View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:45 am



Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson 
Author Message
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:22 am
Posts: 1449
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
swerve13 wrote:
Quote:
How many superbowls have they been to?

Joe Staley was rated the best tackle in the NFL by PFF. He just played in a Superbowl. He was the 28th overall pick in the 2007 draft.

Also, Michael Oher of the Ravens was a 1st round pick.


Let's just draft nothing but QB's and WR's this year. Because according to some of you that's all it takes to win a Super Bowl these days.


There is a term known as priority.

There is a reason that playmakers are the faces of organizations instead of linemen. They are marketable because they are difference makers.

It's true you can't score without a line, but lets not put brand new tires on a pinto, lets invest in something with an engine, then buy tires.

_________________
You have to do a lot of sucking to end up with a Hickey.


Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:23 pm
Profile WWW
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:23 pm
Posts: 3842
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
Rich wrote:
Joe Staley was rated the best tackle in the NFL by PFF. He just played in a Superbowl. He was the 28th overall pick in the 2007 draft.

Also, Michael Oher of the Ravens was a 1st round pick.
Just using for what my point has been.

For me, its not using a 1st Rd. pick on a LT, but using one to high. Both were drafted at the back end of Rd. 1, not in the top 10. Which goes with what I have been saying. Neither were considered "Elite" prospects coming out of college or they would not have been at the back end of Rd. 1, but both have been very successful playing the position.


Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:29 pm
Profile
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:22 am
Posts: 1449
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
Kickers make game winning FGs in playoff games, but I can't remember a team trading up to draft one in the first round.

You need kickers. You need linemen. But game breakers are the priority.

_________________
You have to do a lot of sucking to end up with a Hickey.


Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:30 pm
Profile WWW
Phinfever Design Admin
Phinfever Design Admin

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:24 am
Posts: 3694
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
swerve13 wrote:
well Ryan Clady plays for the team that currently looks like it has the best shot at winning the Super Bowl this year.
It's not Joe Thomas' fault that he's been protecting the blindside of bad quarterbacks.
We think we already have a very good QB, so now we just need to get him protection.
It's a combination of players that win a Super Bowl. Not just the quarterback, Not just Tavon Austin. LOL


No one is saying it's just Tavon Austin, but this kid brings an explosion that no one else does. If that type of player is available you snag them and fill your other needs later. We have a ton of picks... offensive line will be addressed, but there is absolutely no need to do it in the first round.


Tue Apr 02, 2013 3:37 pm
Profile
Phinfever Radio Host/Blog Writer
Phinfever Radio Host/Blog Writer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 20183
Location: Miami, FL
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
swerve13 wrote:
Quote:
How many superbowls have they been to?

Joe Staley was rated the best tackle in the NFL by PFF. He just played in a Superbowl. He was the 28th overall pick in the 2007 draft.

Also, Michael Oher of the Ravens was a 1st round pick.


Let's just draft nothing but QB's and WR's this year. Because according to some of you that's all it takes to win a Super Bowl these days.


Yes, people on these forums have said all you need is QBs and WRs.

In fact, some people have proposed cutting all of the offensive linemen on the team since we don't need them anymore.

_________________
Image


Tue Apr 02, 2013 3:43 pm
Profile
Phinfever Global Moderator & FFL Commish
Phinfever Global Moderator & FFL Commish

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:28 am
Posts: 7530
Location: Massachusetts
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
Swerve, stop being ridiculous. You know what the point we're trying to make is.

If we were drafting at 26 that's one thing. But to be at #12 with big time playmakers at premium positions available, and instead trade up for a guy that plays a position where the difference between elite and solid is marginal, just doesn't make much sense to me/us.


Tue Apr 02, 2013 3:55 pm
Profile
Phinfever Global Moderator
Phinfever Global Moderator

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:04 pm
Posts: 5415
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
In fact, some people have proposed cutting all of the offensive linemen on the team since we don't need them anymore.

