Round two!
64 replies
"Fin D wrote:
Look, if you think "severely deficient" equals average player, then what the hell would you call it when you have a Jonathan Martin level player at a position?
What I meant was terrible and at times average at best. And even if he was average why are you content with having an average player as the starting MLB? And injury prone at that.
Fin Dforum_veteran"Phins Up Wins Up wrote:
Misi was awful. 2nd half of the year Dolphins run D was horrible in large part due to him. And he is often injured. It will be easier with Suh in front of him but Misi sucks still.
Our run D was awful because of the dline, specifically in the middle....guess what we spent the most resources fixing.......
"Fin D wrote:
Our run D was awful because of the dline, specifically in the middle....guess what we spent the most resources fixing.......
And ummmmm Misi missing tackles.
Kud_IIforum_veteranDolphins have a fetish for guys with "Jordan" in their name.
edit: i didnt realize we had so many 5th round picks holy ****. Trade up..
Formerly known as IdrA,
formerly known as Kud.
Fin Dforum_veteran"Phins Up Wins Up wrote:
What I meant was terrible and at times average at best. And even if he was average why are you content with having an average player as the starting MLB? And injury prone at that.
You can't fill every spot on your team with better than average players. Its never happened and you're being unrealistic.
Besides, better DTs improve the MLB play. Even Zach Thomas will tell you that.
The most important positions on the d are the dline and the safeties. Fortify those and you can get away with average talent every where else.
"Fin D wrote:
You can't fill every spot on your team with better than average players. Its never happened and you're being unrealistic.
Besides, better DTs improve the MLB play. Even Zach Thomas will tell you that.
The most important positions on the d are the dline and the safeties. Fortify those and you can get away with average talent every where else.
But the point is they didn't have to settle for average. And not only is he average at best (I think he is terrible) but he is also injury prone. Before it is all said and done they need another MLB. Besides Misi is better on the outside. And I'm not asking for a pro bowler at every position like you seem to be claiming. Just a better MLB.
cuchulainnsubscriber"Fin D wrote:
Our run D was awful because of the dline, specifically in the middle....guess what we spent the most resources fixing.......
Suh, Phillips, and Mitchell are going to make life easier for the LBs and DBs immensely, as well as Wake, OV, McCain and Fede.
Still, I'm concerned about FS. Eric Rowe would have been nice.
"Fin D wrote:
Misi was average at MLB. That does not equate with a severe deficiency. What are you talking about? This FO has only picked one guy to play guard and he's not only going to be a starter but many feel he's going to excel.
Well, we can use different words to describe it, but there's no question MLB was a much greater need than DT. That's enough for me to argue the point I argued.
"Fin D wrote:
You gave me nothing.
In our trade with Philly it took more than a 5th and a swap. What more evidence do you need? Then you still need to show me where in the freaking rules it says a team MUST trade up with another, because that must be the premise of your point, else you think every team is willing to move down. Its just ridiculous.
No actually YOU have given us nothing but pure speculation. I gave you a team that actually traded for fair draft value to a team that took the same position we would have wanted. You keep talking about Philly. I'm talking about Cleveland. You have any evidence Cleveland would not have made that trade? No.
Oh, and exactly what would you consider evidence anyway other than hearing it directly from the teams involved? If nothing at all except that is "evidence", then you're the one with the absurd position.
Fin Dforum_veteran"Phins Up Wins Up wrote:
But the point is they didn't have to settle for average. And not only is he average at best (I think he is terrible) but he is also injury prone. Before it is all said and done they need another MLB. Besides Misi is better on the outside. And I'm not asking for a pro bowler at every position like you seem to be claiming. Just a better MLB.
lol, ok man. All positions must be filled with above average starters.
"Fin D wrote:
Our run D was awful because of the dline, specifically in the middle....guess what we spent the most resources fixing.......
Yeah those resources went to Suh. Our run D was not projected to be awful after Suh. I think even you kept saying that.
"Fin D wrote:
lol, ok man. All positions must be filled with above average starters.
lol now you're resorting to stupid claims. No what I'm saying is the team needs a better MLB. And they could have gotten that with Perryman. Instead they got a lazy out of shape DT with character issues.
Fin Dforum_veteran"cbrad wrote:
Well, we can use different words to describe it, but there's no question MLB was a much greater need than DT. That's enough for me to argue the point I argued.
Well, considering the effing team grabbed a goddamned DT and not a LB I guess there is a questions which is more important.
"cbrad wrote:
No actually YOU have given us nothing but pure speculation. I gave you a team that actually traded for fair draft value to a team that took the same position we would have wanted. You keep talking about Philly. I'm talking about Cleveland. You have any evidence Cleveland would not have made that trade? No.
