Who are they talking about?

 

If you going to post an article non-subscribers can't read, at least tell us who their talking about



\\I think i briefly saw Malcolm Brown's name.

 

Yeah, it is saying DT Malcom Brown of Texas, not to be confused with RB Malcolm Brown also of Texas. Unless he has a really good combine workout, IMO, 14 is too rich for him and there will be better players at other positions available to us. I'd guess Malcom Brown goes in the 20-30 range. JMAO.

 

Malcolm Brown? Lol why do I picture a staffer leaking that nonsense in the hopes some media outlet will pick it up and give the team a free smoke screen.

 

Not Malcolm Brown. That is the RB at Texas. Malcom Brown, with one L, is the DT and whom they were talking about.

 

Sold!

 

Thanks.

I don't see DT unless Odrick walks, negotiating ploy perhaps?

 

Lots of talk on here about WR's and such, but I believe we improve the D, stay status quo on O and we make the playoffs. And actually I expect Tanny to improve so I think the O improves.

And fix the ST unit. Rizzi sucks.

 

Unless a premium MLB is there, pass on a linebacker that early, think Jenkins and Misi have plenty of ceiling. And never was in favor of a DT with a high pick.

Personally would like to see a left guard drafted to finally patch that hole.

Failing that, go for a Safety, Delmas is iffy coming off of the injury, Jones is solid but expensive.

 

Personally, prefer a DT in the draft than a guard. Easier to pick up a cheap guard in FA than a cheap DT.

 

Trading back into the early 20's and getting another 2 then drafting Malcolm is fine by me.

 

Yeah, I keep thinking about trading back but I wonder who there would be left on the board that a team would want to trade up for?

 

Malcom was a beast for the Longhorns this year. He's a poor man's Suh. Can hold at the point of attack and get into the backfield on a regular basis, command double teams - everything you want a DT to do, he will do it, and he is relentless. One of the few UT players worth giving a damn about. Would be a solid pick, I think he could give us Aaron Donald type production as a rookie.

 

Guards are deep in this draft especially when you include the OT's that will move inside. Can pull a starter in the 2nd/3rd.

 

If he were 2 inches taller, and 10 lbs heavier, Eric Kendricks would be a top 10 pick all day long. IMO, it is foolish to discount him much for being one inch shorter and 5 lbs lighter than Ryan Shazier who went mid 1st last year. On tape, Kendricks makes other MLBs like McKinney and Perryman look like nothing IMO. Kendricks has awesome instincts. He's reminiscent to Zach Thomas in that regard.

 

Trade back to early 20's (maybe 18 to Kansas so they can get their WR), pick up Malcolm Brown there and with our 2nd pick up Jake Fisher to slot in at LG and then with the 2nd extra pick maybe take Perryman.

 

I keep hearing this draft is deep in a few areas of need for the Dolphins, so I'm REALLY hoping for a tradedown. Or Hickey could get his top pick too soon (for many fans/pundits) and have him start solidly all year, and end being a smart pick.

Prefer the tradedown myself though. WORK THEM PHONES fellas!

That said, I like Brown too.

 

I'd like to see a link and an author with posts like these. Kind of faux pas to just paste a writer's entire work into a thread.

You've got to keep their viewpoint in mind. Since I've been in their shoes maybe that's easier for me.

 

There was, but it was behind a pay wall. So the OP changed it to the whole article.

 

The pay wall is there for a reason. I don't agree with posting it like this but oh well. And I'd still at least like to see a link and an author attribution.

 

Brown is kind of an odd duck in terms of his overall package and I'm not sure I like him, at least not for the Dolphins in the first round. I don't think either Tannenbaum or Hickey are going to love his physical attributes, and you might be looking at a new defensive scheme next year.

He might just be a pure 3-technique who is playing heavier than he should be and doesn't have as good pass rush moves as you'd hope.

 

I hesitate a bit to compare every "undersized" LB to Zach but watching Eric Kendricks on tape justifies your quote. Outstanding football instincts, finds always the straight way to the ballcarrier and then finishes the tackle hard - despite his size. Very sure hands and good awareness of the play situation. Perfect scenario would be to trade down and select him at the end of round 1.

 

Why post? Because it's unethical practice and I'd like to see ThePhins be better than FinHeaven.

But thanks for the comment.

 

No you clearly can win. You can post relevant excerpts from the article that you feel are worthy of being brought to peoples' attention, and then post the link to the article so that they can go read it if they subscribe, and then you can make sure to note that Chris Perkins is the author.

