The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I still think Orton is a better choice than either Palmer or Young.

If I had to chose between those options, I would also choose Orton, but I am fine with Henne this year. 

Orton for a 2nd rounder I would do in a minute. Wouldn't think twice about it. We just gotta protect our 1st rounder in case it ends up being so high we could land Luck or another top flight QB next year in the draft.

McNabb and Hasselbeck I wouldn't touch. And I would in no way re-sign Thigpen under any condition

Are you seriously willing to give away yet another 2nd rounder for a QB someone else doesn't want?

Consider that if Henne or his replacement doesn't work out, we might need our 2012 2nd (with our first) to trade up to a position to get a legitimate QB.

I'm done with mortgaging the future on other teams' reject quarterbacks.  Let's get a QB in free agency or via a player-trade.  No more trading away draft picks.

Considering we have wasted so many 2nd and 3rd round picks on bad players....yeah why not. You can't let a bad trade in the PAST prevent you from making a good trade NOW or in the FUTURE! That's just dumb!

If you don't learn from your mistakes, you'll keep making them over and over.

If we are going to trade away picks for a QB, let's trade for a GOOD QB, not a quarterback that a team is trying to get rid of.  That disqualifies:

- Kolb
- McNabb
- Orton
- Young

Palmer is the only QB on the table that is leaving of his own volition.  The rest of those guys are all rejects.  I don't mind bringing on a reject to compete with Henne, but I do mind trading away our future to do so.  If neither Henne nor the reject works out, we will likely need that 2nd to move into a slot to pick a quality QB.

Whoever we bring on, it should be someone through free agency (or a player swap).  No more mortgaging the future for backups and retreads.

considering we have "WASTED" 2nd round picks on Pat White, John Beck, and other losers. I have no attachment to holding onto a 2nd round pick. You can't let a bad trade in the past prevent you from making trades in the future!!

I completely agree with Dan. The only way I trade quality picks away right now is for a known starting QB that has a chance to stick around.

I agree with you that you can't let bad past trades keep you from making future trades.  However, for what's currently available I'm with Spider.  Use the 2nd round pick to trade up for a 1st round QB in next years draft.

Orton might be that guy. Kolb too.

How can Orton be that guy?  He has had two different teams trying to get rid of him.  Denver doesn't even have an upgrade at QB and they're still looking to get rid of him.  Kolb was handed the starter's job on a platter and couldn't play well enough to keep it.

I'm not willing to trade a high draft pick for the next Brad Johnson or Rich Gannon or Trent Green.  I want someone that actually has some upside.

instead we just waste high draft picks on Pat White and Patrick Turner and Chad Henne's. Guys that can't do anything.

Chicago got rid of Orton cause they got Cutler who they viewed as Better. Fine, nobody claimed Orton was a top flight guy, but his numbers in Denver have proven he is very very good. And Kolb got injured with a concussion WEEK 1 and never got his job back because Vick was so great. So because the guy got a concussion it means he can't play?! please!!

orton would be a huge upgrade over henne right now.

you'd have to balance what it would cost, but he would provide a significant improvement at the most important position on the field.

Would you rather take Orton now or use the second along with a first next year to get Luck? Of course this is just an example and also assumes Luck continues to be the guy people think he is.  Our options are probably better if we wait and do not waste picks on trying to develop someone elses's cast offs.

^^^The way college football works Luck could turn into a third round draft pick by the time the draft rolls around next year.

So the solution to recurring misses on high draft picks is... to have even less of them?

...which is why Denver is trying to replace him with anybody they can find?

Once again, you are flat-out wrong.

It is true that Kolb lost his job to injury and Vick's play kept him in the starter's role.  For two weeks.

Vick got injured in week 4 and Kolb started week 5, 6, and 7 (week 8 was a bye).  When week 9 rolled around, it was Kolb's play (not his earlier injury) that got him sent back to the bench so Vick could start again.

Add me to the list of those who thinks it's a terrible idea to spend picks on a player that another team is trying to dish.  That so seldom works out.  Sure, there are a few success stories, but more often than not, if the guy was good in the first place, the team wouldn't be unloading him.

