Sports Buzz: A look at where Dolphins stand offensively and potential solutions

I've listened very closely, and on multiple occasions, it's how he feels..

Do you just want him to be more of a team player?

 

I don't think your notion about not drafting runningbacks in the first two rounds is a notion at all reflected in the realities of successful teams.

A lot of teams in the playoffs have done exactly that, and virtually all of those who haven't have either have made big splashy acquisitions in FA/Trade. The exceptions are basically the Cardinals, and the Cowboys whose entire season has basically come riding Demarco Murray.

 

Should I post a lengthy list of all RBs drafted in the first couple of rounds since 2000 that have been busts?

 

Who would you say protects the QB better, gives us the best chance to win...

A beastly guard like this dude http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MWV9n47XFMk

Or a beast of a back.?

 

You can do that for every position.

Regardless of how you want to define "success", be it starts, Pro Bowls, All-Pros, etc. and so on there isn't really an empirical measure that's going to tell you that the position is notably risky in the first two rounds.

 

I'm not sure either one is more or less "protective". A quality running game is in a sense quite protective as well.

It's worth saying I'm not sure I think the Dolphins should pick a RB high. Lamar Miller was quite good, and they don't run the ball that much. I just think there's nothing wrong with the idea of doing it.

 

Well, if I'm Hickey, and I have Ryan tannehill, I think priority one is protecting and helping the Qb, so I think a hi level of resource is gonna have to be spent on three positions..guard..back..receiver..

 

Cutting Dallas Thomas and replacing him with a corpse would be an improvement.

 

I think that for this team - as in the 2015 Dolphins - its a safer, and probably sounder bet to pick up a veteran back who can run inside and get the hard yards, rather than drafting one. There will likely be a number of plausable options in free agency, and running backs aren't exactly breaking your salary cap these days. I am in no way suggesting that I feel that the position should be the team's top priority (or second or third), but it should be one that can get a satisfactory band aid while others are given high draft picks and/or big deals in free agency.

 

I'm thinking Mark Ingram.

Vet, not much wear and tear, runs inside, can block and catch. Nice fit imo.

 

I like Ingram alot, but his lack of size concerns me. Especially if we intend to use a guy like him between the tackles. How big is he any way?

 

He's 5'9 and 215-220.

 

Ingram would be my first choice, but he'll likely be the first choice of several teams too. Might drive the price up.

 

How many FA G's can kick over to LT? Drafting a LT and breaking him in as a LG makes the most sense. It's a nice insurance policy for an aging and often injured Albert. I'd love to get a playmaker, but not at the risk of Tannehill's life. Which going into year 4 is in danger... over 135 sacks in three seasons is not OK. Period. This offensive line has ruined two straight seasons and didn't do us big favors in 2012 either.

I prefer the GB model of WR drafting. There are plenty of quality WR's in the second and third rounds. In fact, Robinson was my favorite of the group last season and he had a strong year w/injuries and a rookie QB and went in round 2. If we had followed GB's model, we could have guys like TY Hilton, Keenan Allen, Allen Robinson, Muhammad Sanu, etc... by now. All quality starters. Unless Julio Jones 2.0/AJ Green 2.0/Dez Bryant 2.0 are available at 14, I don't think the need matches the value.

1a. LT to LG
1b. MLB
3. RB/Melvin Gordon

This is my preferred order of needs in round 1. I highlight RB because of Melvin Gordon only. Would prefer Gurley, but I don't think he makes it to us in round 2. While RB is in need of an upgrade (Miller isn't special, he's a productive starter), it's not nearly as much of an issue as the first two. But I could live with Gordon and be happy we'll have an immediate impact player.

 

I've been thinking the same thing lately with respect to drafting a LT and moving him to guard as a rookie. It's certainly not something that's without precident. I can recall a few HOF calibre guys who started that way.

I was also thinking about the possibility of that with a veteran player. What if St Louis cuts our old pal Jake Long? I'm not saying give him the world, but if he's willing to take the salary of a guy competing for a job and kick inside to RG?

 

Green Bay is a great example of drafting WR. They get it. They always have elite #1 WRs and a #2 WR that has #1 upside. For the past 20 years they have done it perfect. Never a down year at WR.

