Are the Dolphins headed in the right direction?

[BigDaddyFin]

For the most part, we are headed in the right direction.  The defense has improved dramatically over last year with Mike Nolan.

The offensive line was improving before we started getting guys hurt left and right.  Center is going to be a major draft need for us.  We can't have this shit where no matter who they play at center he gets hurt every goddamn year.

The wide recievers have improved but I think we're going to have to replace Brandon Marshall sooner rather than later and that trading Camarillo will prove to be a mistake.

We're going to need to retool at running back soon.

Our offensive coordinator is suspect at best.

This team has shown it can hang with just about anyone including Pittsburgh, NE and the Jets, we just need to get over that hump and go to the next level.  We've gone from cannon fodder to competitive/also-ran.  Now we need to become dominant.

I think Sparano can take us there but we need some semblance of a new offensive philosophy and our drafting still needs to improve.  It's much better than it was under Wannstedt but it has a ways to go yet.

[MikeO]

Have to retool the RB NOW this offseason!!

Ronnie is washed up. Ricky is old

[fyo]

no team has any depth anymore in theNFL. Those days are long gone. With a 53 man roster you can't have depth. Impossible. The problem is you can't miss on 2nd and 3rd round picks and expect to win in this league.

I would argue that you are contradicting yourself here.

Those draft picks, those young players, are exactly where the depth comes from.

Our problem is that when you have an average starter and a very poor (if any) backup, you can't just swap our your starter with a free agent. You need to keep the old starter (or add depth through the draft that year).

This all comes back to the state of the team under Wannstedt / Spielmann and later Cam Cameron. Draft picks after the first round are INSANELY CHEAP to sign, compared to getting a capable veteran. Like you said, you can't keep missing on those picks and expect to win.

I've seen people argue time and time again that it doesn't take multiple years to turn a franchise around; that you can win it all after a year or two. If the team you had SUCKED, the only way to do that is with insane injury luck. We had that in 2008. No team lost fewer starters than the Dolphins that year. Hit a year like that and, yes, you can do very, very well and to those who only look at things superficially, it will look like the franchise was turned around and everything is now hunky-dory.

To make matters worse, in terms of depth, every time a new coaching staff takes over, they jettison a bunch of players simply because they don't fit the scheme or style that the new regime wants to run. The stars aren't cut, of course, but a bunch of solid players who should otherwise be the backbone of your depth are. Change coaching staff every 2-3-4 years and you'll NEVER be any good.

One easy example of this is the Detroit Lions. They've had SEVEN head coaches in the last 10 years. Considering the majority were rookie head coaches, the franchise has just been set up for failure.

The Rams are another. After firing Martz, they've had FOUR head coaches in 5 years.

Note that I'm not saying you don't fire a bad head coach -- or even a reasonably good one that you just don't feel "will get it done". But hiring a new one shouldn't be a one-year "look-and-see" deal. Pick carefully and STICK WITH YOUR CHOICE. Otherwise, you might as well change the team logo to a blue cat.

[MikeO]

2nd and 3rd round picks aren't depth picks. Those are where you need to find STARTERS who contribute to wins on the field

[fyo]

2nd and 3rd round picks aren't depth picks. Those are where you need to find STARTERS who contribute to wins on the field

Yes and no...

For a lot of positions, those picks will spend a year or two as backups. They'll get playing time, but won't be starters unless there's an injury (i.e. depth).

Additionally, you can't figure on hitting on 100% of those picks. Some will just not be as good as you thought, some will require more time, some will have injury issues that set them back... all of those players should make up a good portion of your depth. Their rookie contracts aren't prohibitive, even for non-starters. Sure, if you can replace DEPTH players with someone cheaper of equal skill...

[Sunstroke]

Have to retool the RB NOW this offseason!!

Ronnie is washed up. Ricky is old

Can't argue with this...  I also believe this draft class has the potential to be excellent for finding RB talent in the middle rounds, so Miami shouldn't even need to use any early picks on that position. They could add more OL, DB, DL talent early and then grab some backs later.

Side thought, because it ties in. Not only the RB position, but I think this entire offense needs to add more speed. Miami has looked absolutely plodding at times (most times) this season, and it seems like every team Miami faces is faster than they are. This squad needs more speed at RB, WR, TE...pretty much everywhere.

Overall, this should be a pretty interesting offseason, as the organization answers a lot of questions about the front office, coaching and key personnel on the field.

[fyo]

This squad needs more speed at RB, WR, TE...pretty much everywhere.

How about more speed on defense? How many times have we looked like idiots on an end around or pitch play? Even the blocking on the d-line... every time there's side-to-side movement, the players look slow and awkward.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

no team has any depth anymore in theNFL.

That is not entirely true.  Some teams such as the Colts, Jets, Chargers, Dallas tend to run very top heavy, spending almost all their money on the top 20.  Have  superstars and fill in the rest with scrubs. The often have the best pre-season team on paper. Some teams such as the Patriots, Steelers, Titans spend less on the top 20 and put considerable emphasis on have the best team top to bottom and care significantly about the quality of the 53rd man or who the backup QB is. 

