Since the forum has gone trade crazy...
I do not agree with trading away picks to 'win now'. More success comes from the draft than most rades. People always trade you their crap and look to get the better end of a swap.
If we did trade, I'd suggest moving a player. Which made me wonder who is semi-expendable? The answer to that is the same as the answer to, "Well, where are we deep?" On the D-line.
NT Paul Soliai
DT Randy Starks
DT (playing at DE) Jared Odrick
DT Kheeston Randall
DT Tony McDaniel
Surely we can spare a player from this rotation. McDaniel doesn't even see the field at this point. Randall looks the part and I'd be very comfortable moving McDaniel for a low pick (5th, 6th, 7th?) or Starks for a high pick and/or player and moving Odrick back inside, where I think he'd do even BETTER.
I don;t see anyone tradable on any other unit on the team, to be honest, unless you feel like trading Matt Moore. but I don;t think you're getting value for him. So you let him mentor Tannehill a bit.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
I really wouldn't **** with the DL to be honest.
Fin Fan In Cali, Section126, Larry Little and 9 others like this. -
These guys are very good, and they're young. Leave it alone. -
Rocky Raccoon likes this.
-
Well, let me ask you this.... which scenario sounds better.
1) Odrick at DE performing worse than Vernon (according to PFF ratings), and Marshall as the 80-somethingth ranked CB getting burned.
2) Vernon at DE and a decent starting CB to bump Marshall down to nickel, take away some of the deep passes and also get Nolan Carroll off the field.
I actually think we win more with scenario #2. Not to mention, Vernon gets more playing experience and there should be no falloff in production seeing as Odrick is underperforming at DE. Shelby backs up Vernon. -
We just traded a very shoddy CB for a 2nd round pick yet you people think there are starting CBs available to be traded for... what, Randy Starks? Jared Odrick?
Stop it. -
-
I'm not actually suggesting we make a trade like this.
I AM saying that the ONLY thing we really have to offer is DL depth. And, by the way, Odrick is, in my eyes, DL depth, not a starter.
Playing a 4-3 DT at DE just means he is your #3 DT. He is not a DE in this scheme. -
-
I don't think the Dolphins have any players they should be trading. They're thin at most positions and the one position they aren't thin (DL) is a major strength so I wouldn't touch it. The Dolphins don't need to be trading for anyone now unless they can get a young talented player at a position of need for a draft pick. Most likely that isn't going to happen. They are a lot closer than people thought to being good and with a strong offseason they could be a playoff team next year. They are loaded with high draft picks and will have a ton of cap space. Why rob Peter to Pay Paul so to speak when they can afford to be patient and not necessarily have to give to get?
Pandarilla likes this. -
I just feel the DL has more talent than is being maximized because our depth is greater than our opportunities. Meanwhile we are hurting at other spots.
btw, i was just scouting Safety Kenny Vaccaro. Any relation? -
Its good to have depth on the Dline because you want fresh guys available. If Starks or Solia went down we wouldn't worry to much because of our depth.Bpk likes this. -
If someone wanted McDaniel as part of a trade then I would in a heart beat. Randall has been playing effectively and there is always Ryan Baker to bring back for depth. I don't see anyone taking him though having not played at all this year.
Bpk likes this. -
Why are you downplaying Jared Odrick's contributions thus far? He doesn't start, no, but do you know how many snaps per game he gets on defense? He may as well be a starter. We rotate a lot
-
I'd offer up a pick for a receiver that is still young...Early Doucet comes to mind but again...He's really not what we are needing from that third receiver position. In my opinion we need a field stretching receiver. Someone that can get down the field fast would compliment Hartline and Bess. Armstrong can fly but he can't catch so in my opinon it's guys like Mike Wallace, Desean Jackson, Percy Harvin, and Harry Douglas we should be looking at. I doubt any of them are available for trade right now but that is the type of dynamic receiver this team is lacking. You could also look at lower value available players that can do similar things like Roscoe Parrish, Sammie Stroughter, and Jacoby Ford. Yeah....Tedd Ginn, and Clyde Gates fit that mold too but neither is smart enough to run the right route.