I'm not in love with Orton either, but the fact is that we need someone to compete with Henne. Thigpen doesn't appear to be it. Orton actually fits the mold of QB for a run oriented team. He isn't ever gonna be great, but he might be able to manage a game and limit mistakes. Could he put together a season somewhat like Pennington did a couple years ago? Maybe. Maybe Henne can too and maybe Orton can teach Henne a thing or two or be a second set of eyes for Henne off the field. On top of that, he probably won't cost us a 2nd round pick like some of the others will. I think he's the smart choice for a veteran QB for various reasons, not necessarily the best QB of what's out there and we need a veteran QB.

unfortunately right now for the dolphins, other teams castoffs at qb are better than their starting qb. some that will/might be available are significant upgrades.

Here's the problem:

Orton's ceiling is Pennington-without-injury.  Pennington's (healthy) ceiling was the same as Jay Fiedler's.

If you want to return to the days of second-round playoff exits (AND ONLY THAT), Orton is a great choice.  He will never been good enough to win anything of significance.

Personally, I'd rather take a shot on a talented QB that can actually win, rather than going with the annual playoff appearance and early exit.

Add me to those thoughts....I'd add especially from a front office/coaching staff playing for their jobs....

I'd take that in 2011. It's a building block. You got to be able to walk before you can run. We can worry about going further next draft/free agency period. Does anyone really believe no matter who the QB is this team is better than a wild card team this year?

Um, I do.  With a quality QB, this team should be upper-echelon.  The defense is already top 10 (maybe top 5 with W.Allen back), we have a good WR core, a good OL, and we just drafted the #2 college rusher in the nation.

^^^ i think they could possibly make some real noise too with a big upgrade at the qb position.

orton would do that, palmer could as well... i also think that with some proper direction, vince young could be that upgrade also.

Pie in the sky.  

Yeah, if EVERYTHING falls Miami's way, they COULD be upper echelon. The problem is in the NFL it NEVER goes all your way.  Injuries. players not performing up to expectations, unlucky bounces, poor officiating, poor coaching, ETC. The best teams are always the ones that DESPITE things going wrong are the best, not the teams that are the best when everything goes right.

What are you talking about?  I'm not saying if EVERYTHING goes Miami's way; I'm saying if we don't have any major injuries (which can sink any good team) and we don't lead the league in dropped-INTs-on-defense or not-dropped-INTs on offense.  In short, if we have average luck instead of the worst luck, with a good QB we would be in serious contention, taking into account only the players we already have (at non-QB positions).

Kyle Orton is good enough to get the Dolphins to a second-round playoff exit.  To get beyond that, we would either need a better QB or some sort of major Hall-of-Fame-level talent infusion on defense or at RB.  So since we're going to need a QB better than Orton anyway, why not skip the middleman?

One more thing:

Pappy13, you say it's pie-in-the-sky that this team could be anything more than a wild card, no matter the QB.

Acquiring any of the following QBs would instantly make Miami the favorites to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl:

P. Manning
Brady
Brees
Rodgers

Acquiring one of the following quarterbacks would make Miami the favorite to win the division:

Big Ben
Rivers
M. Ryan
Vick

Let's not pretend that the team is incredibly far away.

it's gonna take 3-4 years to develop another qb you draft next year. might as well bring in a solid veteran now to give you that bridge over to the future at the position. it's turning out to be a relatively good year to be in the market for a solid veteran staring qb. all of them that will be available are better than henne right now.

Fine, but not if bringing in that veteran worsens your ability to get a good QB next year.

I'm all for bringing in a veteran to compete with Henne.  If we could sign Orton as a free agent, go nuts!  But I am not willing to reduce our chances of drafting a good QB next year so we can trade for someone else's refuse this year.

Any team that has a chance to take Luck will. They won't trade away that pick. I don't care if they already have a young QB. This kid is being labeld the "next Peyton Manning"....you don't trade that away!

So I guess I'm to assume by your comment that you believe the Miami is equal to or better than New England, New Orleans, Indy and Green Bay in every way except QB?  With a rookie RB? With an offensive line that's far from proven? With a slightly above average TE and no depth at TE? With CB's with plenty of upside but have yet to prove themselves reliable? With a star WR coming off his worst season? With kick and punt coverage teams that are well below average. With punt and kick returners that are only average? With very little team speed in almost every position? And that's assuming that no one is injured or plays below last year's level.