Dang, who said that? I don't remember reading that post.


Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:10 pm
Profile
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:05 pm
Posts: 2426
Location: NSW, Australia
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
Phins Rock wrote:
If we were drafting at 26 that's one thing. But to be at #12 with big time playmakers at premium positions available, and instead trade up for a guy that plays a position where the difference between elite and solid is marginal, just doesn't make much sense to me/us.


There are 3 teams above us looking to take Offensive linemen. Why is it that it is such an issue with Dolphins fans to take quality players at positions of need?

We have the best WR corp we have had in a long time. We have a starting QB.
We don't have the ability to keep him upright as of now.
Linemen don't score touchdowns, but they allow other people to do so.


Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:24 am
Profile
Phinfever 2013 Mock Champion
Phinfever 2013 Mock Champion

Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:52 am
Posts: 5126
Location: Lancaster, PA
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
Dphins4me wrote:
Rich wrote:
Joe Staley was rated the best tackle in the NFL by PFF. He just played in a Superbowl. He was the 28th overall pick in the 2007 draft.

Also, Michael Oher of the Ravens was a 1st round pick.
Just using for what my point has been.

For me, its not using a 1st Rd. pick on a LT, but using one to high. Both were drafted at the back end of Rd. 1, not in the top 10. Which goes with what I have been saying. Neither were considered "Elite" prospects coming out of college or they would not have been at the back end of Rd. 1, but both have been very successful playing the position.


It would be a different story if we were reaching for a tackle at the top of round 1 but we wouldn't be since the top 3 left tackles are all graded out as top 10 overall in this particular draft.
The top 10 is pretty much offensive and defensive line players. That's the cream of the crap of the 2013 draft.
There are no Larry Fitzgerald's sitting there for us this year.


Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:21 am
Profile
Phinfever 2013 Mock Champion
Phinfever 2013 Mock Champion

Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:52 am
Posts: 5126
Location: Lancaster, PA
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
Quote:
There is a term known as priority.

There is a reason that playmakers are the faces of organizations instead of linemen. They are marketable because they are difference makers.


hate to break it to you but Left Tackles are as highly coveted as almost any position in the NFL.
There is a reason why they are taken so high every year, to protect the most valuable player on the field.
In the last 6 years there were more quarterbacks and offensive tackles taken in the top 10 than any other position. 11 quarterbacks and 10 tackles. GM's covet left tackles.


Last edited by swerve13 on Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:39 am, edited 3 times in total.



Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:22 am
Profile
Phinfever 2013 Mock Champion
Phinfever 2013 Mock Champion

Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:52 am
Posts: 5126
Location: Lancaster, PA
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
Phins Rock wrote:
Swerve, stop being ridiculous. You know what the point we're trying to make is.

If we were drafting at 26 that's one thing. But to be at #12 with big time playmakers at premium positions available, and instead trade up for a guy that plays a position where the difference between elite and solid is marginal, just doesn't make much sense to me/us.


LOL, I think you're being ridiculous. If you don't think tackle is a premium position than I don't know what to tell you man. I don't play Madden football , where I guess you just roll out 5 Pro Bowl receivers to win every game..............The line isn't a priority then


Last edited by swerve13 on Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 am, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:28 am
Profile
Phinfever 2013 Mock Champion
Phinfever 2013 Mock Champion

Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:52 am
Posts: 5126
Location: Lancaster, PA
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
degs wrote:
Phins Rock wrote:
If we were drafting at 26 that's one thing. But to be at #12 with big time playmakers at premium positions available, and instead trade up for a guy that plays a position where the difference between elite and solid is marginal, just doesn't make much sense to me/us.


There are 3 teams above us looking to take Offensive linemen. Why is it that it is such an issue with Dolphins fans to take quality players at positions of need?

We have the best WR corp we have had in a long time. We have a starting QB.
We don't have the ability to keep him upright as of now.
Linemen don't score touchdowns, but they allow other people to do so.