Sharpe/Brooks
Brooks/Freeman
Freeman/Driver
Driver/Jennings
Jennings/Nelson
Nelson/Cobb

Adams was drafted last year and is waiting in the wings. GB does it right.

We don't have #1 WR. Whether its round 1, 2 or 3 we need to have people in the organization that are smart enough to understand the skill set needed to be a #1 WR in the NFL. A good example is Bryant from the Steelers. He was drafted after Landry but has the tools of a potential #1 WR. Landry does not have that skill set, yet we drafted him instead. The vision is not there. Landry is a good player but not the #1 that we truly need.

Playmakers must be a priority. Most of the playoff teams are loaded with a variety of skilled offensive players. I believe we have a very good QB. We need to give him some weapons. I can't see how Tannehill can ever take it to the next level with the WR corps currently at his disposal. Its the wrong combination of skills. In fact Its too much of the same limited skill set.

 

The saddest thing is that our WR position is currently WAY better than it was 3 years ago when Tannehill came on board. He was throwing to Legadu Naanee and an over-the-hill Chad Johnson in practice at one point! How bad is that?

Thank God we had Hartline at the time! At least now we have Hartline, Gibson, Sims, Clay, Wallace, Landry, Matthews, etc. That may not be outstanding but it's a hell of a step up towards being competitive.

That said, I totally agree. Most of the elite teams are 3-4 guys deep: Denver, Pittsburgh, Green Bay today or Indy circa 2006, NE circa 2008, Atlanta circa 2012, etc.

 

"We have 4s, 5s and 6s. We need 3s, 2s and 1s." ~Jeff Ireland in 2012

And here we are 3 years later and we arguably only have 4s, 3s, and 2s...

 

need to use our first two picks on a NT & a G or IL... we need another KICKER
& DC, then resign starters

 

Our defense can't be ignored to. Here's how I'd like to see it go:

Re-sign: Clay
Re-sign: Knowshon. Why? He's already got the rep for being injury prone. Get him on a cheap deal and make him work. Not a bad option to bring into camp as a 3rd/4th guy.
Re-sign: Samson Satele...purely as a backup.

Free Agency:
Guard (Franklin/Boling etc) for LG. This slots Turner/Shelley (if not cut) and mid to late round draft picks/veteran signings to compete for that RG spot. Turner is a bulldozer and should win it.
Backup swing tackle. Bring in someone with veteran exp whose at least played a few games there admirably. Someone who can 'actually' fill in for Albert.
FS - If you can get a quality starter..go for it. Otherwise I'd rather go with a Delmas type situation again while grooming Aikens and another young mid round guy to eventually start.
DT - Likely need 2 DT's. Duh for Suh...but if not I'd like to try and get Dan Williams and then partner him up with a high draft pick and Earl Mitchell as the 2nd/3rd depending how fast the draft pick hits.
WR - Cecil Shorts.
CB - Pick up a veteran to compete against draft picks

Draft:
1st: DT Danny Shelton
2nd: LB Perryman or Kendricks. Would take either.
3rd: WR Vince Mayle 6-3 240lb WR to use in the red zone.
4th-7th Stock up on corners and OL. Double dip on each.

 

They have been able to ride Murray because they have invested heavily in their OL.

 

That's silly. Give the guy a little credit. He is better than a corpse...but a zombie though, now that would be an improvement.

 

Drop Gibson and/or Mathews. Try and get Larry Fitzgerald; if nothing else to keep him out of NE.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk 4

 

Am I the only one that would rather keep Gibson instead of Hartline?

 

He is in a contract year and knows he'll get a bigger pay day as a C than a G.

 

The problem with drafting a LT and playing him as a G is that you over pay (in terms of draft position) for a G. Your more likely to get a better true guard with a lower pick.

 

That's not true. Overpaying in the draft only exists for a player you could have gotten later or if the player busts out. Outside of grabbing a STer high, you can't really overpay based on position. The draft is about acquiring talent, and if you nab a 10 year starter for the oline that can play tackle & guard at a high level, then nab that guy and don't look back.

