Is Lane Johnson a trade target

If we trade all the way up to 3, it better be because Joekel has slid

"brandon27 wrote:

We'd likely only have to give up one of the seconds to trade up. It's not that costly IMO.

You are vastly underestimating the cost of trading up now that there's a rookie cap. Now that teams don't have to pay out tens of millions in guaranteed money, the price tag for trading up to those top picks is higher.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

What is the highest % of snaps a #4 WR had last season? I just can't see Miami signing Brandon Gibson to that contract when they have interest in drafting Tavon Austin.

Just because they want to draft Austin, doesn't mean he will be available when we pick.

"Aquafin wrote:

I hope to hell we are not drafting a oline in rd 1 because that is why we have been horible on offense for so long.

we need a de and a cb more then we do then taking a freaking olineman in rd 1 .

While DE and CB are certainly needs on this team. The reality is that the Dolphins biggest area of need at this time is LT and RG. So like it or not, I believe the Dolphins will use their first round selection to upgrade the offensive line.

"ATLFINFAN wrote:

Just because they want to draft Austin, doesn't mean he will be available when we pick.

I don't really think the Dolphins have any interest in drafting Austin in the first round. Especially after all the money they have invested in the WR position in the off season. I think there are just some individuals on this forum who like the idea of the Dolphins drafting him, but it isn't going to happen.

"jw3102 wrote:

While DE and CB are certainly needs on this team. The reality is that the Dolphins biggest area of need at this time is LT and RG. So like it or not, I believe the Dolphins will use their first round selection to upgrade the offensive line.

I think defensive line is as big of a need as any. Neither Soliai nor Starks are under contract after this season, and Odrick has one more after this year. They really need to bring in some young talent on the DL.

The idea that Miami's 4th receiver will only play 15% of the time is off. In Joe Philbin's final year as the Packers offensive coordinator, their top 4 receivers played a lot:

Greg Jennings 713 snaps
Jordy Nelson 699 snaps
Donald Driver 563 snaps
James Jones 555 snaps
Randall Cobb 309 snaps

The Packers ran 1157 total offensive plays that year. So, percentage wise:

Jennings 61.6%
Nelson 60.4%
Driver 48.7%
Jones 48%
Cobb 26.7%

That season, Packer receivers ran a total of 1,735 passing routes and were targeted 328 times. Of those 1,735 routes, 636 were ran from the slot with 127 targets on those routes.

Looks to me like Joe Philbin definitely uses the slot receiver position. Basically, 37% of the pass routes the Packers receivers ran were from the slot, while 39% of their targets were to the slot receivers.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

I think defensive line is as big of a need as any. Neither Soliai nor Starks are under contract after this season, and Odrick has one more after this year. They really need to bring in some young talent on the DL.

I won't argue that DL is a need also. I just figure that the most important position on the team in the QB. You have to have offensive lineman who can protect this most valuable position. Right now the Dolphins have huge holes at LT and RG. If Ireland thinks he can fill these needs in the second round, then he should go with a player on the DL in the first round.

I just think that Ireland is more inclined to draft for areas of need for this season and he will probably draft a couple of defensive linemen in the second or third round this year, in hopes they will develop for the 2014 season, when they might be needed to fill the slots vacated by Starks and Soliai. As far as Odrick is concerned, I don't think the Dolphins will have any trouble replacing him with a third or fourth round pick this year or next year. I just don't think Odrick is very good and he won't be missed if he leaves the Dolphins once he becomes a free agent.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

What is the highest % of snaps a #4 WR had last season? I just can't see Miami signing Brandon Gibson to that contract when they have interest in drafting Tavon Austin.

Last season the most seemed to be Philly whom had Riley Cooper end up with 498 snaps. It's possible part of it was injury related, but KB21 has some of the information for the Packers in the past.

There's a lot of wiggle room though. Brandon Gibson can get a pretty good workload just rotating with Hartline and Bess. If it's just those three guys playing exclusively the split end/flanker positions and you divide it equally you can easily have three guys with 700+ snaps.