Oh, and exactly what would you consider evidence anyway other than hearing it directly from the teams involved? If nothing at all except that is "evidence", then you're the one with the absurd position.
WTF? I'm using speculation? You clearly don't even understand what the word means. I'm saying you can't say what you said because you don't know. That means you are speculating. You. Not me. Jesus christ, every fricking year people cry like little babies that "we should have traded up/down" as if every team wants to trade and every team has the necessary ammo to trade. Its effing ignorant.
Yes, that's the evidence I'm requiring, because without, you are SPECULATING.....
"Fin D wrote:
Well, considering the effing team grabbed a goddamned DT and not a LB I guess there is a questions which is more important.
WTF? I'm using speculation? You clearly don't even understand what the word means. I'm saying you can't say what you said because you don't know. That means you are speculating. You. Not me. Jesus christ, every fricking year people cry like little babies that "we should have traded up/down" as if every team wants to trade and every team has the necessary ammo to trade. Its effing ignorant.
Yes, that's the evidence I'm requiring, because without, you are SPECULATING.....
Are you 10 years old?
Fin Dforum_veteran"Phins Up Wins Up wrote:
lol now you're resorting to stupid claims. No what I'm saying is the team needs a better MLB. And they could have gotten that with Perryman. Instead they got a lazy out of shape DT with character issues.
They needed a DT more. DTs can improve MLB play. MLB play doesn't improve DT play. If you don't like the specific player that's fine, but the position is more important and we already have an average LB. Getting a great DT rotation improves many positions, MLB doesn't.
Fin Dforum_veteran"Phins Up Wins Up wrote:
Are you 10 years old?
Yes, I'm 10 years old, because people speculate and pass it off as truth then accuse me of speculating because I call them on it.
You know what 10 years old do? If they don't like something, they act like its the worst thing EVER.....you know, like you are acting about Misi.
"Fin D wrote:
Yes, I'm 10 years old, because people speculate and pass it off as truth then accuse me of speculating because I call them on it.
You know what 10 years old do? If they don't like something, they act like its the worst thing EVER.....you know, like you are acting about Misi.
So you're ok with a BELOW average injury prone MLB? Brilliant.
"Fin D wrote:
Well, considering the effing team grabbed a goddamned DT and not a LB I guess there is a questions which is more important.
Yeah, people have different opinions on what is important.. just so you know. Unless you want to pigeonhole yourself into the position where you NEVER question what this team does, because I could just throw back the same argument you gave above back at you!
"Fin D wrote:
WTF? I'm using speculation? You clearly don't even understand what the word means. I'm saying you can't say what you said because you don't know. That means you are speculating. You. Not me. Jesus christ, every fricking year people cry like little babies that "we should have traded up/down" as if every team wants to trade and every team has the necessary ammo to trade. Its effing ignorant.
Yes, that's the evidence I'm requiring, because without, you are SPECULATING.....
Do you realize that "evidence" doesn't imply "know with certainty"? I guess not. I gave an example of a team that basically showed their willingness to trade for a certain value and to a team that took the position we would've wanted in the scenario I described. That's way better than your position which is basically implying we can't ever say there was a willing trading partner unless teams explicitly say they were willing to trade. That is just absurd beyond what I guess you can understand.
Once again, we're at the point where I'm not going to keep up silly debates like this with you (and seemingly ONLY you on this board). Believe what you want. I'm starting to think you're trying to just cover up a bad argument with insults.
cuchulainnsubscriberYou guys realize there are more rounds to this draft and lot of talent still out there. We'll be active in the 4th and 5th with 5 more picks to play with.
OGs, DBs, LBs and RBs await. ;-)
"cuchulainn wrote:
You guys realize there are more rounds to this draft and lot of talent still out there. We'll be active in the 4th and 5th with 5 more picks to play with.
OGs, DBs, LBs and RBs await. ;-)
Yeah, overall I'm still happy with this new front office. Phillips looks like a good player and not a reach, which is not something I always thought with Ireland. I just preferred a different approach, but I can live with the pick. If they can get 3 starters out of this draft, then I'll really be happy. We'll see!
Fin Dforum_veteran"cbrad wrote:
Yeah, people have different opinions on what is important.. just so you know. Unless you want to pigeonhole yourself into the position where you NEVER question what this team does, because I could just throw back the same argument you gave above back at you!
lol. You, cbrad, are the one that said there's NO QUESTION. By saying there's no question it is you, cbrad that is saying there's no differing opinion. What effing bizzaro world did I enter? I am the one saying there is differing opinion.