Naaaaa!!!! This is flag football baby! Just yell hike and everybody run deep!


Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:30 am
Profile
Phinfever Radio Host/Blog Writer
Phinfever Radio Host/Blog Writer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 20183
Location: Miami, FL
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
swerve13 wrote:
Naaaaa!!!! This is flag football baby! Just yell hike and everybody run deep!


That actually doesn't work in flag football.

_________________
Image


Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:53 am
Profile
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:23 pm
Posts: 3842
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
swerve13 wrote:
It would be a different story if we were reaching for a tackle at the top of round 1 but we wouldn't be since the top 3 left tackles are all graded out as top 10 overall in this particular draft.
The top 10 is pretty much offensive and defensive line players. That's the cream of the crap of the 2013 draft.
There are no Larry Fitzgerald's sitting there for us this year.

Correct, but no need to waste a valuable pick moving up for a position that is not an impact position. Miami can find a successful tackle in Rd. 2 or at least wait till then to move up at a much lower cost.

It just ticks me off that Miami has made it a habit of not trading up or drafting play makers, instead trading away from them & then will spend quality picks moving up for non impact position. All this attention to the OL & its still been very avg.

Miami passed on a Qb for a LT & 5 yrs later that LT is gone & only played at a PB level for a couple of yrs & the QB is one of the prime QBs of the NFL. All because the OLman was the safer pick.

swerve13 wrote:
LOL, I think you're being ridiculous. If you don't think tackle is a premium position than I don't know what to tell you man. I don't play Madden football , where I guess you just roll out 5 Pro Bowl receivers to win every game..............The line isn't a priority then
Has anyone said OL is not a priority? Its just some view it as Miami can find a tackle in Rd. 2 that can do the job, maybe not as well as one of the top 3, but well enough to do it to win.


Last edited by Dphins4me on Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:33 am, edited 2 times in total.



Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:06 am
Profile
Phinfever Global Moderator & FFL Commish
Phinfever Global Moderator & FFL Commish

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:28 am
Posts: 7530
Location: Massachusetts
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
swerve13 wrote:
Phins Rock wrote:
Swerve, stop being ridiculous. You know what the point we're trying to make is.

If we were drafting at 26 that's one thing. But to be at #12 with big time playmakers at premium positions available, and instead trade up for a guy that plays a position where the difference between elite and solid is marginal, just doesn't make much sense to me/us.


LOL, I think you're being ridiculous. If you don't think tackle is a premium position than I don't know what to tell you man. I don't play Madden football , where I guess you just roll out 5 Pro Bowl receivers to win every game..............The line isn't a priority then

If you're not going to argue what I'm arguing, then I'm not arguing.


Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:27 am
Profile
Phinfever Global Moderator
Phinfever Global Moderator

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:04 pm
Posts: 5415
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
Correct, but no need to waste a valuable pick moving up for a position that is not an impact position. Miami can find a successful tackle in Rd. 2 or at least wait till then to move up at a much lower cost.

This is my point as well. I think most of us on here want to address the tackle position, but most of us don't want to trade up for one.


Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:26 am
Profile
Phinfever Global Moderator & FFL Commish
Phinfever Global Moderator & FFL Commish

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:28 am
Posts: 7530
Location: Massachusetts
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
Makchell wrote:
Correct, but no need to waste a valuable pick moving up for a position that is not an impact position. Miami can find a successful tackle in Rd. 2 or at least wait till then to move up at a much lower cost.

This is my point as well. I think most of us on here want to address the tackle position, but most of us don't want to trade up for one.


Exactly. OT needs to be addressed. It was my #1 priority I wanted to take care of in Free Agency. But in this scenario, essentially what you'd be doing is trading Kyle Long and Tavon Austin (for example), for Lane Johnson.

How is that worth it?


Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:33 am
Profile
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 5278
Location: Topsfield, MA
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
It would seem more realistic if Lane Johnson is still available when Tennessee is picking and you simply want to leap frong San Diego. That wouldn't cost any premium picks.


Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:42 am
Profile
Phinfever Radio Host/Blog Writer
Phinfever Radio Host/Blog Writer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 20183
Location: Miami, FL
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
I think the Dolphins have positioned themselves to definitely address offensive line in the first round. They've addressed receiver and tight end. They've addressed guard. They still need a tackle. They also still need a cornerback and a pass rusher.

That being said, I agree with jammer, I don't think the Dolphins are going to trade premium picks to move up for a tackle. They may be willing to trade a late round pick to move up a couple of spots, but they still have too many needs to give up 2nd or 3rd round picks.

_________________
Image


Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:55 am
Profile
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 5278
Location: Topsfield, MA
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
I think it is safe to say this is the one draft where I have no idea what Miami is going to do. The 2010 draft was a big surprise when they dropped way back and took yet another D-line guy, but at least a lot of us were debating Dez Bryant vs Earl Thomas.

You could make a case Miami moves up, moves down or is targeting the likes of Austin, Eifert, Rhodes, Trufant, Cooper and Johnson.

We still don't know their true comfort level with Martin at LT but my sense is that their willingness to re-sign Long hints they aren't convinced yet.


Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:12 am
Profile
Phinfever Global Moderator
Phinfever Global Moderator

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:04 pm
Posts: 5415
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
Let's just draft nothing but QB's and WR's this year. Because according to some of you that's all it takes to win a Super Bowl these days

I don't believe "we" think that at all. IMO, we NEED to address the tackle position, I just don;t want to trade quality picks to move up. Could Lane be a pro bowler? Sure. Can he be a bust? Sure. Draft two 2nd "tier" tackles instead. The draft is a gamble and there is no such thing as a sure thing.


Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:23 am
Profile
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:22 am
Posts: 1449
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
If team 1 has a pro bowl LT and an average WR, and team 2 has an average LT and a pro bowl WR, everything else being equal, I am betting team 2 wins the game.


That average LT on team 2 can block well enough for the QB to get the ball to his pro bowl WR. But no matter how good the pro bowl LT is on team 1, that average WR just isn't getting open.

_________________
You have to do a lot of sucking to end up with a Hickey.


Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:29 am
Profile WWW
Phinfever 2013 Mock Champion
Phinfever 2013 Mock Champion

Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:52 am
Posts: 5126
Location: Lancaster, PA
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
Rich wrote:
I think the Dolphins have positioned themselves to definitely address offensive line in the first round. They've addressed receiver and tight end. They've addressed guard. They still need a tackle. They also still need a cornerback and a pass rusher.

That being said, I agree with jammer, I don't think the Dolphins are going to trade premium picks to move up for a tackle. They may be willing to trade a late round pick to move up a couple of spots, but they still have too many needs to give up 2nd or 3rd round picks.


Rich I think we are going to part with a 3rd and a 5th to move a couple spots to get Johnson. And I would be fine with that. We really don't have that many needs anymore.


Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:24 pm
Profile
Phinfever Radio Host/Blog Writer
Phinfever Radio Host/Blog Writer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 20183
Location: Miami, FL
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
swerve13 wrote:
Rich I think we are going to part with a 3rd and a 5th to move a couple spots to get Johnson. And I would be fine with that.


I wouldn't. Too much to give up to move up to draft a lineman.

Quote:
We really don't have that many needs anymore.


We still need another starting corner, a competent slot corner, a free safety, a pass rusher, a defensive tackle to develop for the future, a tight end that can block and also eventually develop into a starter and I am also not completely comfortable with our guard position.

All that on top of the need for a tackle.

I wouldn't give up any of our top 5 picks to move up.

_________________
Image


Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:27 pm
Profile
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:22 am
Posts: 1449
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
rodneyfaile wrote:
If team 1 has a pro bowl LT and an average WR, and team 2 has an average LT and a pro bowl WR, everything else being equal, I am betting team 2 wins the game.


