Charles Harris is really stinking it up...

I read an article saying Harris had the lightbulb come on before the Minny game. he was mad he had no sacks and he was going to dominate.

so we should be fine.

"jdang307 wrote:

I'm going to disagree with your last sentence only. That's not a valid argument to this debate.

Of course it's valid. Not all first round picks make an immediate impact. It's very conceivable that a GM would take a guy at 22 that they really like, based on potential, that may really be more of a second round pick due to current development, because they believe he won't be there when they pick in the second.

However, my point with the last sentence is to show that not every pick in the first round makes an immediate impact, and that expecting that is simply not reasonable. Now, if you want to argue that your first round pick should turn into a quality starter I their first three years, I'd be more agreeable to that as an expectation, even though even that flies against reality.

Reuben Foster

"resnor wrote:

Of course it's valid. Not all first round picks make an immediate impact. It's very conceivable that a GM would take a guy at 22 that they really like, based on potential, that may really be more of a second round pick due to current development, because they believe he won't be there when they pick in the second.

However, my point with the last sentence is to show that not every pick in the first round makes an immediate impact, and that expecting that is simply not reasonable. Now, if you want to argue that your first round pick should turn into a quality starter I their first three years, I'd be more agreeable to that as an expectation, even though even that flies against reality.

You can shoot for it. It's different strategies, like who should be #1 overall. A surefire starter, or a someone slightly raw but ridiculous ceiling? Each GM has a different take and the strategy has changed with the rookie cap.

A team that is stacked can arguably take developmental players and one that needs help opposite, etc.

Yes, not every pick in the first round makes an immediate impact, and not every pick is even half good. But you still can shoot for your target.

"danmarino wrote:

No one, except a few dreamers, expect a 1st round player to be an immediate impact player.

Ehhhh...yea they do.

He's in our starting rotation and getting compared to Andre Branch and Marco Coleman... both long time starters in this league, and he has shown an impact in games, he's just not getting sacks. That said, even guys like Wake only average 1 sack every other game or so. Vic Beasley was considered a bust in Atlanta his rookie season with 5 sacks. He exploded in year 2 with 15.5.

I'm as disappointed as anyone in what I've seen of Harris as far as not getting at least 1 sack, but I've also seen enough to believe he's going to do fine once he gets stronger and understands playing DE at this level. Right not he looks lost and like he's pressing.

Let's see where he's at at mid-season. Hopefully, he'll have a better repertoire of moves and ability by the time we face the Pats.

I'm not disappointed he hasn't had a sack, in pre-season. If by the end of his rookie year he doesn't have a sack, I'll start to furrow my brows

"Fin-O wrote:

Ehhhh...yea they do.

nope

I would expect the top 5, probably 10, picks to be immediate impact guys. Lower half of round one? Not necessarily. There's too many pieces to the equation.

"hitman8 wrote:

Another preseason game without doing anything significant. This time he started against Minnesota's backups and still couldn't do anything. 0 sacks, 0 tackles, 0 QB hits, only 1 QB hurry.

If he can't do much of anything against Minnesota's backups what makes anybody think he will get it done in the regular season against actual NFL starters?

Overall through 4 preseason games he had a grand total of 3 QB hurries, 1 solo tackle, 1 assist, 0 sacks, 0 QB hits, 0 TFL

And he played only 9 defensive snaps vs Minnesota.

"resnor wrote:

I would expect the top 5, probably 10, picks to be immediate impact guys. Lower half of round one? Not necessarily. There's too many pieces to the equation.

Unless you are a QB or deemed a raw WR, 9.5x out of 10 if you are drafted in the 1st round, you are expected to make a year 1 impact.

Rather they do or not is another story.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Fin-O wrote:

Unless you are a QB or deemed a raw WR, 9.5x out of 10 if you are drafted in the 1st round, you are expected to make a year 1 impact.

Rather they do or not is another story.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If by "impact" you mean a situational/rotational player then you're right.

However, if by "impact" you mean a starter who plays like a veteran then you're wrong.

"MrClean wrote:

And he played only 9 defensive snaps vs Minnesota.

Well damn... he should of had at least 4 sacks and 5 TFL.

