pretty good job last year considering the position they were put in.
Forgive me if I am wrong here but didn't you offer to trade him earlier this off-season? Gardner is a quality talent that has good feet and is physical.
If somebody did that it would be an example of someone over rating a player, which is what this thread is about. IMO people did that with Davis last year where they down played the struggles and over emphasized the big plays.
From what I've seen on these boards, most of the posters have been pretty fair in their assessment on Vontae Davis.
If by "every once in a while" you mean LED THE LEAGUE IN THIRD DOWN CONVERSIONS, you might have a point.
talent-wise the NFL has tremendous parity across the board. Miami has few positions untested & only one uncertain: Freesafety should be an interesting year, w/ luck & coaching we will contend our edge is not in player personal but in coaching & training on paper not much difference than any other NFL team, in a word "parity" however we play the game on the field, that is where we win or lose can't wait for the team to be ready & our first game played
The only thing against that argument is if Henne goes down and Chad P comes back and plays at his '08 form we're going to be really really happy especially with Marshall. Penny at his 08 form, you know 3700+ yards 17 tds 7 ints take out Ted Ginn put in Brandon Marshall? If Penny ends up alright (and this last surgery was much less than the others don't count him out) we have the best backup QB in the league period.
They have the potential to be, sure. There's no way they were going to come in their rookie years and not make mistakes, however.
Certainly, liking a player and trading them are two different things. Gardner has all the tools (imho) to be a good LT, however with Big Jake locked in, he won't play, but he is a valuable asset to trade for a draft pick or a needed player. I also happen to think Murtha or Garner can play LT, not at Big Jake levels, but acceptably well, especially Murtha if he stays healthy, so if stockpile talent, sooner or later the polished player has to move up to being a Starter, or they should be traded off for assets as valuable. I'd showcase Gardner in the preseason this yr Big Jake doesn't need the reps, and AG has to show what he can do as the #2 LT. Strictly my .02.
Doesn't make sense to me though. Why move your backup LT? You're only creating another hole. Murtha struggles to stay healthy and Garner is injured right now. Who knows if he gets injured again. Why ruin good depth?
Not really Alen, think about it the Walsh/49er/qb factory, they could afford to trade off that talent because they had a system for developing more Qb's. And Murtha, for all of his athleticism, has to prove he isn't Joe Toledo, before he can compete for Gardner's #2 LT role, but he should also be pushed by Garner and whomever else they like to play LT, that is how the system should work. #1 LT Long #2 LT Gardner #3 Murtha/Garner/Whomever. all the way down the practice squad players, with LT's commanding millions of dollars, it only makes sense to view them as developmental assets to be moved along if they can play. The Cowpokes are still reaping the benefits of that system, Doug Free is their LT and the cut Adams without batting an eye, but he's been there since Tuna ran the place. However the Cowpokes are hitting the Dregs level of what Tuna et al did in Dallas, in Miami as a philosophy why not develop LT's for trade over the long term?
That's basically what I said above. Because you're only creating holes for yourself. Sorry but this still makes no sense to me.
Well, it is nuanced Alen, one said "Murtha is injury prone" I said he has to show he is no longer injury prone. Health and Stamina is a Talent that has to be shown by a player. Then why trade: Montana Bono Hasselback Brooks Whitehurst Etc? Athletes are fungible assets to be developed, then traded for value. Put it another way, if Long shows he can play, and he has, and Gardner can show he can play, wouldn't that A)establish a track record of developing LT's B) created a asset to be redeemed for value? Is Gardner THAT singular an athlete? No, not really, spend 2yrs in Miami behind Long with Gugs and Sparano working on his technique and a good college Tackle can be trained to play in the NFL by that system. What would a Day 1, starting Left Tackle be worth in trade? a #2 pick? I'd think a #2 especially if an injury hits in training camp. The Charger are looking squarely at opening the season with Tre Thomas at LT..what would they pay for a better option. THAT is how a GM has to think.
I'm so confused. Why would you move Andrew Gardner if Murtha hasn't been able to stay healthy since his early college years? It's fairly obvious you can't rely on him, no? They had guys who could or have replace(d) them if I remember correctly. We don't have that. We have a starter but if he goes down, we don't have a guy who we can count on. Nate Garner should stay at G IMO. And if Long gets injured? You trade Gardner, you are strengthening another squad and have to find another guy to develop at the position. That still makes no sense to me. If I have quality depth, why would I get rid of it? Especially at a position like left tackle. He's got to think about his own team too. Yeah, he's getting a pick back but what if his starter gets injured and you dealt the guy who is a quality replacement? You going to put in that guy who is still developing? I wouldn't. I'd rather have Gardner.