That average LT on team 2 can block well enough for the QB to get the ball to his pro bowl WR. But no matter how good the pro bowl LT is on team 1, that average WR just isn't getting open.



I guess what I'm saying is LT can be filled later. Lets go after more critical talent.

_________________
You have to do a lot of sucking to end up with a Hickey.


Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:31 pm
Profile WWW
Phinfever Legend
Phinfever Legend

Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:59 pm
Posts: 5047
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
Rich wrote:
I think the Dolphins have positioned themselves to definitely address offensive line in the first round. They've addressed receiver and tight end. They've addressed guard. They still need a tackle. They also still need a cornerback and a pass rusher.

That being said, I agree with jammer, I don't think the Dolphins are going to trade premium picks to move up for a tackle. They may be willing to trade a late round pick to move up a couple of spots, but they still have too many needs to give up 2nd or 3rd round picks.


I would argue that we don't need a pass rusher. With Odrick and Vernon still developing, I don't think there is a big need to add another player into the mix just yet. I think that would be something you do next year if we're not getting enough production out of the position. The two combined for 66 tackles, 8.5 sacks, and 2 forced fumbles last year. I think we're doing just fine letting those two split time for now. Let's not forget, there is still a very good chance that both players improve on their production from last season. They're both young and both still developing, especially Vernon.

But I do agree that we 100% have put ourselves in a position where we need to add an offensive tackle. That is of course unless we manage to sign Eric Winston before the draft. Then we could perhaps even consider looking at one of the top guards in the draft (Warmack or Cooper).


Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:10 pm
Profile
Phinfever Draft Guru/Radio Host
Phinfever Draft Guru/Radio Host
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 11:14 pm
Posts: 3227
Location: Columbia, SC
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
I think it is pretty apparent that the Dolphins are going to give Jonathan Martin the chance to fill the OLT void. They could have easily traded for Branden Albert by now and gotten a proven commodity.

Miami invested a 2nd round pick in Martin and he is a very smart kid and fully realizes what he needs to address in his game. My hope is the kid is able to do what is need to be done, because it is not technique that he needs to address, but his strength and his ability to handle the bull rush, plain and simple.

Never say never, but I just don't see Ireland looking to trade up to take an ORT. Terron Armstead, Kyle Long and possibly Menelik Watson will all be there in the 2nd round. And please don't even try to tell me 2nd round picks can't make an impact.

Jeff has done a great job of bringing in young talent during free agency, but this was a 2 pronged attack for the Dolphins. This team was not 7-9 because they were flowing with talent. You need quality depth on a 53 man roster, and in some cases, you still need to add talent that can possibly start.

Ireland has done some moving around in the 2nd round and later, but I don't see him trading away many picks at all. I could even see him trading down, as the Dolphins have done that in the 1st round before.

Miami can go in MANY directions here, and that is what Jeff Ireland has wanted to be able to do.

_________________
Image


Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:34 pm
Profile
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:49 pm
Posts: 1101
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
wkloiber13 wrote:
Rich wrote:
I would argue that we don't need a pass rusher. With Odrick and Vernon still developing, I don't think there is a big need to add another player into the mix just yet. I think that would be something you do next year if we're not getting enough production out of the position. The two combined for 66 tackles, 8.5 sacks, and 2 forced fumbles last year. I think we're doing just fine letting those two split time for now. Let's not forget, there is still a very good chance that both players improve on their production from last season. They're both young and both still developing, especially Vernon.

But I do agree that we 100% have put ourselves in a position where we need to add an offensive tackle. That is of course unless we manage to sign Eric Winston before the draft. Then we could perhaps even consider looking at one of the top guards in the draft (Warmack or Cooper).


Very well put wkloiber13.........the O line was a major issue last year...........to your point it remains an area that we have not adequatley addressed in FA. We've added top FAs to the 3 other major areas of need........WR, TE and CB.

