The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I wasn't sure whether this should be a Dolphins or a league issue, but since two Dolphins are involved I put it in this section.

My understanding is that the Giants picked up Derek Hagan.  London seems to be a bigger receiver and a better fill in for the missing Burress.  I say we definately came up winners in this eventual trade-off.  I am sure they would have preferred to see London on the practice squad or on the free agent market.

I like London's size and mentality.  I wonder how much potential is really there and it will be interesting to see if he gets a legit shot to show his abilities.  I have seen enough Hagan drops to feel fine about his departure.  I just remember one of the first interviews I saw of London when he entered Miami and in essence he said that he was excited to be a Dolphin and get an opportunity to play and show the Giants that they lost "one hell of a receiver".

Just kind of interesting the way some of the little things play out in the league at times.

I don't know much about London, other than what I've seen from him the past few games.  I don't suspect he has the talent to ever crack the starting lineup, and on this team, that's saying a lot.

I agree with your assessment of Hagan, as well.  I was more than tired of him dropping the ball in critical situations.  Thanks Saban... ::)

London was key to the Giants victory over the Dolphins last year.....


Okay the puns....not working. 

I just checked the NFL.com players site.  Derek Hagan is still unemployed. 

Hagan was signed by the Giants on Tuesday.

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2008/12/new_york_giants_sign_wr_hagan.html

OK.  But notice no one picked him up all this time.  Now the Giants are desperate for a passing attack as the loss of Burress has really hurt them. 

Until something changes, London is a special teamer--2 receptions for 20 yards and an offensive PI last game.  Burress was a stud.  If we lost London, I wouldn't be concerned.  On another note, it seems like Domenik Hix drops a TD every week. 

link for stats
http://www.miamidolphins.com/newsite/team/playerstatistics/playerstatisticsreg.asp

I understand your point, but his statistics are primarily a result of his lack of use.  There is no way to judge his potential without playtime on the field.  He is primarily in on run-blocking downs.  From what I recall only three passes were thrown his way.  Two of the passes were for first downs the other was nearly a great catch for a touchdown and that only failed because the ball was thrown just a little too far out.

Buress wasn't very good in Pittsburg and they were trying to get the ball to him.  My point is that I think London is better to have on your team than Hagan.  I am not saying London is a substitute for Buress but he does offer some similar physical attributes to Buress (at least more than Hagan).  With more play time, who knows what London's abilities would be, there is nothing on the field that shows he would not be able to produce.  Hagan on the other hand has shown a consistant amount of inconsistancy and the ability to completely screw up a drive with his dropping of the ball.  Keep in mind, I am not calling for London to become a starter, that is what coaches are supposed to evaluate. 

This is London's first year on a squad. Most "rookie" receivers don't play well. It simply takes time for the vast majority to adjust to the NFL. For top picks, people talk about giving them 2 full seasons to get going. I can't imagine that undrafted players do it faster (although they might have to, simply because they don't get as many chances). He was a practice squader for the Giants last year and this is his chance. Who knows if he'll develop? Simply no way to tell yet.

Yea Doc, London seems to have more potential than Hagan...definitely more Burress-like build wise.  I'd like to see him line up for a few jump balls in the endzone.  Maybe we'd have beaten the Jets if he were in there instead of Ginn in game 1.