Literally until you just posted that I had NO IDEA who wrote that article. If I were the writer of the article I would be pissed off at you, I would go after ThePhins staff for allowing posters to post entire subscription-based articles, and I would be one thousand percent right for doing so.

Be better. That's how you can win.

 

But just so you guys know, yes I've reported the thread to the mods and I expect they'll remove the original post and do exactly what I've suggested is the right thing to do, which is post an excerpt, a link, and attribute the author.

I'm "that" guy. So hate me all you want. I've been a writer and I know what it feels like to have your stuff just stolen outright by message board fans who think they're entitled to bypass the traffic of the site I work for just cuz "Come on, bro". It's not cool. I've also had entire articles of mine ripped and posted in message board threads with zero attribution, as if the original poster is the author. Also very, very not cool.

If you have a problem with it, feel free to PM me.

 

I can read the article perfectly fine. Seems like there might have been a technical issue for some people. Thanks to the OP who took the time and posted the contents due to it. It seems the link is gone so I'll repost it for anyone interested.

I see no reason to get on my high horse and scold a fellow fan for wanting to share a story he was reading about the team.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/...hins-defense-combine-0221-20150220-story.html

 

Well, technically, its stealing.

The author makes money when people purchase the paper or click the link. Posting the whole thing is literally giving away other people's work for free. Its like walking into a tire shop, paying for one tire but taking all the other tires and just handing them out to people on the street.

 

There are copyright infringement laws to worry about and our TOS specifically prohibits that.Any copyrighted article should bear a link that exhibits the source of the article and its author. Also prohibited are posting entire articles in a public forum .Just enough of the article should be posted to glean the topic of the article which would lead the reader to have enough interest to open the link .


If you were chastized for posting a link without content thats just lazy posting.Some sort of commentary should accompany it.Its not against the TOS however.

 

Fair enough but I don't have a subscription and can read the article without a problem, same as the OP. I don't know if it was intended to be for subscribers only or not. I have a confession to make. A coworker bought a paper this morning and left it in the break room and I read it!

I wanted to add that I read the complete article on my work computer yesterday and to be sure opened it in 2 different browsers on my phone. I've seen in the past where people couldn't read or open a link for some particular reason and it was copy and pasted for them. Whatever though.. I'll go back to primarily just browsing.. Cant deal with the snobs..

 

Nobody here has ever watched a stream of a game...listened to a song they didn't individually buy...copied a DVD/VHS off a buddy!!!

Of course we have...but when you post it for mass consumption you open the medium up to problems.

Sucks, but that's how it is...the board is right in keeping stuff like that out...what we do on our own is a completely different monster.

I'll personally never pay for news/media directly...they're generally not deserving of my $$.

 

Stealing is sometimes good for society, especially when it comes to disseminating information. This thing about getting around paywalls being bad is interesting because posting an entire article is no different than clicking on a link to a news story after googling, assuming that's a news story you'd otherwise not be able to read without paying. You can read NY Times, WSJ articles etc.. all free just by that trick (and if you want to get more fancy, do it in incognito mode on your browser). Yet that isn't considered illegal. Even in Europe where Google has problems, the question was over snippets or summaries of articles, not the links themselves.

Anyway, law isn't consistent so that's fine, and it's fine too that this forum has its own rules that people should follow. But I'm definitely not on the side of authors on this one. So much good content gets published even without any profit motive (open source code, wikipedia, etc..) and most bloggers want their opinions heard, so other than proper attribution (this is important because I know many cases where that motive matters) I'm all for getting around paywalls.

 

Yeah I get it.. I'm still able to open and read the article on my work computer...

 

Clicking a link, gets people to the site. Posting a story with no link or posting the entire article keeps people who were interested in that story form visiting that site. Visiting the site generates dollars. Not visiting the site does not generate dollars.

In short, your Google premise is wrong, because Google still sends you to the author's site.

On a broader scale, some businesses charge admission to enter their property, use their services, etc. So following your logic, because some businesses don't charge admission, you should never have to pay admission?

 

No, my google premise is exactly on target. NY Times let's say will only allow you to read 10 articles or so for free per month. Clicking on the link through google allows you to read that ONE article (doesn't take you to NY Times homepage) for free.

And I'm mostly talking about disseminating information (broader scale) and that it's sometimes good for society when people steal and disseminate info.

 

No, you simply don't understand the premise you're discussing. Paywalls are not the sole source of income for these sites. Traffic is a huge and significant part due to advertising. Posting the articles in their entirety or not posting a link robs them of that revenue stream.

Google takes them to the site to read the article giving that site traffic, it also doesn't make paywalls disappear.