1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Tannehill pro day tomorrow.

Discussion in 'NFL Draft Forum' started by Mudder, Mar 28, 2012.

  1. bakedmatt

    bakedmatt Well-Known Member

    2,129
    909
    113
    Mar 29, 2008
    Orlando, FL
    You think so? I figured out QBs would be Moore/Garrard/Tannehill in 2012.
     
  2. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    I do, reason being is 3 Qb's, usually the #3 is a developmental type like a Pat Devlin, if you take Tannehill with the #8 he will play in 2012, or more than likely will play meaning you have 2.5 million dropped on Garrard or Moore and that is not how Ireland does things.

    Would be nice if both Garrard and Moore stood out in the preseason though, but are good Qb's and should have decent trade value.
     
  3. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    11,881
    4,834
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    Both Moore are Garrard only have 1 year deals, I could easily see them both remaining for the season, and then possibly Tannehill taking over next year. I agree, I don't think we move up, though if we really feel strongly on him, the attempt should be made.

    If we don't get him, I think it would depend on who was available what we do. I think Richardson or Reiff would be a waste of a pick personally, the value just isn't there. The only way we go Reiff is if we seriously are concerned about Long's health and future here. Would be hard to pass up on DE's like Coples or Ingram. Richardson I think would be decent to have fall, I could see the Bengals maybe making a move.
     
  4. Boomer

    Boomer Premium Member Luxury Box

    22,623
    50,064
    113
    Nov 30, 2007
    It's about taking talent. Not always about the most obvious decision.
     
  5. Boomer

    Boomer Premium Member Luxury Box

    22,623
    50,064
    113
    Nov 30, 2007
    Really? So you don't think a RT isn't a pretty big deal here?

    And Richardson's one of the best 3/4/5 players in the entire draft. The whole "don't take a back high" thing has to all intents and purposes been removed because of the CBA.
     
  6. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Not at anything inside rd #4, of course we've cycled through 53 Offensive linemen in 4 yrs, have John Jerry on the roster, so of course we should look at him. Heck, let's trade back into rd #1, and take DiCastro, that way we have all high picks on the OL.


    True, if he is APlike, and you need offensive weapons then his value does meet our needs.
     
  7. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    11,881
    4,834
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    No, I don't. I don't doubt they are good players, but the positional value ... a RT at 8? It would make sense for, say, Buffalo at 10 to try him at LT, but really we need to be able to find OL outside of the first round.

    You do raise a good point about the money though with Richardson. But still, RB's have low positional value. As good as AP is, he has been utterly hamstrung by a lack of decent QB play. If Tannehill is gone, I guess he may be in play though. Certainly more so than a RT.

    We really need to start upgrading playmaking ability, so he is valid in that regard.

    Please note that I am not criticizing them as players or prospects, just their positional value, especially in regards to Miami. That said, I wouldn't be stunned to see Ireland do something like that.
     
  8. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    We have a resurgent Reggie Bush and a 2nd rounder at RB....either use Richardson as trade bait or pick someone else.
     
    ToddsPhins likes this.
  9. gunn34

    gunn34 I miss Don & Dan

    21,755
    3,475
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    Oviedo FL
    Long might not last too many more years. Sad to think that, but he hasn't been healthy.
     
  10. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,560
    4,133
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Without a QB, talent won't get you anywhere in today's NFL. Drafting talent (when you lack a QB) gets you 6-10 and 7-9 every year. Enough to keep you out of the running for franchise QB like Luck and RGIII. And with the rookie scale, the drawbacks of missing a QB are pretty much nothing. You simply wasted 1 pick in the first round. Happens to 20+ teams every year.

    It really almost doesn't matter who is available. If they don't play QB, they simply don't have as much value as the guy who does, no matter how much talent they have. And lets cereal here... Running backs specifically have lost tremendous value in the last handful of years. You can compete for a SB without one if you have a franchise QB. And they simply have too short of a shelf life. I said the same for Ronnie Brown too, who I think was considered and even better prospect. Dude could run, catch, block, ran a 4.3, split carries and was "fresh", etc...

    For me, I would rather reach on a QB with potentially a high ceiling (franchise QB) then waste more time drafting positions that in the end, simply don't matter without a guy under center.
     
  11. Boomer

    Boomer Premium Member Luxury Box

    22,623
    50,064
    113
    Nov 30, 2007
    Bush has played 1 good season and stayed healthy for one season. He's also a FA. And Thomas has done what?
     
  12. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    RB for THIS team at pick #8??? Bad idea, IMO.

    Good news is this is all moot because even Ireland isnt that dumb.

    I think.
     
  13. Frumundah Finnatic

    Frumundah Finnatic U Mad Miami?

    39,245
    10,681
    0
    Dec 2, 2007
    Miami FL
    Even recovering from knee and shoulder problems he's still an elite LT.
     
    djphinfan likes this.
  14. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I don't have RB as a need for us, but I might consider Doug Martin in the 2nd, depending on who else is available.
     
  15. Boomer

    Boomer Premium Member Luxury Box

    22,623
    50,064
    113
    Nov 30, 2007
    I don't think you can call anyone dumb for drafting the best back since Adrian Peterson who hs minimal miles on the clock, can catch, has one career fumble, has 49% of career yards after contact and pass protects as well as any back in the NFL.

    But this is why the draft is fun; differing opinions :)
     
    SICK likes this.
  16. Boomer

    Boomer Premium Member Luxury Box

    22,623
    50,064
    113
    Nov 30, 2007
    I don't either. But as BPA? It makes for an interesting conversation.
     