It's hard to speculate a realistic trade in my opinion. I personally try and look at the leg room potential trade partners have. Tampa Bay comes to mind in terms of receivers they have that might be available via trade. They seem pretty set with Vincent Jackson, and Mike Williams. Arrelious Benn looks like he could still be a starting receiver but is he available? He's still a young prospect in my opinon and has shown after the catch abilities in the NFL. Not a burner but he'd still stretch the field with his size. Not the greatest route runner but can fix that. Benn would certainly be a prize pickup imo and one worth looking into. Would a draft pick get it done? I think we need some realistic options at this point and he is one of them. -
There's no need for any trades. we are stacked with picks and cap. we will get what we need in the draft and have money for free agency. I can't believe there is this many trade threads.
Stringer Bell and Fin D like this. -
I still don't really understand how we're wasting Odrick. He's not really lighting the world on fire kicked into DT in Nickel situations and there are reasons why they are putting him where he is in the base defense.
I don't think you really are interested in trading anyone at this point. -
Just a thought. Better than watching him walk away at the end of the year.
I mean, if you had to re-sign Starks, Long and Bush, you could easily argue that it's easiest to let Starks go because you have his replacement here already in Odrick. Again, when you are that deep at a position, with starters at DT unable to get snaps (and guys like McDaniel inactive) then you have more value than you are using and some of it is bound to leave. If not by trade, then simply by walking out the door in free agency. -
Even guys like Odrick lose value by being played out of position and seeing poor stats and performance.
I'd rather have a good CB and a good interior DT than a good interior DT and average DE play.PerfectTeam likes this. -
If theres anyone we should be looking to move its Long and Bush. Bush is going to command probably around 5M per and isnt really young by RB standards. See if a team like the Packers, Chargers, Bengals or Lions want to give us a quality player and/or picks for a proven commodity. Im willing to give Miller and Thomas a shot. We invested high picks there may so we may as well. Longs value may never be higher.
-
Trading Starks if we don't plan to re-sign him (and moving Odrick inside).
Or trading Odrick if we don't intend to let him start at DT (since, statistically he is not outperforming the second string guy at DE anyways).
When you can make a trade that gives great value to another team, but you do not lose much in the way of long term benefit... and you get good value in return, that's a good trade, imo.
What I don't know is what teams would be in the market for help at DT. -
I don't think the team will be very active at the trade deadline. -
OK so what is Randy Starks worth? A player in this league (WR) that we could trade for?
-
Soliai is not expendable.
-
Like if we played Reggie Bush purely as a special teams gunner, and other guys could do the job just as well. That is a waste. In that case I'd argue to either shift Reggie to starting running back, or trade him to a team who would use him that way for greater value in return. The cost would really be going from whatever gunner-performance Reggie was giving us to whatever gunner-performance his replacement would give us. If it's a negligible dropoff, and you will get a good player in return, you do it.
IN the Odrick to Vernon case (and I am not a Vernon fan, btw), PFF would argue that Vernon is actually playing the position BETTER. So you don;t see a dropoff, but you do gain a player (or pick) via trade. If that player is a young CB who can replace Nolan Carroll, our defense gets better immediately. -
-
That said, Odrick could replace Starks, imo. -
To me, a playoff contender struggling against the run would love Starks, despite his being in a contract year. At least he is healthy and performing at a high level, so could help you get to the Superbowl if that's your missing piece.
Odrick is apealing more long-term, and I doubt anyone shows much interest in a long-term trade at this point in the season. -
The correct question is, what decent CB could be had from a playoff-contending team that needs interior line help? -
Stringer Bell likes this.
-
If he lets both of those guys go to free agency (like I think he might) and walk away for nothing would be disastrous seeing you CAN get something for them via a trade right now...Boik14 likes this. -
-
What I'd be targeting is a team with multiple decent CBs (three in the top 50 would be ideal, in the top 75 is adequate) that has a starting DT who is rated lower than 30th at his position.
That, to me, is the right mix of them having a decent supply of CB play, and really hurting at DT.
Then I see if they are a team with serious playoff hopes/expectations. If so, and if their run D and lack of interior pressure has been costing them points and leading to losses, I pick up the phone and see if they are interested.
My guess? There is maybe one, two teams max in that situation. I'll check it out when I have about an hour to do the digging on Pro Football Focus. -
-
-
CK raised a good point in another thread along the same lines I am thinking here. He suggested a trade of Tony McDaniel to Arizona for a CB.
The fact is, you have to have something to offer, and we have more DL than we can get on the field. Zona may have more CBs that they want to play than they can get out there.
That's what it takes to make good trade partners.
Page 1 of 2