"jw3102 wrote:

I won't argue that DL is a need also. I just figure that the most important position on the team in the QB. You have to have offensive lineman who can protect this most valuable position. Right now the Dolphins have huge holes at LT and RG. If Ireland thinks he can fill these needs in the second round, then he should go with a player on the DL in the first round.

I just think that Ireland is more inclined to draft for areas of need for this season and he will probably draft a couple of defensive linemen in the second or third round this year, in hopes they will develop for the 2014 season, when they might be needed to fill the slots vacated by Starks and Soliai. As far as Odrick is concerned, I don't think the Dolphins will have any trouble replacing him with a third or fourth round pick this year or next year. I just don't think Odrick is very good and he won't be missed if he leaves the Dolphins once he becomes a free agent.

Even then, you still have young talent on the OL that is much better than the young talent on the DL. I wouldn't be surprised to see them take Sheldon Richardon. He's pretty much an ideal fit for what they want at RDE.

"Disgustipate wrote:

Last season the most seemed to be Philly whom had Riley Cooper end up with 498 snaps. It's possible part of it was injury related, but KB21 has some of the information for the Packers in the past.

There's a lot of wiggle room though. Brandon Gibson can get a pretty good workload just rotating with Hartline and Bess. If it's just those three guys playing exclusively the split end/flanker positions and you divide it equally you can easily have three guys with 700+ snaps.

If they draft Tavon Austin, Bess is going to be cut. Even if they don't draft Austin, Bess is likely gone.

ETA: I'm assuming you meant Wallace

"Stringer Bell wrote:

If they draft Tavon Austin, Bess is going to be cut. Even if they don't draft Austin, Bess is likely gone.

Yeah, I don't know why I wrote Bess but I agree.

"UCF FINatic wrote:

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.

There are always rumors at this time of year. Like this one they generally involve somebody matching team and an alleged need. This gets picked up and repeated and then becomes "what people are hearing".

I'm not as worried about Martin. He reminds me a lot of Joe Staley his first year. And if he want to protect RT on the right side, Ireland would be best served by signing a vet and drafting a guy like Menelik Watson in the 2nd.

"rafael wrote:

There are always rumors at this time of year. Like this one they generally involve somebody matching team and an alleged need. This gets picked up and repeated and then becomes "what people are hearing".

I'm not as worried about Martin. He reminds me a lot of Joe Staley his first year. And if he want to protect RT on the right side, Ireland would be best served by signing a vet and drafting a guy like Menelik Watson in the 2nd.

Bit confused Rafs, are you saying you want to start Martin at left tackle or right tackle?

"djphinfan wrote:

Bit confused Rafs, are you saying you want to start Martin at left tackle or right tackle?

LT.

A trade up wouldn't thrill me, but there is some sense in what Shou wrote at the beginning of this thread. I don't know the exact cap figures for the top 10 picks these days, but I think it's low enough that trading picks in return for a LT whom you believe can lock down that position for several years at a good price is a consideration.

Draft picks are assets and assets don't necessarily need to equal new players. If LT can be locked up and if you can get near Jake Long production at a much lower price, then the draft picks thrown into a trade up would amount to trading picks for cap space.

In this way, you could use some of that extra money to re-sign Starks and/or Soliai, which would make DT less of a concern going forward. You could also use some of that extra money to re-sign Keller and/or Grimes, if either has a decent year.

Therefore, any traded picks won't "go to waste" in some effort to tread water with regard to losing Jake Long. The picks would free up money to help retain some of the pieces that are already in place. Again, I wouldn't be thrilled by a trade up for a tackle, but at the same time, such a move by itself wouldn't be a demonstration of incompetence by the FO.

"rafael wrote:

I'm not as worried about Martin. He reminds me a lot of Joe Staley his first year. And if he want to protect RT on the right side, Ireland would be best served by signing a vet and drafting a guy like Menelik Watson in the 2nd.

This would be a great situation, provided Martin progresses.

"DPlus47 wrote:

A trade up wouldn't thrill me, but there is some sense in what Shou wrote at the beginning of this thread. I don't know the exact cap figures for the top 10 picks these days, but I think it's low enough that trading picks in return for a LT whom you believe can lock down that position for several years at a good price is a consideration.