  17. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    I agree. A team becoming a west coast style offense shouldn't be taking a RB with its first pick. That's ridiculous IMO. How does that help the transition? If we wanted to become a power running team and were void of talent, then I could understand it.
     
  18. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Minimal miles hasn't stopped him from already needing surgery. How did minimal miles fare for Ronnie Brown? Minimal miles doesn't make a nascar driver any less prone to accident. The second he steps in the car he's subject to injury. Why would you want to use such a valuable pick on a position most prone to injury, a position that divides snaps, and especially if that position doesn't represent the final piece of the puzzle? If the passing aspect of the offense doesn't take off, then IMO it doesn't matter who we have at running back just as Adrian Peterson currently means little more in Minnesota than a bunch of oohs and aahs.... just as Barry Sanders was never going to get Detroit to a SB on his shoulders.
     
    Fin-Omenal likes this.
  19. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    Terrible argument. Football is a team sport. You can make this argument for every position.
     
    Boomer likes this.
  20. Boomer

    Boomer Premium Member Luxury Box

    22,623
    50,064
    113
    Nov 30, 2007
    Fairly clear that Trent Richardson and Ronnie Brown are too totally different players. The NASCAR thing is totally irrelevent. You're looking at the Draft as a one year deal. Miami is rebuilding and you add good pieces when you can. Elite when you can. I'm not saying should could or will draft Trent Richardson but he'll be in the discussion and if you think any different then you are clueless about the process works.

    It's not about building a WCO offense. What sort of WCO offense is Miami running? 3rd most important part of the original and archetypal WCO? Roger Craig who blocked like Tom Rathman, caught the ball like John Taylor and ran the ball like a factor back.

    It's about pieces of the puzzle.
     
    Stitches likes this.
  21. Boomer

    Boomer Premium Member Luxury Box

    22,623
    50,064
    113
    Nov 30, 2007
    Exactly. It's a ridiculous argument.
     
  22. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    It's not a terrible argument. If we want to be a WCO, then the play of the running back won't be the main determinant of success. Our success will only go as far as the passing game takes us, not a running back. The running back compliments it, but he can't compliment it if it doesn't exist, and until it exists, the bulk or our offensive effort should be placed in trying to make it exist; therefore using a #1 pick on a running back could be considered counterproductive.
     
  23. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Counterproductive? I am sorry, but that is crazy. Having a HOF runningback to compliment the passing offense, would help put it in place.
     
  24. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Sometimes some pieces are less important than others. Did coach Philbin need world beaters at running back to win a SB and subsequently go 15-1?
     
  25. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    So you are saying Philbin wouldn't have won a superbowl and then go 15-1 if he had a world beater at runningback?
     
  26. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    What passing offense? Don't you actually have to have one first in order to compliment it? What's crazy is to simply assume we'll develop a great passing offense, especially if we're dedicating 1st & 2nd round picks to running backs in consecutive years.
     
  27. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    How would having a runningback hurt it?
     
  28. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    Even if Trent is the best prospect since Peterson, he still isnt near the prospect that Adrian was.

    Be good trade bait if he is there and Tannehill and Blackmon are gone....but I see no reason to draft ANY RB at that point.
     
  29. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    are you trying to rationalize GB spending a 1st rounder on a running back even though the result would've been the same? :lol:
     
  30. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    I am trying to figure out how you are trying to make a lick of sense.
     
  31. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    by preventing it from becoming "it"..... or at least delaying the process. How does taking Trent Richardson (and making our RB corps the strongest aspect of our team) help us develop an effective passing game consistent with what you'd expect from the mastermind behind GB's offense?

    Honestly, if we're to build an offense around the passing game, then how does it help us to boost our RB corps to Richardson, Bush, and Thomas while leaving the QB at Moore & Garrard and the WRs at Bess, Hartline, and Gates? IMO it's like Carolina spending a 1st on Jonathan Stewart despite have DeAngelo and holes all around the field. Overkill.
     
  32. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    How would it do either?

    Taking Trent Richardson doesn't hurt creating an effective passing game, and it would make the offense better on a whole.

    Was Carolina switching chefs when they drafted Jonathan Stewart?
     
  33. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Me? you're the one saying GB could've used a 1st rounder on a running back even though they'd still be able to win a SB and go 15-1 without him.


    Perhaps if Green Bay goes back in time and uses a 1st on a running back, then their future changes and never ends up winning a SB or going 15-1. Heck, with that mentality, maybe they pass on Aaron Rodgers entirely considering Favre is already rostered.
     
  34. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    If Green Bay uses a 1st on an Adrian Peterson instead of a Defensive Tackle that ended up not making the team, then they wouldn't be able to win the SB and go 15-1.

    How does that make any sense?
     
  35. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Please reread your post and tell me the flaw in the logic considering the cost involved of adding a world beater running back.
     
  36. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Now you're just coming up with crazy scenarios to support an illogical argument.
     
  37. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    8th pick in the draft, not a big cost at all
     
  38. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Not a crazy scenario, they did draft a Defensive Tackle that didn't make the team.

    Are you just trying to be difficult?
     
  39. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Does Richardson cost money?
    Is there a salary cap?
    Does his money & salary cap prevent us from allocating it toward establishing a passing game?
    Does Richardson cost a valuable draft pick?
    Is a valuable draft pick used on running back one less valuable draft pick that can be used create an effective passing game?

    It doesn't matter if Carolina wasn't switching chefs. It was a bad move period. What's even worse is we're likely trying to transition from a running team to a passing one. At least Carolina wanted to be a running team.
     
  40. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    It is a crazy scenario b/c A. the Packers weren't picking in the top 6 in 2007..... and B. they didn't draft their DT with the hopes that he wouldn't make the team. Quit acting ridiculous.
     

Share This Page