That is what Training Camp and the preseason is for, keep in mind Murtha is competing for the BACKUP LT job, he has a long hill to climb and several things he has to show before he can move Gardner off of the backup job. That is why Health is a Talent. Garner kinda soft and not powerful, he has some things he has to show as well. That's why you have a Staff of Oline afficionados Alen, the only way Gardner is moved on is "if" Gugs and Sparano and Irish are certain whomever is behind him has the same potential to Start if needed. And flip the question, what "if" Long starts 120 games in a row? Now that is odd, Big Jake had clear flaws coming into the NFL, yet they still made him the #1 overall, the reason for that is he was identified as being a great prospect at LT, does one suppose the same eye that identified Jake Long now goes blind when looking at his backups? Wanny would have, but even he identified Adawale and developed him, talent recognition and development is a part of the modern NFL, of course Wanny blew the trade of OGun, I doubt Irish would do the same with a promising Left Tackle who is very likely to sit on the bench for years..
Padre, please don't take this the wrong way. I respect your opinion but sometimes you're replies to my statements I can't figure out at all. I am not sure if you are debating me or yourself. Again, no offense intended, I respect your opinion. Maybe I'm just slow because some of this makes no sense to me. I agree with you that Murtha has a long way to go. I personally don't think he's going to amount to much, not enough to be comfortable to trade our backup LT IMO. Garner is a Guard IMO and he should stay there IMO. That's a big if on Long. 120 games is possible but an injury is possible at any time. IMO, you need to have a good backup in case he does get injured. No, the same eye does not go blind. However, IMO you shouldn't have a constant change along the offensive line. If you develop a quality offensive lineman, you shouldn't deal him and repeat that process often. You need continuity IMO, even if it is backup OL.
No surprise, no offense taken Bro. Who knows? Murtha is but one, best believe they have several, of all things Sparano will not be caught short of Olinemen. Too soft at the POA, imho he is a LT/Swingman type. Of course, you probably need several of them from the #1 LT, Big Jake, to a practice squader like Andrew Hartline, they all are in various stages of development from Pro Bowler to "needs to reshape his body", the point is the System that creates and coaches them up at every level of the process. And that is where we disagree, basically that would be paying a player to be a backup, no matter how valuable they may be elsewhere, to sit and create a logjam behind them. And I'm not saying a guy who hasn't played even significant time in the preseason, is somehow worth a #2 pick, what I am saying is the system should be designed to create players, who never Start, but are worth value elsewhere. Like MLB's minor league system, A and AA and AAA, and then the League. Which is a part of the reason why I'm a massive fan of a NFL minor league, i'd much prefer Murtha to have snaps in a NFLDL than to have all of the what ifs around him, ditto Gardner. Or my guy Tsoumpas..
I have seen people on here call Dansby the second best ILB in the NFL multiple times. He is overrated.
Wow. That was random. After reading Padre and Alen's posts for 10 straight minutes, I didn't expect this, lol. I agree, though. As a fan base, we do overrate him. Maybe it's because of the contract or who he is replacing. I don't know. He is a top 12 linebacker, at least. And he's show that he can be a top 5 ILB.
It was random because I didn't read through any of the thread and I just wanted to reply. lol It is because of the contract, and because he is such an upgrade over who he's replacing that he is overrated. Jets fans did the same exact thing with Bart Scott last year. Both are good players, but not elite.
if I may interject into your conversation with Pod..I believe in the philosophy he's trying to explain... I would say using the backup qb as an example is comparable... to me, the goal when you have an entrenched player on your team, is to develope the backup to a point where he starts to garner interest from other teams, once he does, if you can get a higher pick then which you invested, you think strongly on making the move, thank your staff and system for the process, never look back, and start all over again, Then, use that higher return investment on some other weakness thats on your team.. If the backup of an entrenched player, becomes a good player, it doesn't make sense to let that good player sit and wait when you can use that talent that's in limbo to upgrade another part of your roster that needs it. I do think each case is subjective, and you may manipulate the philosophy sometimes, but were talking about a Jake long type here so I think in this case, the system of developing and moving the player for a higher investment, is in full effect for the next 10 years.
