It would make sense since you could really just ride the wave at the other positions. You don't need a CB, WR, or a pass rusher but you could just ride the wave and select players based on value.
This, holy sh^t I would be irate if Ireland did that.....IF they are going to trade up, grab a skill guy please.... Also TP seems to think Fluker....
You don't have to get quite that high in the draft. There's little reason to in fact. 54 at most for getting to six would work.
If you identify a top guy, you go and get him. It's just that simple. If Ireland is convinced Lane Johnson is a stud tackle that can dominate for years, why roll the dice on 50/50 second rounders?
Trading with the Raiders would be awful, they have no picks and are looking to burn a team......Crap for that position they might consider Jordan at 3 if he makes it...
I'll take the other side of this and say that they're in no position to be making demands. They NEED bodies to put out on the field (picks), and everyone knows it. It's in their best interest that they trade back and get 2-3 more selections; drafting 1 guy per year isn't really going to help them.
I agree, but there is value in their pick.....moving into the Top 3 when you are originally out of the Top 10, you are going to pay you know? It is just too much IMO......having 3 picks in the Top what? 40-something in this draft is more valuable than just the #3...
It's a great trade with regards to overall value, but not in this draft. I'm sorry. You don't need to go top 3 to get Lane Johnson. This franchise, I swear to God, will set itself back for 2 years, minimum if you pull that trade off. In this day and age of superbowl team's having lines comprised of 2nd and 3rd round picks and you're giving up THREE (possibly four!) top picks for ONE guy? That's insanity.
So cost isn't a factor anymore? You're basically saying we should pay 3 high picks for a OT. A great QB prospect is worth 3 high picks....but a OT? Really?
Top guy logic. There are entire Ireland drafts I would trade for certain prospects. They rarely are OTs, but if you think there is a super special one...
Throw quantity at the Raiders instead of quality. See if they bite on that offer. They lack draft picks in a bad way and at 3 you never know what may happen. If Star checks out and KC takes him, there may be a Texas A and M duo.
How super special could an OT be though that would be worth 3 high picks?!??!?!?!? What benefits does that really give the team over a decent OT for a 2nd? As far as past drafts, that's hindsight.
I'm wondering if giving up 2 and 3 B too move to 3, and getting an Eric Fisher isn't a bad idea. I really don't like Jon Martin at LT. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
My guess is Miami will have to get infront of the Chargers to get one of the three tackles. Cleveland may be a trade partner.
Well, thanks too a fine offseason thus far I don't think we have a ton of needs. I'd be just fine keeping all our picks but securing a LT is fine too. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Value, name, position worth, all so relative. You want a guy, you get a guy. I would love to see us have conviction on talent and fit instead of value. For once.
Why would Ireland be telling the media, that they want to move up for a certain player? Talk about tipping your hand to the rest of the league. I smell smoke screen from teams wanting to move down in the draft!
I think that's about it. You can't believe anything regarding the draft so close to the actual event. Basically all just rumors, smoke screens, speculations and whatever.
I think it's odds more than hindsight. I doubt that Ireland shares this statistical "logic", but you can attach at (at diff positions) of your second rounders being subpar, third rounders, etc. If you are sure you have a 100% guy, then guarding your 50% and 30% doesn't make tremendous sense. If Jeff Ireland traded both second rounders and both third rounders, chances are you're only talking two starters max. And there are lots of starting guys I'd trade for any number of draft picks. It's not like it's four all-pros. In all likelihood, it's one second and one third, or one starter. That said, I don't really believe OT is that position for us this year, especially because we got a good one in the second round the year before. It is, however, one of those positions that is easier to project to the NFL. But the logic of trading up... not one I have a problem with.
We heard the Tannehill rumors for months before the draft. To be honest, I believe the rumors are true that we want to move up for a LT, whether it is Fisher or Johnson we are targeting remains to be seen. The DJ Fluker talk is a complete smokescreen though, I can assure you of that. The Dolphins probably are using that "leaked smokescreen" to drive down the asking price to move up in the draft.