"hitman8 wrote:

Yes well this is not mathematics, if you want to ge technical with the terms lets replace the word expectation with goal. The goal in the first round is to get an impact player who can contribute right away.

If you dont do that you are not getting a passing grade in my book.

Again its similar to a test, you either grade it on a curve or you grade straight up.

The teams goal in the first round should be to get an immediate impact player. Even second round picks should be players who can compete for starting jobs. Developmental project prospects who are not ready to start anytime soon should be reserved for the third round and above.

The "goal" is to get 7 starters in 7 rounds of the draft. In reality, that rarely happens and isn't "expected".

And the same is true in the first round. And if you want to give out "F's" for reality that's on you.

"Fin-O wrote:

Unless you are a QB or deemed a raw WR, 9.5x out of 10 if you are drafted in the 1st round, you are expected to make a year 1 impact.

Rather they do or not is another story.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's just not true. Now, you can argue that you shouldn't draft potential in the first round, however, you've seen two different GMs, just in Miami, draft in the first round based on potential, with Dion Jordan and Charles Harris. Not to mention the analysts who agreed with taking those guys, based on potential, in the first round.

"Fin-O wrote:

Unless you are a QB or deemed a raw WR, 9.5x out of 10 if you are drafted in the 1st round, you are expected to make a year 1 impact.

Rather they do or not is another story.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DE and CB are on that list too.

"Two Tacos wrote:

DE and CB are on that list too.

Disagree

Nobody is drafting if either of those positions very often and just keeping them on the bench

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"resnor wrote:

That's just not true. Now, you can argue that you shouldn't draft potential in the first round, however, you've seen two different GMs, just in Miami, draft in the first round based on potential, with Dion Jordan and Charles Harris. Not to mention the analysts who agreed with taking those guys, based on potential, in the first round.

I'm not arguing that they are drafted to be at their full potential year one, but they are certainly expected to contribute on the field in some way shape or form

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Fin-O wrote:

I'm not arguing that they are drafted to be at their full potential year one, but they are certainly expected to contribute on the field in some way shape or form

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I kinda disagree again. Harris, for instance, was not expected to outperform the Wake or anyone else, so he wasn't drafted with the expectation that he would give significant snaps this season. When Tannehill was drafted, it was expected that he would sit at least the first season. Analysts said the same things, and didn't criticize those picks. So, it's fairly common for first round picks to not make an immediate impact.

"Fin-O wrote:

Disagree

Nobody is drafting if either of those positions very often and just keeping them on the bench

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are drafted with no expectations of being starters in the first year. You play them, pass downs, dime package etc... but that's not what i call immediate impact, and Harris is certainly on that tract. There is a difference between a top ten pick and a first round pick. I agree with most of your argument. A RB, LB, OL, etc... they better be starting.

"Two Tacos wrote:

They are drafted with no expectations of being starters in the first year. You play them, pass downs, dime package etc... but that's not what i call immediate impact, and Harris is certainly on that tract. There is a difference between a top ten pick and a first round pick. I agree with most of your argument. A RB, LB, OL, etc... they better be starting.

A situational DE is always what Harris was expected to be in year 1, I think. But I think they drafted him with the expectation he would have an impact in those situations this year.

"danmarino wrote:

If by "impact" you mean a situational/rotational player then you're right.

However, if by "impact" you mean a starter who plays like a veteran then you're wrong.

You do not have to start to have an impact. We all knew Harris had a slim slim chance of not starting.

"resnor wrote:

I kinda disagree again. Harris, for instance, was not expected to outperform the Wake or anyone else, so he wasn't drafted with the expectation that he would give significant snaps this season. When Tannehill was drafted, it was expected that he would sit at least the first season. Analysts said the same things, and didn't criticize those picks. So, it's fairly common for first round picks to not make an immediate impact.

Qb's are traditionally a whole different ball game.

Right. So, clearly then, not all first round picks are expected to make an immediate impact.

Why are we arguing?

"resnor wrote:

Right. So, clearly then, not all first round picks are expected to make an immediate impact.

Why are we arguing?

I dunno, I said that with my 1st post is in this thread.