I think you're fooling yourself. There's still a LOT of parts that need to come together besides QB for Miami to be considered favorites to represent the AFC. Now maybe Miami has found the answer to a few of those parts, but we won't really know until we start playing the games.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Now maybe if we took Brady and gave them Henne in return, we might be better than them. :)

Let me reverse your question and my position should be clear:

If Chad Henne were the quarterback of any of those teams, they would be no better than Miami will be this year.  How many wins do you see a Henne-QBed NE, NO, IND, or GB getting?

in nfl football, the only position where a guy can literally just take over the game is the quarterback. running an offense is about matchups, and a quarterback that understands how to exploit the matchups in real time (not just from a pre-programmed play), is something you just can't defend against.

take away peyton manning, tom brady, rodgers, etc... from their respective teams and they would be mediocre to below average teams.

the dolphins have been without a quality qb that can impact games for soooooo long, that fans forget how much of a difference a great qb can have on the outcome of the game.

More than a Henne led Miami. My point is that you just named 4 teams that have better QB's than Miami. I think you can add several more to that list. Pittsburgh and San Diego spring to mind in the AFC alone.  That's at least 4 teams in the AFC alone that have better QB's than Miami. Simply giving Miami a QB on par with those QB's does not automatically make them favorites, it merely gives them a shot about on par with the shot that those other teams have. Even then SEVERAL other things would have to come together for Miami to be considered favorites. You're making BIG assumptions on how effective the rookies that Miami drafted are going to be. Pouncey in no way guarantees Miami will have a dominant or even very good offensive line.  Unless Miami resigns either Ricky or Ronnie, Miami will be putting the ball in the hands of very inexperienced backs. Not saying that can't work, only that it's a HUGE assumption that it will especially when you take into consideration that none of them will get much preseason work in. Miami didn't address it's TE problem. It didn't address it's problem of covering TE's and backs with LB's. They didn't address their kick return problem. They didn't appear to address their kick coverage woes.

Yes, I realize that all teams have issues, no one is flawless. However I think Miami's flaws are bigger in some cases and a lack of stars in other positions means that they have less margin for error than other teams do. You can make up for a lot of deficiencies with 2 or 3 well placed stars, but it takes more than 1 even if that star is at QB. Miami for years had what I consider the best pure passing QB of all time and never won a SB. One man can't do it all. If they could the best QB would win the SB every year. One of the best usually wins it, but only because he gets a LOT of help. For every QB that has won the SB, I can probably name 2 or 3 other players on the team that were at or near the top of their position.

That's exactly why I did add Big Ben and Rivers (along with Ryan and Vick) to the list of QBs that would potentially make Miami a favorite to win the division.

Miami with Brady is unquestionably better than NE (sans Brady), IND, and SD, with a strong argument to be made against PIT.  I don't see how you can dispute this.

Which of those teams have "dominant" offensive lines right now?

Do we really want to run down, say, IND's roster and see which holes they have?

You act as if the teams that these elite QBs are on have no questions at offensive tackle (both of which we have solved), or pass rusher (which we have solved), or K/P (which we have solved), or a top-ten #1 WR (which we have solved), or a quality slot receiver (which we have solved), etc.

Every team has needs and wants; Miami is no exception.  Pointing out our needs while ignoring the needs of other teams doesn't prove much, unless our needs are more substantial than theirs (like, say, quarterback).

It's very simple, I don't buy it. I don't buy Miami's D is NEARLY as good as you believe. It's DEFINATELY not as good as Pittsburgh's and it's probably not as good as New England's and San Diego's.

And you act as if all of those teams are FAVORITES to win the SB.  The fact is that even with better QB's than Miami not ALL of those teams can be the favorite. Which one is the favorite? Which ones are not? Why not? They have good QB's, so they must be favorite to win the SB or so you seem to be implying.

Yes, other teams have holes, they also have more stars. Compare pro bowl caliber players from teams like Pittsburgh, New England, Jets, Indy, San Diego, Baltimore etc the last 2 or 3 years.  Miami usually has 1 maybe 2, the other teams consistently have 3 or 4. Now maybe a few of those here and there don't really deserve it, but the pattern is obvious. Those teams have more talent than Miami. They just do. I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

Defensive rankings last year:

SD- 1
PIT- 2
MIA- 6
NE- 25

NE's defense was not good at all in 2010.


Obviously, one of them has to be the favorite.  My point is that with the addition of an elite QB, MIA would instantly be catapulted into that company, and depending on which QB, would likely be the favorite.  To be completely fair, this is the case for quite a few teams in the league; add Manning, Brady, Brees, or Rodgers to HOU, KC, TB, DAL, NYJ, etc. and they immediately become first-tier teams.