But what if your starter gets injured and you're left with the developmental tackle? To use the quarterback example, this reminds me of the situation in Atlanta when Michael Vick got busted for the dog fighting ring and they had traded away Matt Schaub, who is a good quarterback now. They had to rely on Chris Redman and Joey Harrington to lead their team IIRC. Those guys weren't going to do the job and they ended up picking in the top five. Yes, they got Matt Ryan but Ryan wouldn't have been necessary if they hadn't dealt their quality backup. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll gladly admit if I am. It just doesn't make sense to me to develop a player at a position that takes a couple years and then deal him. If we were talking about cornerbacks or another position, alright, but we're talking about along the offensive line. That's not something I would ruin. JMO.
I haven't see that myself, but imo, I have my own doubts as to where his expectation are being set...I have some questions about his body and his quickness, and until I see him on our field, i will not rate where he stands next to the other great inside backers.
because keeping a player that's on the cusp, that other teams want, thats behind an entrenched player, because of a hypothetical injury, is not a luxury in the GM world..jmo
I understand but IMO, you have to act like there will be an injury eventually. If not, that's great. If so, you know you have guys who can step in and do the job. We'll just agree to disagree because this seems to be going nowhere lol.
lol....there's no doubt risk and possible regret is involved either way, keeping a good player behind your absolute starter because you fear injury instead of moving him to upgrade the rest of your roster, is a risk {the good backup may never play, while you could of moved that asset to upgrade the rest of the roster} Developing and moving the player when you get an offer, then having your starter get injured is the other scenario and risk.. Its all part of the game of being a GM don't ya think, choose your style. If it's me, and I spent a 6th round pick on a project, I then have my staff develope that project, as long as I can get an offer that is a considerable upgrade in value thru the draft, I make the move. but it does have to be considerably better, otherwise I stick to your philosophy... Maybe that's the question you should ask yourself...what's your pricetag on reasonable upgrade in value in this specific situation?...how much ugrade do you need to make the move, reasonable speaking, to change your philosophy?
I think there are a few dynamics that need to be examined if we are to accurately examine this little quandry. First of all, I like Alen will be damned if I am going to let someone with prim time talent walk in favor of a draft pick (which is the ultimate unknown if you truly stop and think about it, unless you get that blue chip rookie who comes and just takes over). In my mind there should only ever be very few reasons to trade away quality players backup or starter. 1). The incumbent is in an serious contract negotiation/holdout. In this instance I take it that you've already used the Franchise Tag, don't want to keep using it to eat massive holes in your cap figure, and that the two sides are just widely apart, there is now bad blood like T.O. in Philly etc. In basic terms, both sides are in a situation where there will be no solution other than to part ways. There is no resolution. 2). The player in question has significant wear and tear on his body. The best way to describe this scenario may be using Willis McGahee. The Bills traded a player that falls under what Bill Walsh used to say (IIRC) "It is better to trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late." It could be the team that lets him go knows the player doesn't have much left or has bad knees for example etc. Otherwise I would have a hard time letting go of any player that I find valuable. Just because teams are willing to give you a high pick for a player doesn't mean that you do it. I see some have used the Joe Montana vs Steve Young argument in this thread as a means to justify their position. In reality Joe Montana was traded only after it became clear he was not the player of old. In short, Joe got old, got injured and and got expendable. Steve Young waited I think maybe 4 years before he really got his shot to start full time. That mean the Forty Niners held on to Young for that period, they didn't trade him. Even when they did in fact have Steve Bono as well. They didn't trade any of them for a while, until they could keep them all anymore. Only when it became necessary did they do it. Otherwise it was like having an extra Ace in poker, you save that bugger for the big time. I'm sure teams called them inquiring about his services especially when it became clear he was a talent. But, for some reason the 49ers never wavered. Why? Because a good GM knows you don't trade or release talent unless you absolutely have to. Do you think the Pats would have traded away Matt Cassel (sp) if he wasn't in fact going to be a FA? Think they'd have kept him? Probably. Why? Cause you don't give away talent if you can avoid it. Now, some will say that you never stop looking for talent and that a good GM turns over their roster. Yes that is true. But, you don't make changes for changes sake, you do them because you feel you can make your team better. Draft picks are nice, but rarely does a team trade away a player at a position they then have to replace via the draft. Teams that do trade for picks, will likely use the pick on another position, or maybe even trade that same pick for a proven veteran player. You do want more picks sure, but to a point, then you just become a young team without many veterans; which isn't good. It is often said, your team is only as good as your depth. Good teams are able to roll through injuries because there are quality players on the bench. Those same players could in fact be starters for other teams, yet the team in question typically has little interest in letting them walk. Why? You can never have enough talent. Period. I will only trade it away when I can no longer find a spot to put them.....anywhere. I'd hire them as trainers if I could get away with it. Just think about how the Pats have had all of these picks in recent years and how poorly they have worked out for them thus far. There is a limit to everything, and nothing is steadfast, but in reality taking futures as a replacement for tangible players now isn't always the best thing. Especially in a win now league. Depth is paramount in FA, it's cheaper to keep your own talent than to acquire some one else's it usually involves huge signing bonuses and or draft picks. A good GM sees talent progressing and does well to extend the contract long before the player gets to the "show me the money paydays". That's being proactive, saving cap room, and planning for the future. I will give up talent, but usually only when it gives me a direct tangible benefit right now. Draft picks are nice, but you don't want to use them to replace talent right now. Picks usually take time, and as such you can't count on them to produce right now. The best teams are the ones that don't require their rookies to be pro bowlers to start, like Pittsburgh, Colts etc.