 

Fin D is right. The pay is based on the draft slot, not the position now. As long as a guy is a starter, you aren't overpaying.

 

I would rather keep Hartline than any other WR or TE on our roster. Unfortunately, Lazor doesn't seem to think much of him though. Gibson's contract makes him the much more likely cut between the two.

 

Why? He is literally the worst WR we have. The ONLY thing he can do better than anyone else on the team is sideline catches.

 

I agree with the first 2, but please NO to a running back in the first round. RBs are a dime a dozen these days.

 

My point is that left tackles generally come off the board higher than guards. If you are going to draft a guy who was a marginal Tackle in college but you feel he can be converted to a guard than you will likely have use a higher pick on him than if you targeted a guy who was a guard in college. Much the same way James was under valued in the draft simply because he had played on the right side in college.

 

I meant overpaying as in using a higher draft pick not salary.

 

I don't think that was his point. I think his point was that grab a future LT that can play guard until Albert is gone.

 

He does seem have an elusiveness in the redzone that we lack in Hartline. He's a good possession target to have near the endzone.

Unfortunately he just hasn't been healthy enough to find his spot in this system and justify his contract. Also, the younger cheaper Landry seemed to have commandeered his would-be role.

Let's not forget that the "speaking for Wallace" stunt may have sealed both their fates with regard to this regime.

 

I can't speak for him, but I'm all for drafting a tackle to move to guard, and keep at guard, if thats what the situation shows is the available option. If he can recover from his injury (and it looks like he's going all out to do so), then I would hope that Albert is our LT for the next four seasons or so.

 

I think we can get weeded up in all kinds of philosophical questions with respect to smart allocation of resources and how which teams do this or that and the success they've had.

Bottom line to me though, the reason this team is always stuck in the mud at 7-9 or 8-8, is we just don't have enough star players. We don't have enough talent. The coaching obviously doesn't help either. We are just not good enough.

We have Cameron Wake. He's a guy you could count on consistently year to year and game to game to be a star when you need it. Branden Albert performed at that level but only for 8 games before injury. Brent Grimes stopped performing at that level about three quarters of the way into the year. Ryan Tannehill, well...can of worms. Randy Starks gave about half a year of quality play. Jared Odrick hasn't taken that next step to being a real star. Reshad Jones turned in a good year but missed four games for stupidity. Mike Wallace isn't consistent. Lamar Miller IMO didn't start performing like a true upper echelon player at his position until toward the end of 2014. Clay was hurt a lot, only gave flashes.

Really only one consistent player you can hang your hat on (Wake) and that's an issue. So anyway, you've got to get another guy like that. Not sure it matters what position. Could be Melvin Gordon, could be Kevin White, could be Danny Shelton.

Put another way, probably over simplifying, you build your core of playmakers and special players and you complement and surround them, fill holes and fill out the depth chart, make sure there aren't any glaring weaknesses, etc. Well it seems like for a while what we've been doing is filling out all those weaknesses and managing roster and depth chart issues even though our core of players is mediocre. Ironically Jeff Ireland seemed like he really tried to reach for a star player when he traded up to 3 overall for Dion Jordan and gave a huge contract to Mike Wallace. He just picked the wrong players, in all likelihood.

 

I think this will be a fall-back attitude going into the draft. Even if we don't get the guy we're targeting or the guy that the fans are lusting over, we have 5-6 clear needs which means that no matter who we pick, so long as they're a future starter, we'll have done the team a service.

I want us to continue to make the O-line a priority. I really agree with what Andy Cohen said which was basically that we were all duped this season into thinking we had "fixed" the O-line in 1 year. I'm not sure we all thought that but we were all probably too optimistic. We had Pouncey. Now we have Albert and James as well but that still leaves 2 spots.

However, I wouldn't reach on a Guard if there was a Luke Kuechly sitting there. I'm not going to put the needs at Guard ahead of the next Earl Thomas either.

I agree with your point, if there isn't a star Guard available for me, I'd probably take the star ____.

 

I'll say it again....for a good portion of the season we played at near an elite level. The main difference between us and playoff teams is that we lack depth. Our starting team can play with anyone, we just lack depth.