Miami has had exactly 3 Pro Bowlers per year for the last three years, but I see the point you're driving at; I just don't agree with it.  Trade Bess for Welker and I doubt the Pro Bowl roster is the same; it's unlikely that any MIA receiver will be invited as long as we continue to get the same production we have been from the QB position.  I don't buy the idea that Brandon Marshall went from a first-tier to a second-tier WR in one offseason at age 26.

That's based on yards allowed which doesn't tell the whole story.  Based on points allowed:

Pit - 1
NE - 8
SD - 10
Miami - 14

NE's defense was very bend but don't break. Miami's was very don't bend, just break.

I agree with the first part, that Miami could be in the mix with Brady. I don't agree that even with Brady they become the favorite. It would take a lot of things falling right for Miami to go deep into the playoffs even with Brady or any other QB that we've mentioned. I don't think Henne is holding us back any more than say having an elite RB or elite Defense is. If Miami's D takes another step forward like they did last year and Thomas becomes the back we all hoped Ronnie would be, Miami becomes a hopeful even with Henne. If Henne or some free agent suddenly becomes Bradyish then yeah, SB favorite is within reach, but all 3 of those things happening at the same time? Doubtful.

New England committed 5 interceptions and lost 5 fumbles.  Miami committed 21 interceptions and lost 10 fumbles.  Even when you have a superior defense, when the opponent gets the ball on your 30, it's a lot harder to keep them from scoring.

For the record, team rank in turnovers lost:

NE - 1
PIT - 4
SD - 17
MIA - 23

The only reason NE's defense appeared stingy in points allowed is because their offense practically never gave the opposing team the ball.

A top-10 special teams unit also helps. (Unlike our bottom 5).

New England's D also FORCED an AFC best 38 turnovers to Miami's 19.

Give me NE's D over Miami's last year.

So New England's defense FORCED (I like that emphasis) twice as many turnovers as Miami's defense, and yet somehow they still managed to allow over 900 yards more to opposing offenses (5864 to 4949) and nearly 90 more first downs (348 to 264)?  How does that work?

Your argument is almost completely summarized as "Sean Smith can't catch, therefore New England had a quality defense."  The Patriots' defense was not even close to good last year.

what the hell are you talking about, New England was 14-2. Their defense did something right  ::)

The answer to that question seems pretty simple to graph out:

New England's potent offense
+ New England's heavy-turnover defense
= early New England leads
= opponents cranking up the offense to get big chunks of yardage to catch up on the scoreboard.
Result: increased opponent yardage totals

Miami's weak offense
+ Miami's non-turnover creating defense
= early Miami deficits
= opponents playing conservative on offense to control ball and burn clock.
Result = decreased opponent yardage totals

I thought you were the one extolling the virtues of OFFENSE WINS GAMES (and championships). Ergo, defense doesn't matter (much).

The #2 team in the league in offensive points scored was SD.
SD allowed their opponents to score exactly 9 points more than NE allowed (so, similar opponent scoring).
SD was literally the best team in the league in defensive yards allowed (NE was #25).

New England's defense was not good.

^^^ I didn't say that it was good...just that it forced a lot of turnovers.

I'll take the deflection to mean that you recognized the logic in the "game-calling" justification as a response to your original question.

Like I said, bend but don't break.  Make the offense beat you, don't beat yourself.  Make them sustain long drives where they are more likely to turn the ball over.

It doesn't really matter whether it's Sean Smith, luck or whatever the fact of the matter is that New England was better at keeping teams off the scoreboard than Miami last year. I never said they had a quality defense, I said it was probably better than Miami's. You made your own inference that meant New England had a quality defense.

Excellent analysis. 100% agree.

No, I recognize the logic (or, the idea of it)... but it doesn't hold up in this case.  SD scored the second-most points in the league, allowed less than one additional point per game (compared to NE), and their defense didn't allow people to run up and down the field.

A good defense doesn't simply allow other (clearly one-dimensional!) offenses to get first-down after first-down, just because their own offense is good.  NE allowed the third most opposition first-downs in the league.

New England scored 32.4 points per game and SD scored 27.6 pts per game. That's a difference of 15%.

New England gave up 366.5 yards per game and SD gave up 271.6 yards per game. That's a difference of 26%.