Thats excellent analysis Con....My point of view on this subject strictly comes from a player on the roster that is firmly entrenched as your future starter, taking into account some variables, especially the youth of that starter.. Unless the backup can switch a position, and provide an upgrade at that position, I don't see how you can use such an absolute theory that you would'nt move the player for the right price....almost everybody is available for the right price...
What if the price ends up being your job. Brandon Marshall and Jay Cutler were dealt under that assumption and Josh "Chicken" McNuggets is on the hot seat big time. Why? He traded away proven talent for unproven talent, and in both cases he did not at lest not yetget back what he gave up. Also, I did say things get fudged and nothing is absolute IIRC, so got that one covered. Just saying in general that's what i go by, in so much as I could get out in a response to the thread anyways.
Ah but conu, you mention the Pats, is there a team in the NFL that has done a better job of acquiring draft picks for fading talent? Or even primed to start talent such as Matt Cassel? Now where we can agree is Belicheck the GM has been moving Dimitroff the GM player in exchange for those picks, and doing a horrible job of identifying young talent. However their System has proven itself year in and year out.
Their drafts have been crap, and if you put Richard Seymour in there he has hardly faded as much as he has just gone to Oakland. Most of their picks have been acquired by trading down in the draft, not trading away players for those picks. They have moved down in the draft for years and collected a majority of their picks that way. Where do those players like Cassel come from? Did they just acquire them? No, they kept them and only lost him because he was a FA, not via trade. If they had the room, and if it wouldn't have made for news in terms of how much money they were willing to ay Cassell, do you think things are different. Getting picks and squandering them or lesser talent is not a defense of the tactic, it is more of a indictment due to the number of resources they had available to them. The more chances you have the more likely you are to hit more often, (thats the way it is supposed to work) not continue to miss at a even higher rate, then find a couple of mediocre players and claim victory. Their depth made them win, and if they traded it away as you suggest, they never would have had it to begin with.
Deion Branch, Seymour, Cassell. Cassell left via trade, and his Fa status is the other issue, the days of just burying a talented player for 6 to 8 yrs as a backup are long gone Conu. GM's have to evolve, along with player developmental philosophies. Put it this way, "if" Doug Free had been a phin and buried behind Jake Long, how long would you suggest you keep him as a bench warmer until he leaves via Free Agency? Their depth was developed over time by coaching up talent, then moving a Vet for picks, the fact they have drafted poorly means nothing in predicting what Irish, or any GM would do with the same picks, the point is to acquire them via player development, then trade.
As long as he provided us with what I considered adequate depth at the position then he can stay forever. The reason? It allows me to use my drafts and FA differently, as I wouldn't have to try and find a quality backup at one of the hardest positions to find to begin with. Sometimes the greatest cost is the cost of what you let go, not what it costs to keep it. Keeping something valuable is not a cost, it is an asset, assets take resources to manage sure, but ask someone what costs more; taking care of an asset you already have or trying to replace one you let go? You cant trade what others don't value and I don't see people lining up to acquire their players anymore. Their depth was made over time, but if you keep trading away that talent it is for naught. They needed the time to get there, that doesn't happen by trading them away.
Ah, however the reality is, FA means he wouldn't be there forever. So would you let him walk via FA, or try to trade him? An asset is not an asset unless it's value is realized, one can stockpile milk, however chances are good one would never use it quickly enough before it has to be discarded. Really? What do you suppose they receive for Logan Mankins? Matt Light could easily be peddled for value as well with Volmer and Kaczur taking their place. The only thing that makes LT different for the Dolphins is Jake Long is likely to be the starting LT for a very very long time. But you still have to develop backups..which would be valuable in trade..which is my point.
This will be unpopular; but I think Randy Starks is overrated. At 305 lbs he is just to light to be the savior that he is being made out to be at NT. (however he is an excellent player at other DL positions)
