Draft Countdown updated mock 1/18/13

I just can't see Barkevious Mingo being Miami's pick. Not consistent enough.

 

I could see the logic in their draft for Miami. You take from the strength at pass rusher early and then come back in the second round and take advantage of the strength of WRs available there. Notice that neither Hopkins or Bailey was taken in the first.

 

I could see it, but I also do not see the difference at this point in taking Mingo and taking Patterson. In both cases, you are taking the player on what you think they will be able to do rather than what they have shown to this point. Both are tremendous athletes...probably the best athletes in the draft at their respective positions. However, neither have translated that athleticism into dominant production yet.

Considering the needs this team has, and considering that Scott has Johnthan Banks going one pick after Miami's pick, Banks is who I would take.

 

I agree with KB, Banks is who I would take if the draft unfolded this way. FA moves could change my opinion but we currently have no one on the payroll that can play #1 CB and a few below-average quality #2's. Quality WR's can be had in the 2nd round and I don't see starting passrushers as a gaping hole due to my faith in Vernon.

 

This is where a national guy is a little bit at a disadvantage relative to people that follow a team very closely. Wright is ascribing rationale to this situation that is just not in any way in Jeff Ireland's history. Ireland is focused on getting immediate production from his 1st round picks and most of his 2nd round picks as well. He's not going to take a guy thinking he can afford to "bring him along slowly" as a situational pass rusher. That's not in his history. And he's flat out stated it before, too.

If the Dolphins did take a Barkevious Mingo it would be as a SLB replacement for Koa Misi, and that's way too big of a transition to happen in Year 1. Therefore, I consider the chances of Miami going after Barkevious Mingo at pick #12 to be minimal, at best.

 

I just see CB as a lower impact position unless it's a HOF level CB and while I haven't scouted Banks yet, the general opinions I've read project him as a future #2 level CB in the NFL. You can find #2 CBs in many places so you don't need to use your top pick there. Mingo, IMO has more upside than the pass rushers available with our later picks. And I like Bailey and Hopkins more than Patterson.

 

Player development is one of the reasons that we brought in Philbin. If Ireland is adjusting to what the new coach wants then I don't see bringing in a developmental player that you bring along slowly as such a shocking proposition.

 

Given the desire for immediate impact with our first, could someone like Vaccaro (S, from Texas) be in play even though it might be a reach.

 

If the Dolphins are going to go the route of replacing Koa Misi, which after the year he had I seriously doubt, then Dion Jordan and Jarvis Jones are much more in play than Barkevious Mingo.

But overall I don't see any of the three happening. It's not in Jeff Ireland's history to A) Use a high pick to directly replace a productive player that is still under contract, or B) Use a high pick on a player that can expect to be no more than a role player right away.

If they retain Randy Starks then I don't think they use that pick on a defensive lineman period. If they don't, then IMO they're going to steer toward a bigger body to either replace Starks directly or replace Jared Odrick who will move inside. Either way that's not going to be a Barkevious Mingo, Jarvis Jones, Damontre Moore or Dion Jordan.

The most likely picks at that spot in the Draft remain to this day Dee Milliner, Johnthan Banks, Zeke Ansah (pending the Starks situation), Sheldon Richardson (pending the Starks situation), D.J. Fluker (pending the Long situation), Lane Johnson (pending the Long situation), Keenan Allen and Cordarrelle Patterson.

 

That's a thin rationale, IMO. It assumes that player development was not a priority until Philbin became the coach. Which is totally untrue.

 

That could be. I could see that. He'd go on the list.

 

I think player development was absolutely not a priority under Parcells and Sparano. Parcells has always favored vets to rooks. I would say it was glaring enough that player development was talked about throughout the coaching search as a goal. You wouldn't emphasize it so much if it wasn't a deviation from what you did in the past.

As for Mingo or any pass rusher, I think that they were disappointed in their pass rush this year. I I think it's pretty obvious that Misi is unlikely to ever be a great pass rusher. They could think that Vernon may develop into that, but I doubt they're thinking, "we're good enough" in terms of pass rushers. I think it's a priority for them. I see it as part of their stated emphasis on play maker on both offense and defense.

 

A little off the draft topic but NFL radio had Cliff Avril on as a guest earlier this week. He will be an unrestricted free agent. He would command a sizable contract. When asked what situation he would like to go to, he mentioned being from Florida, that he prefers a 4-3 basic alignment and particularly that he prefers a grass field.