Draft picks are assets and assets don't necessarily need to equal new players. If LT can be locked up and if you can get near Jake Long production at a much lower price, then the draft picks thrown into a trade up would amount to trading picks for cap space.

In this way, you could use some of that extra money to re-sign Starks and/or Soliai, which would make DT less of a concern going forward. You could also use some of that extra money to re-sign Keller and/or Grimes, if either has a decent year.

Therefore, any traded picks won't "go to waste" in some effort to tread water with regard to losing Jake Long. The picks would free up money to help retain some of the pieces that are already in place. Again, I wouldn't be thrilled by a trade up for a tackle, but at the same time, such a move by itself wouldn't be a demonstration of incompetence by the FO.

To me, that is completely backwards.

The rookie scale made draft picks more valuable and because the costs are so low, you can have 3 potential starters for a little bit of money, instead of just one.

"rafael wrote:

There are always rumors at this time of year. Like this one they generally involve somebody matching team and an alleged need. This gets picked up and repeated and then becomes "what people are hearing".

I'm not as worried about Martin. He reminds me a lot of Joe Staley his first year. And if he want to protect RT on the right side, Ireland would be best served by signing a vet and drafting a guy like Menelik Watson in the 2nd.

Touche.

My only other thought was if we in fact were trying to trade up for Dee Milliner and were using Lane Johnson as a smoke screen.

"UCF FINatic wrote:

Touche.

My only other thought was if we in fact were trying to trade up for Dee Milliner and were using Lane Johnson as a smoke screen.

Possibly, but I'm not really in favor of trading up. I don't see any prospects in this draft as truly elite. I'd prefer to not trade up.

If we're going tackle in the 1st round, something tells me we have a better chance of standing pat and plugging right tackle with a likely All Pro in Fluker than trading up for Johnson.

"Fin D wrote:

To me, that is completely backwards.

The rookie scale made draft picks more valuable and because the costs are so low, you can have 3 potential starters for a little bit of money, instead of just one.

You're already getting 3 potential starters for a little bit of money with the normal allotment of draft picks. This situation is about whether to get 5 potential starters for a little bit of money or whether to get 3 and free up space for re-signings.

Keep in mind, I'm not even saying I would do this. I really like the idea of drafting 5 kids and letting them grow up together.

At the same time, I'm also sure I won't like it if the team loses Starks, Soliai, Keller, and Grimes next year (providing they all have good, healthy years this year).

Whether a trade is backwards or not depends on 2 things: the team's draft board and the team's long term plan for impending FA's. If Ireland & Company see more than a handful of prospects that they love (and think they can get) in the first 3 rounds, then they shouldn't make a trade.

I think people are dramatically over-enthralled by the seemingly limitless possibilities of the draft and letting it color their perceptions about trading up.

Quantity works well in providing your bread and butter and the occasional home run, but there aren't enough really good players in a draft to expect for them to fall to you. If you think you got a guy who can be elite there shouldn't be any issue in trading for him.

"UCF FINatic wrote:

Touche.

My only other thought was if we in fact were trying to trade up for Dee Milliner and were using Lane Johnson as a smoke screen.

I think the same thing, but Dion Jordan is the target.

"Disgustipate wrote:

I think people are dramatically over-enthralled by the seemingly limitless possibilities of the draft and letting it color their perceptions about trading up.

Quantity works well in providing your bread and butter and the occasional home run, but there aren't enough really good players in a draft to expect for them to fall to you. If you think you got a guy who can be elite there shouldn't be any issue in trading for him.

It's not that cut and dry. It depends on the year etc...

The difference to me between having say Lane Johnson plus Martin LT-RT isn't worth say losing Martin at LT, Menelik Watson-RT plus quite possibly two 2nds including one from a trade down as opposed to a trade up, a future 2nd, and possibly more.

To compare:

Lane Johnson
Jonathan Martin

versus

Jonathan Martin
Menelik Watson
late second rounder (moving down compensation)
late second rounder
future second rounder
let's say a 5th rounder

That's the opportunity cost involved.