Well to me, the problem is in thinking that if any GM feels a guy is 100% means the player will definitely be great. Obviously, no player is 100% and every last one of them has a high chance of failure. The only value draft picks have is in the amount of the talent pool you get to pick from. Just from an odds basis, you're better off picking 3 OTs at the spots (top of each of the first 3 rounds) of the picks than package those up to take one guy. Not too mention it still seems you aren't factoring in the value of the position and the difference between an average and above average player at that position.
I have thought for several weeks that the Dolphins are going to draft an offensive lineman in the first round. If they are going to trade up to get a tackle, I would rather it be Fisher or Joeckle. I doubt if Fisher will be on the board after the Chiefs select with the first pick in the draft. Joeckel will likely go in the top five or six picks, so if the Dolphins want him, they will have to move into the top five in the draft to get him. I am not really enamored with the idea of moving up in the first round and giving up a second round selection and a late round selection, along with the 12th pick in the first round, to draft Johnson. If the Dolphins are going to draft an offensive lineman in the first round and they can't get Fisher or Joeckel by moving up, I would rather they stay at 12 and draft Johnson, if he is still on the board. If he is already off the board, Ireland could always draft Warmack or Moore to upgrade the RG position. I have no problem with taking another offensive lineman in the first round. I just don't think there are any offensive linemen, except Fisher and Joeckel, who are worth moving up in the draft to select in the first round.
No way I give that away for Lane Johnson. Fisher maybe but not Johnson. We will find out soon enough if they really have any faith in Martin and even John Jerry for that matter.
We meed to move to 8 or 9, not 3. Frankie say relax. Some morons will screw up their picks and cause slides. Im looking at you, Jets / Bills
I've heard this a lot lately. It's probably several outlets rehashing the same source of the rumor. I hope it's not true. It's not that I'm so against taking a lineman, but i would hate if they traded up to do so. They finally has a lot of picks. I would hate to see them trade them away.
We've been hearing about Austin for a month. With RT we heard of Ireland going to watch TAMU play. This year we've heard of Ireland going out to watch WVU play. If any rumor is to be believed on the basis of the RT rumors, it's Austin.
Why would there be rampant rumors of us trying to trade up for a tackle then? Not saying you are wrong and I certainly wouldn't mind getting Austin, just curious as to why you think these rumors would be out there. I feel like a lot of times rumors like that are spread by teams trying to let other teams know they are looking to move up, not for a smokescreen (because that doesn't seem to make much sense). Additionally, if we seem intent on keeping 42 which it seems like we are trying to do from reports I wonder if there is a WR we are targeting there? I just don't know how happy Ireland or Philbin would be starting Martin at LT. Martin is a particularly tough case because last year he wasn't great at run blocking or pass blocking. He was slightly better at pass blocking, but couldn't hold up at LT. I think he will develop to be a fine (ie. okay/average) tackle but I still don't see him having a "natural" position on either the right or left side. It's like he is a tweener skill-wise between LT and RT.
Not in favor of trade up in first round this year. Just the way I feel. I am not opposed to trade down due to little difference in prospects through most of draft outside of top 10. I want those second and third round picks.
IMO, throwing Johnson name out there in this trade is a smoke screen for a trade for Dion Jordan. Geno is Jacksonville's target and they can very easily trade down with someone else that is also targeting Dion.
I mean the "stand up on the table" type of prospect, or as close to 100% as one can realistically believe. As for three OTs, I kind of agree and kind of disagree. You'll probably ensure a starter (or cost yourself your job if you miss), but not necessarily a super special one. The rest of it, the difference between average and above average or great, is really sabermetrics sounding. There's certainly a way to do it, maybe someone has, but I don't have the inclination to do this for offensive tackles.
Austins name has been popping up all over the place. Nice slot guy but not worth the 12th pick or higher imo. Lot of stuff saying St. Louis MAY take him at 16 or if he is there at 22. They got the mother load from Washington for RGIII pick last year.
I would be disappointed with any trade up for an OL. A lot of the reason I really like our coaching staff is they are known as teachers and can coach up players, especially the OL guys. The other reason I don't want to trade up is we will miss out on Austin.