Depending on his cost, might it be a good idea to not re-sign Starks, using that money towards Avril. Then our front is Wake-Soliai-Odrick-Avril. How would this compare to our current front? What would Avril's price be?

Then BPA in the first round might be more do-able. Any thoughts?

 

But would they use their first round pick for a developmental player? I don't think we would unless we were already contenders.

But I do agree with you that Parcells didn't give two ****s about developing players. Sparano may have cared just didn't know how.

 

There's very, very, very little evidence to support this. When Parcells came on board he outlined his three keys to building a franchise. They were player acquisition, player development, and coaching. He made it clear that player development was as important as either of the other two. As for your assertion that he prefers veterans and this is evidence that player development was not a focus from 2008 to 2011, it's a simple fact that almost overnight the Miami Dolphins became one of the youngest teams in the NFL, and they remained young through the entire Sparano regime. If anything the opposite of what you say was the case, they were TOO young, and didn't respect the value of veterans ENOUGH, hence they made mistakes like having both corners be rookies in 2009.

1. Koa Misi isn't really relevant to the pass rush situation. They never intended to have to make him a 3rd down pass rush specialist. They were forced into having him do it on occasion because Olivier Vernon was so bad at it, as were every other defensive end other than Cam Wake. When you point out that Misi is not the answer at pass rush, you're not really making a point that's relevant to what I was saying. You're just reiterating what you were already saying which is that Miami could use a situational pass rush. They absolutely could use one, but there's nothing in Jeff Ireland's history suggesting he'd spring a #12 overall pick on a situational player. Koa Misi is a SAM linebacker for them, and a darn good one. If Barkevious Mingo is going to start and play a lot of snaps it would have to be over Koa Misi as a SAM linebacker. Hence, talking about Misi's pass rush prowess is irrelevant.

2. I doubt they're thinking "we're good enough" in pass rush either. But you're making an awfully big leap from that to "We need to use a #12 overall on situational pass rusher". That's like going from a guy complaining that "my back hurts" to predicting he goes in for elective surgery. When Joe Philbin commented on the pass rush the first thing he pointed out was not their shortcomings, but the fact that they were #7 in the league in sacks. That was the first thing he pointed out. After that, he gave the "however" bit about how there's more details you need to look at than that including situational stuff and they can definitely get better in those areas.

3. As for the stated priority of making plays on offense and defense, you're glossing over the language Joe Philbin used. He specifically pointed to TURNOVERS on defense. While this could of course be stretched to include more pass rush, I think it's pretty obvious that means more interceptions.

 

I doubt it happens, for the same reasons that I've been saying the Dolphins seems unlikely to go with a Dion Jordan, Damontre Moore, Jarvis Jones or Barkevious Mingo at 12 overall. Avril would have to come in on a pretty big contract as you say, and they seem intent on having the defensive end opposite Cam Wake be a big and strong player like Jared Odrick. They won't pay Cliff Avril a bunch of money to be a situational guy.

 

I'd doubt it, we need a strongside DE who can get after the passer and handle the run, if signed Avril to a big dollar deal, it would basically be to do Wake's role.

Tampa however, is one of the teams with a lot of cap room, and the Jags are eternally searching for a pass rushing De.

 

I see Mingo as being this year's Bruce Irvin. It's possible IMO that he could go 12th overall, even if he were not looked at initially as a base defense starter, but a big contributor in the nickel, playing opposite Wake at DE. Play about 500 snaps, get 10 or so sacks along with a bunch of other QB disruptions.

 

IMO if Jeff Ireland did that it would be a significant departure from his history and his stated philosophies.

 

I think it's pretty obvious that player development was not a priority and that it is a priority under Philbin. I think they would use a first round pick on a developmental player if they thought he could be a play maker immediately. A pass rusher would be a defensive play maker and that would include creating turnovers.

 

Obvious?

Is it based on anything? Anything whatsoever that you can point to?

 

Ireland is obssessed with snap counts, he has mentioned this several times in terms of high draft choices.

IMO, this is one of his flaws as a GM, he'd prefer "solid and dependable contributor" over "playmaking talent"

 

It was obvious from the day Philbin was hired (and during the search) that developing players was something they wanted to new staff to do differently. I would say developing players and transparency were by far the two most frequently cited goals for the new regime. Whenever you have a change in regime you see what's going to be different stated over and over again. Those were two areas that were lacking under Parcells and two areas they hoped would be different under Philbin. I think you see the under-lying philosophy in their QB choices. Henne was one of Parcells' 4 year starters while RT was almost universally described as raw and needing time to develop. I don't think RT would have been selected under Parcells and obviously he was under Philbin. I think that's an example of a different philosophy being in place.

