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. Dol-Fan Dupree

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

    40,536
    33,036
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    I am the one acting ridiculous?

    Your A doesn't matter.

    Your B also doesn't matter. Even if Miami wants DT to make the team, doesn't mean drafting a player much better isn't a good idea.
     
  2. Dol-Fan Dupree

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

    40,536
    33,036
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    They say I argue smantics.
     
  3. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    What we would be wasting other than money would be a chance to improve our team as a whole. You can both fill a need and secure a very good player with the 8th overall pick. Drafting a runningback would be hard to swallow with so many glaring needs and some pretty good talent to fill the holes with.
     
    ToddsPhins likes this.
  4. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    semantics have nothing to do with it.
     
  5. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    11,899
    4,851
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    If they drafted a RB instead of Clay Matthews or Greg Jennings maybe they wouldn't have.

    Would Trent Richardson upgrade the offense? Sure. Would he be the upgrade that we need? Not so sure.

    Personally I would argue no we don't, that we would be better off spending that pick on a different player. That RBs have to short a shelf life and the positional value just isn't there.
     
    Fin-Omenal likes this.
  6. Dol-Fan Dupree

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

    40,536
    33,036
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    I agree with that statement. I do not think Trent Richardson is the best allocation of resources. I just do not think it sets the passing game back.

    Basically Trent Richardson would be a step forward for the offense. I agree that he wouldn't be the most efficient step forward, however still an improvement.
     
  7. Oboy

    Oboy Premium Member Luxury Box

    6,980
    2,760
    113
    Jan 3, 2008
    Coral Springs, FL
    Wow. First of all, I am not saying I am in favor of getting Richardson. HOWEVER, the simple truth is we are not going to be able to get a high powered offense in one off season. NO matter what. IN that mode, Boomer is right, we are rebuilding. WHEN you rebuild, you take the BPA. PERIOD. If Richardson is there and you have him rated as a top 5 OVERALL player in this draft, then you take him. When you have a LOT of holes to fill you take the BPA. IF you are one or two players short, then you can take for need. I am not so sure that Richardson would actually help this team, but I'd love to have him back there for when we do get a good QB.
     
  8. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    A position that has minimal value, a position that is not a need?

    If this is the thing to do why didnt the Rams stay put at 2 and select RG3??? Because they are fine at the position and have a slew of other holes to fill.
     
    ToddsPhins likes this.
  9. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    IMO you get the QB and then you can build. Richardson would not be a consideration for me unless Luck, RG3, Tannehill and Weedon were off the board. I they all were all off the board, then I would be okay with it.
     
    Bpk and PhinishLine like this.

Share This Page