"cbrad wrote:
Do you realize that "evidence" doesn't imply "know with certainty"? I guess not. I gave an example of a team that basically showed their willingness to trade for a certain value and to a team that took the position we would've wanted in the scenario I described. That's way better than your position which is basically implying we can't ever say there was a willing trading partner unless teams explicitly say they were willing. That is just absurd beyond what you I guess can understand.
Once again, we're at the point where I'm not going to keep up silly debates like this with you (and seemingly ONLY you on this board). Believe what you want. I'm starting to think you're trying to just cover up a bad argument with insults.
Sighhhhhhhhhhh
And I gave you an example of the trade requiring more. But once again, it is youcbrad that is saying something did or did not happen with conviction and not one single solitary fact. You have no idea who offered or didn't offer a trade. You have no evidence, no facts, no anything. And people like you do this every year. You don't have the freaking foggiest notion what went on.
If you said I wish we could have traded up, that's one thing. But that';s not what you did, you spoke with conviction on something you have not even the slightest morsel of truth about.
"Fin D wrote:
lol. You, cbrad, are the one that said there's NO QUESTION. By saying there's no question it is you, cbrad that is saying there's no differing opinion. What effing bizzaro world did I enter? I am the one saying there is differing opinion.
Don't act like you use words literally all the time.
"Fin D wrote:
Sighhhhhhhhhhh
And I gave you an example of the trade requiring more. But once again, it is youcbrad that is saying something did or did not happen with conviction and not one single solitary fact. You have no idea who offered or didn't offer a trade. You have no evidence, no facts, no anything. And people like you do this every year. You don't have the freaking foggiest notion what went on.
If you said I wish we could have traded up, that's one thing. But that';s not what you did, you spoke with conviction on something you have not even the slightest morsel of truth about.
Once again, I'm talking specifically about Cleveland. Try arguing that one specific proposed trade. And there were lots of facts in what I said. Should I do a "Fin D" and act like everything you said must be taken literally? OK, then you just lied by saying I didn't provide any facts. See the absurdity?
To make something that should be obvious clear: I never implied absolute certainty that the trade was possible. I just gave evidence (which doesn't imply certainty) that it was possible. Still waiting for evidence from you that the Cleveland trade was not possible.
Fin Dforum_veteran"cbrad wrote:
Don't act like you use words literally all the time.
Once again, I'm talking specifically about Cleveland. Try arguing that one specific proposed trade. And there were lots of facts in what I said. Should I do a "Fin D" and act like everything you said must be taken literally? OK, then you just lied by saying I didn't provide any facts. See the absurdity?
To make something that should be obvious clear: I never implied absolute certainty that the trade was possible. I just gave evidence (which doesn't imply certainty) that it was possible. Still waiting for evidence from you that the Cleveland trade was not possible.
Look, you are the one saying definitively that they didn't try to trade up. You are saying that it is a given Misi sucks. All I did was say you can't know if they tried or not. I also said Misi is not cut and dry horrible. Then you turn around and accuse me of specualting and saying things are only one way. Its crazy is what it is.
"Fin D wrote:
Look, you are the one saying definitively that they didn't try to trade up. You are saying that it is a given Misi sucks. All I did was say you can't know if they tried or not. I also said Misi is not cut and dry horrible. Then you turn around and accuse me of specualting and saying things are only one way. Its crazy is what it is.
Where did I say that they definitively didn't try to trade up? Never said that. I said I'd be surprised if they did. Oh, and I even explicitly told you one could use different words to describe Misi's performance at MLB, etc.. Point is, I've repeated several times to you that evidence doesn't imply certainty. You shouldn't keep acting like I said otherwise.
Fin Dforum_veteran"cbrad wrote:
Where did I say that they definitively didn't try to trade up? Never said that. I said I'd be surprised if they did. Oh, and I even explicitly told you one could use different words to describe Misi's performance at MLB, etc.. Point is, I've repeated several times to you that evidence doesn't imply certainty. You shouldn't keep acting like I said otherwise.
And yet....
"cbrad wrote:
but I can't approve of this drafting strategy; I would've traded a 5th to move up a few spots and grab Kendricks. Just don't see how Phillips helps more than Kendricks given we already have Suh.
You claim not trading up was their strategy. You are saying they purposely chose not to trade up. It doesn't get more definitive than that.
"Fin D wrote:
And yet....
You claim not trading up was their strategy. You are saying they purposely chose not to trade up. It doesn't get more definitive than that.
There's a difference between saying "they didn't try to trade up" vs. "they purposely chose not to trade up". I agree with the latter (that's what actually happened), but that doesn't imply the former. Having said that, I would be surprised if they did try to trade up because it seems like they had a different value assigned to Kendricks than I would've preferred.
Log in to reply.