 

"Solid and dependable contributor" and "play making talent" are not necessarily mutually exclusive descriptions. You can be both. This makes me think of the idea that all play making wide receivers are divas. No, they aren't. You don't have to accept a diva attitude to have a play making wide receiver.

 

The difference IMO is, Mingo would be brought in to be a part time player. If you are drafting a WR in the 1st round you probably have not signed a #1 WR meaning he will have to give you immediate production if you want to help Tannehill progress next year. You can't necessarily count on that from Patterson.

 

I think Irelands focus will be more on play makers this year. This is now a points first league. Defense comes second. I think we draft a guy who can make impact plays and put points on the board. WR or CB for our #12 pick.

 

I agree on Jordan/Mingo. I'm actually not much of a Mingo fan. But I do think that both the teams stated emphasis on play makers, developing players and the talent in this draft make them possibilities. I do also think that Banks and Coradelle are possibilities for the same reasons. I just don't think they're good choices. With Banks b/c the position has less impact and you can find similar impact CBs in FA and later in the draft. With Banks it's b/c there are so many good WRs that will make it to round 2 where we have two picks.

 

I think the whole WildCat with Henne & Pat White is evidence of their lack of a development first attitude. They used the WildCat even though it was detrimental to Henne's development and quickly jettisoned Pat White for not being instantly great at it.

 

It's highly unlikely that any rookie receiver will come in and be that mythical #1 guy right off the bat anyway.

As an aside, we should really get off this idea that Miami needs a #1 wide receiver. I'm not even sure what #1 wide receiver means, other than someone that is a target hog that takes away from the other receivers on the team. You don't need a #1 wide receiver to win in the NFL. You do need a solid mix of talent at the position though.

Miami's biggest need is for speed and big play ability.

 

I agree with it being a flaw if it's all you're interested in, but if we go after and get playmakers in this draft/FA then, as part of a strategy, I'd argue that it's pretty sound. Yes, you want and need playmakers, but you also need more players on the team that can be relied on to play to a high enough level to allow those playmakers to make the difference.

Odrick is a case in point, not really a playmaker but he contributes on all three downs and will have a high snap-count as a result. Could you replace him with a DE that gets to the quarterback more often, yes probably, but you might lose the ability to slip in as a DT when needed and to get pressure from there on 3rd down.

High snap-count players are just as necessary as playmakers.

 

Sort of like "player development" was constantly spoken by Parcells and Ireland as one of the three main core tenets of building the franchise?

Let me make sure I'm getting this right.

The Dolphins have a new commitment to player development with Joe Philbin as the coach, which makes them more likely to take a player that is considered a "project" and may need some time to develop properly and won't play as much right away.

And the evidence of this change in philosophy is the new Dolphins taking Ryan Tannehill in the Draft (whom they started immediately from Day 1), whereas the old Dolphins took Chad Henne in the Draft (whom they let sit on the bench for more than a year until their starter got hurt).

Am I getting that right?

That seem whacky to anyone else?

 

They took Henne because they thought he could start right away. They didn't sit him for development, they sat him because of Penny. Tannehill was supposed to sit, but Garrard got hurt and Tannehill was spanking Moore in camp.

Just because things ended up the way they did does not prove intent.

 

I agree that we don't need a #1 WR. I would characterize it as needing WRs that attack all areas of the field (as a unit) and have skill sets to attack varied defenses (again as a unit). I think we lack WRs and TEs that threaten deep and we lacked players with the physical presence to be endzone threats.

 

The term for what Parcells was doing is "lip service". And yes, drafting RT instead of a Henne is one example. Based on the first few comments from others after my post, I don't think many will consider it "whacky".

 

Again with the "play makers" quote on defense. Joe Philbin didn't say that in his off season Q&A. Here is what he said.

That's what he said. Take note of it.

 

They grabbed Pennington specifically to put Chad Henne on the bench. That's just a fact. They said Henne was probably going to start because he was the best in camp, but then Pennington came available and they grabbed Pennington so that Henne could sit. And they continued sitting Chad Henne in 2009 too, until Pennington got hurt.

How the Tannehill situation is in any way whatsoever different is beyond me. There's some revisionist history going on.

 

And yet you can't give a single piece of evidence to support your point. The piece of evidence you offered actually was antithetical to your point.