Which is a better approach?   Hard to say....The Colts are probably the extreme in one direction and the Patriots are probably the extreme in the other -- both franchise have been quite successful with their approach.

[MikeO]

Yes and no...

For a lot of positions, those picks will spend a year or two as backups. They'll get playing time, but won't be starters unless there's an injury (i.e. depth).

Additionally, you can't figure on hitting on 100% of those picks. Some will just not be as good as you thought, some will require more time, some will have injury issues that set them back... all of those players should make up a good portion of your depth. Their rookie contracts aren't prohibitive, even for non-starters. Sure, if you can replace DEPTH players with someone cheaper of equal skill...

Take away QB, and no position you draft in Rd 2 or 3 can't start from Day 1.  CB might be a little tough, but that would be the only one I  woudl consider. Seriously, if you draft a LB or a G or a DE or DT in Rd 2 or 3 they can start from Day 1 if good enough

[fyo]

they can start from Day 1 if good enough

Well, ANYONE can start from day 1 if good enough... that's kinda the point, though, isn't it?

I'm not saying you don't WANT your 3rd rounder to start... the better he is the better... but let's look at reality. How often does a 2nd or 3rd round pick start on an "established" team? Established meaning either same coach or at least same system for a number of years.

Let's take the Ravens as an example... This year they picked DT Terrence Cody in the 2nd and TE Ed Dickson in the 3rd. Each has 1 start this season. Last year they picked DE Paul Kruger and DB Lardarius Webb. 5 games started between them for their rookie season. Three years ago, they picked Ray Rice in the 2nd round (4 starts) and LB Gooden (0 starts) , DB Zbikowski (0 starts), and G Cousins (0 starts) in the 3rd. Four years ago they picked OT Yanda (12 starts) and Figurs (0 starts).

See a trend?

Let's take another team... Gruden's Bucs...

2010: DT Brian Price (0 starts), WR Arrelious Benn (6 starts), DB Myron Lewis (0 starts)
2009: DT Roy Miller (1 start... but 10 for 10 this year)

And another... let's do the Colts this time:

2010: LB Pat Angerer (5 starts), DB Kevin Thomas (0 starts)
2009: DT Fili Moala (1 start... but 10 for 10 this year), CB Jerraud Powers (12 starts)

I'm going to assume it's possible to find teams were the number of starts are much higher. There are, after all, many different tactics. But, again, one of the reasons many of these rookies get their starts is due to INJURY to the established starter. I.e. the rookies initially constituted DEPTH (and automatically became starters when that DEPTH was needed).

The Patriots would be one such example with second round picks Brandon Spikes, Jermaine Cunningham and Rob Gronkowski all getting a significant number of starts in their rookie season. Their 3rd rounder (WR Taylor Price) this year hasn't seen the field yet, so the picture is not quite as clear as the three second rounders make it appear.  2009 was more like the other teams listed above, so I'm tempted to prescribe those three as the aberration rather than the norm.

2009: DB Darius Butler (5 starts), DE Ron Brace (2 starts), OT Sebastian Vollmer (8 starts), WR Brandon Tate (1 start), LB Tyrone McKenzie (0 starts).

[fyo]

Just to boil the above down for you, MikeO:

10 seasons... 3 teams... 27 players... an average of 3.15 games started their rookie season.

[Tenshot13]

Fyo ....its raheem Morris's Bucs, not Gruden's.  Gruden is probaably on of the worst drafters ever.

[MikeO]

But you can't waste picks on players who either aren't in the league (Pat White) or are so bad they get cut after 1 year (Patrick Turner). Or guys who flat out can't play (Sean Smith). That is why Ireland/Sparano must go. Too many wasted opportunities on and off the field in leading this organization

[fyo]

But you can't waste picks on players who either aren't in the league (Pat White) or are so bad they get cut after 1 year (Patrick Turner). Or guys who flat out can't play (Sean Smith). That is why Ireland/Sparano must go. Too many wasted opportunities on and off the field in leading this organization

Which is a perfect retort to... oh, wait, you didn't address anything that was brought up with your post. Your two arguments these days seem to be "because you're wrong" and just ignoring it.

You claimed, or at least appeared to claim, that 2nd and 3rd round picks could / should start from day 1. I presented substantial findings that clearly indicated otherwise in the real world, thus backing up my initial argument that 2nd and 3rd round picks contribute to depth.

Do you have anything to add or do you concede that you might possibly have been mistaken? (Or are you just going to take your ball and go home.)

[MikeO]

what is this a test? I can respond to anything I want in any way I want. My god, some of you just come here looking to pick a fight. I'm just here to talk football. Some of you need to chill the F' out!!

Yes, in rounds 2 and 3 of the draft you want to find guys who will start for you. Most by day 1 but if it takes a few games or a season so be it. Depends on the team. A team like NE or Balt probably won't need those guys to start from Day 1 since they are already loaded. A team like the Browns or Lions probably need them to start from day 1. Is that such an awful thing to say? 

But the fact of the matter is, at WORST....yes at WORST....you need guys you take in Rd 2 or 3 to at least be on your active roster!!! Ireland/Sparano drafted guys who aren't even on our active roster for christ sakes and wasted valuable high picks!