If you look at the team like a chain.......where the chain is only as strong as the weakest link.......then it seems obvious we need to draft a lineman, preferably tackle, to be a solid contribtor in '13. Lane Johnson seems to fit that role..........I'd be fine with trading our late 2nd to move up.


Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:12 am
Profile
Phinfever 2013 Mock Champion
Phinfever 2013 Mock Champion

Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:52 am
Posts: 5126
Location: Lancaster, PA
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
Phins Rock wrote:
wkloiber13 wrote:
You can blab all day long about the need for playmakers, but in my opinion games are decided in the trenches. If you don't have a good offensive line, you're run game will stink and you're quarterback will be running for his life all game long.


Having a solid OL is good enough. Solid at the playmaking positions isn't.

Top picks should be devoted to premium positions on the outside: WR, TE, DE, CB.


that must be why the most drafted positions in the top 10 are quarterbacks, offensive tackles, defensive tackles and linebackers. In the past 6 years not a single tight end was drafted top 10 and only 4 corners were taken in the top ten. 7 WR's and 5 DE's.

In contrast 11 QB's were taken top ten.....10 offensive tackles and 8 D-tackles and 8 Linebackers


Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:21 am
Profile
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:22 am
Posts: 1449
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
swerve13 wrote:
Phins Rock wrote:
wkloiber13 wrote:
You can blab all day long about the need for playmakers, but in my opinion games are decided in the trenches. If you don't have a good offensive line, you're run game will stink and you're quarterback will be running for his life all game long.


Having a solid OL is good enough. Solid at the playmaking positions isn't.

Top picks should be devoted to premium positions on the outside: WR, TE, DE, CB.


that must be why the most drafted positions in the top 10 are quarterbacks, offensive tackles, defensive tackles and linebackers. In the past 6 years not a single tight end was drafted top 10 and only 4 corners were taken in the top ten. 7 WR's and 5 DE's.

In contrast 11 QB's were taken top ten.....10 offensive tackles and 8 D-tackles and 8 Linebackers


I thought a lot of that was because of the huge contracts rookies used to get, so teams played it safer early in the draft?

_________________
You have to do a lot of sucking to end up with a Hickey.


Last edited by rodneyfaile on Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:14 am
Profile WWW
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:23 pm
Posts: 3842
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
swerve13 wrote:
that must be why the most drafted positions in the top 10 are quarterbacks, offensive tackles, defensive tackles and linebackers. In the past 6 years not a single tight end was drafted top 10 and only 4 corners were taken in the top ten. 7 WR's and 5 DE's.

In contrast 11 QB's were taken top ten.....10 offensive tackles and 8 D-tackles and 8 Linebackers

I think if you check the past 2000-10 drafts you will find more DL bust than even productive players.

I believe what you are either not reading correctly or we are not explaining very well. Its do not take an OLman when a "Play maker" is available. No one is saying by-pass a top OLman for a late 2nd Rd. Wr. Just that if a player who puts TDs on the board is there, then take him over the OLman.

I'd trade Odrick/Misi for Dez Bryant any day.


Last edited by Dphins4me on Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:06 am
Profile
Phinfever Global Moderator
Phinfever Global Moderator

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:04 pm
Posts: 5415
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
Just that if a player who puts TDs on the board is there, then take him over the OLman.

Yep and the fact of the matter is that we have taken OL early in recent years and we haven't won squat. Let's change it up a bit.


Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:52 am
Profile
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 3:56 pm
Posts: 2625
Location: MA.
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
Rich wrote:
Kev1321 wrote:
(Solder sucks by the way).


Ranked 17th in the NFL at the tackle position (includes left and right tackles) according to PFF.



Sounds ok until you consider the offensive system and qb getting the ball off...I've watched him....He is very average at best....Almost got Brady killed last preseason.

He did not live up to his draft status...Is there a stat for being able to tackle people and not get a holding call because you play for the Patsies.


Last edited by Kev1321 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:19 am, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:58 am
Profile
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 3:56 pm
Posts: 2625
Location: MA.
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
wkloiber13 wrote:
Rich wrote:
I think the Dolphins have positioned themselves to definitely address offensive line in the first round. They've addressed receiver and tight end. They've addressed guard. They still need a tackle. They also still need a cornerback and a pass rusher.

That being said, I agree with jammer, I don't think the Dolphins are going to trade premium picks to move up for a tackle. They may be willing to trade a late round pick to move up a couple of spots, but they still have too many needs to give up 2nd or 3rd round picks.


I would argue that we don't need a pass rusher. With Odrick and Vernon still developing, I don't think there is a big need to add another player into the mix just yet. I think that would be something you do next year if we're not getting enough production out of the position. The two combined for 66 tackles, 8.5 sacks, and 2 forced fumbles last year. I think we're doing just fine letting those two split time for now. Let's not forget, there is still a very good chance that both players improve on their production from last season. They're both young and both still developing, especially Vernon.

But I do agree that we 100% have put ourselves in a position where we need to add an offensive tackle. That is of course unless we manage to sign Eric Winston before the draft. Then we could perhaps even consider looking at one of the top guards in the draft (Warmack or Cooper).


People on here were screaming about Wake being on the sideline at the end of games...He needed air..And we needed another passrusher


Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:09 am
Profile
Phinfever Global Moderator & FFL Commish
Phinfever Global Moderator & FFL Commish

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:28 am
Posts: 7530
Location: Massachusetts
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
swerve13 wrote:
Phins Rock wrote:
wkloiber13 wrote:
You can blab all day long about the need for playmakers, but in my opinion games are decided in the trenches. If you don't have a good offensive line, you're run game will stink and you're quarterback will be running for his life all game long.


Having a solid OL is good enough. Solid at the playmaking positions isn't.

Top picks should be devoted to premium positions on the outside: WR, TE, DE, CB.


that must be why the most drafted positions in the top 10 are quarterbacks, offensive tackles, defensive tackles and linebackers. In the past 6 years not a single tight end was drafted top 10 and only 4 corners were taken in the top ten. 7 WR's and 5 DE's.

In contrast 11 QB's were taken top ten.....10 offensive tackles and 8 D-tackles and 8 Linebackers


Didn't Baltimore have problems at OT all season and were 20th against the run?

I seem to remember Flacco, his weapons, their pass rush and their depth at CB winning them a Super Bowl. Could be wrong.

Of course the Giants 32nd ranked run game and great protection of Eli (ranked dead last according to PFF) is what won them the Super Bowl the season before that. It wasn't their pass rush or Manning and his weapons making plays...no of course not.

The season before that the Packers didn't win it with weapons for Rodgers and a playmaking Defense, right? It was an offensive line that was highly invested into...

And of course we all know Jermon Bushrod single handedly won the Super Bowl for the Saints the year before that. Same with Max Starks and that entire Pittsburgh Steeler OL that was ranked 28th in pass protection the year they won it all.

You're clearly right. OT's win games. They need to be invested into with top 10 picks and Day 2 picks in order to get into the top 10...Not those who score TD's and disrupt the passing game. What was I thinking? Silly me...


Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:34 am
Profile
Phinfever Radio Host/Blog Writer
Phinfever Radio Host/Blog Writer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 am
Posts: 20183
Location: Miami, FL
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
wkloiber13 wrote:
I would argue that we don't need a pass rusher.


I would argue that if you watch every defensive snap last season, you'll see a defense that despite the nice sack total, had too many instances in which QBs were standing in a clean pocket and not feeling pressured.

In today's pass happy NFL, you cannot have too many pass rushers. It is a premium position, an impact position and a position that can neutralize the best QBs in the NFL.

_________________
Image


Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:42 am
Profile
Phinfever VIP!
Phinfever VIP!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 2:35 pm
Posts: 253
Location: Tampa, FL
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
The more I think about this draft and the Fins being at the #12 spot I tend to see Ireland trading down before he would trade up. I also don't believe Johnson is talented enough of an OT to be worth trading up for versus what it would cost the team in draft picks. Especially if their plan is to get a starting ORT in this draft?

The last time they were at #12 they traded back, way too far for my taste the last time but that is what I see happening. Unless a player they really like happens to fall then that is what I'm expecting to hear once they are on the clock. There are quite a few areas on the team that need help and I can see players taken in round 2 and 3 starting for the Fins this upcoming season. If trading down 5-8 spots can gain an additional 3rd or 4th rounder then go for it.

I can see a team wanting Rhodes willing to trade up in front of the Bucs, or a team wanting a DT moving in front of Carolina to get one. Then the Fins taking someone like Eifert, Allen, or Trufant later in the 1st.


Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:07 am
Profile
Phinfever Global Moderator
Phinfever Global Moderator

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:04 pm
Posts: 5415
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
People on here were screaming about Wake being on the sideline at the end of games...He needed air..And we needed another passrusher


Yep, we need a rotation, remember the Giants rotation when they took down the Pats in the SB? Strahan, Usi, Tuck, ETC.

The more I think about this draft and the Fins being at the #12 spot I tend to see Ireland trading down before he would trade up

I hope so. More picks, more chances of finding impact players.

I would argue that if you watch every defensive snap last season, you'll see a defense that despite the nice sack total, had too many instances in which QBs were standing in a clean pocket and not feeling pressured.

In today's pass happy NFL, you cannot have too many pass rushers. It is a premium position, an impact position and a position that can neutralize the best QBs in the NFL.


Agreed.


Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:38 am
Profile
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
2013 Phinfever VIP Donor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:23 pm
Posts: 3842
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
Interesting article about the Left Tackle position & its loss of importance.

Quote:
For decades, old-school thinkers like Parcells and former Colts president Bill Polian considered quarterback, left tackle and pass rusher to be the "holy trinity" of team building. Now the argument can be made that the correlation between victories and elite left tackles no longer exists. "When coaches talk about position hierarchy, left tackle isn't among the top few anymore," an AFC team exec says. "Now it's QB, pass rusher, cornerback, wide receiver. A guy like Joe Thomas shows that a great left tackle isn't nearly sufficient."

Nor is he necessary. After all, Eli Manning won two Super Bowl MVPs with former fifth-round pick and converted guard David Diehl protecting his backside. Aaron Rodgers sets up behind fifth-round pick Marshall Newhouse. And who can name Tom Brady's left tackle? How about Peyton Manning's? Considering that those two legendary QBs had the quickest releases in the league last season -- 3.03 and 3.04 seconds, compared with the league average of 3.46 -- do the names really matter? Linemen simply don't have to hold their blocks as long as they used to.


Quote:
In the end, the importance of protecting the quarterback hasn't diminished; it's just that the responsibility and rewards are now more evenly distributed across all five O-linemen. "It used to be you found a great left tackle and built the rest of it from there," Savage says. "Now, because of defenses, you'd better be solid across the entire line. Instead of the super-elite left tackle, it's about five men who block well in a system.


Left behind


Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:36 am
Profile
Phinfever Blog Writer
Phinfever Blog Writer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:43 pm
Posts: 4373
Location: Sunny South Florida
Post Re: NOW we should trade up for Lane Johnson
Makchell wrote:
In fact, some people have proposed cutting all of the offensive linemen on the team since we don't need them anymore.

Dang, who said that? I don't remember reading that post.


A bit of an exaggeration, however I can see where we could use help at 3 of 5 spots... Outside of Pouncey and Incognito I am not sold on anyone....

_________________
Caveat: These are the opinions of this user, and may differ from your opinion. Please use common sense before taking offense.
Reply may contain sarcasm


Wed Apr 10, 2013 4:44 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2010 phpBB Group.
Designed by Coots & IamPZ - Phinfever.com.