True. I'm sure that they would have liked to have prevented a few more first downs and less yardage, but would you rather give up yards and first downs or points? New England actually gave up fewer points than San Diego and scored more, quite a bit more. New England was 14-2 and SD was 9-7.

scoring offense is the most important differentiating factor between being a mediocre team and a contender.

having weak skill players on offense is not going to get you very far in today's nfl.

I don't see how that invalidates the statement that San Diego scored the second-most points in the league.  Relative to their peers, San Diego was better in putting points on the board than every team but one.

Again, it's great to look at percentages, but relative to their peers, New England's defense allowed more yards than 24 other teams (including Miami).

The point is that teams that don't have their offense turn over the ball a total of 10 times (for the entire season) don't get the luxury of choosing.  I mean, hypothetically, would I mind giving up the most turnovers in the league, the most points in the league, and the most yards in the league if it meant that I'm holding the Lombardi trophy at the end?  Of course not.  But NE didn't accomplish that goal, partially due to their lackluster defense.

It's a lot easier to keep the opponent from scoring (and win games) when your offense isn't turning over the ball at all.  Consider that last year, NE played 4 games where they did not win the turnover battle.  Of those 4 games, they lost 3, and won the remaining game in OT.

That is not a solid defense.  It's a collection of frontrunners that were fortunate to get a record-setting season from their QB.

It doesn't invalidate it, it just quantifies it. 2nd most in the league is not that significant when you realize that there was still a whopping 15% difference between the 2 teams. Especially when you consider that there was a 26% difference between #1 and #25 for defensive yards allowed.

I think it's time to just agree to disagree.

Actually it's scoring differential. The larger the difference between how many points you score to how many points are scored against you, the better your chances of having a winning record. Pittsburgh, Baltimore and the Jets did not really have high scoring offenses last year, Dallas for instance outscored all of them, what they had were defenses that didn't give up many points. New England just happened to have both.

IT does, you need a top flight offense to win a CHAMPIONSHIP in this league!! But to say the Pats defense isn't any good when they ended the year 14-2....I mean come one. We all HATE the Pats. But give the devil its due, their defense was damn good last year. I don't care what their ranking was, they made big plays in big spots. Helped them win 14 games!

Bullshit. Their D was well below average. The 14-2 record was achieved IN SPITE of their defense.

Calling it "damn good" is just plain laughable.

 ::) Live in your fantasy world and believe what ya want

MikeO, it seems like your rating system for players and teams is very simple:

Did Mark Sanchez's team win a lot of games last year?  If so, then Sanchez is a good QB.
Did New England win a lot of games last year?  If so, then New England's defense was good.

Do you consider any statistic besides W-L in your evaluations?  Or is it exactly as simple as "Green Bay won the Super Bowl, therefore they had the best special teams and best offensive line and best running back corps"?

I swear, Spidey...sometimes I want to tell you that fire is hot, just for the enjoyment of listening to you explain how it's actually cold.

I wasn't comparing New England to San Diego...or Miami to San Diego. I wasn't saying that the playcalling theory can be laid across the entire NFL like a blanket to explain every yardage/points parallel deviation. I could, of course, but it would require the NFL to first clone all the players and coaches so that every team had the exact same cast of characters.

(and even then, it probably wouldn't work...clone psychology is such an inexact science)

What I WAS saying, is that New England's statistical position last season, as compared to Miami's statistical position last season, is likely due to the playcalling philosophies of Miami...and New England...and their opponents, as demonstrated in common situations (New England with a lead, Miami with a deficit).

And...fire is hot, dammit.

I agree with the both of ya's.  Just giving it the good ol' fashioned "eye test", the Pats' defense didn't impress me in any games aside from the 45-3 MNF drubbing of the Jets and then the subsequent drubbing of Chicago at the new Soldier Field the next week in pretty much a Snow Bowl type game (gotta admit, the Pats are getting pretty good at those considering how badly they dismantled the Titans at home in one of those the previous season).  I mean, if you want to count the Weeks 16 and 17 games against the Bills and the Dolphins as good defensive games, then have at it, I guess, but I think pretty much everyone here at least knows how that MIA team--particularly the offense--was playing at year's end.

Other than that, not only did NE's defense not impress in other games, often they just sucked.  30 points given up at home to Buffalo in Week 3 (though granted, 6 of those were on a C.J. Spiller KO return for a TD, but still...), 34 surrendered against an otherwise mediocre Browns team all season (aside from their big win against the Saints @ NO 2 weeks before), and then the one that really got me on Thanksgiving Day, when they gave up 24 points by early in the 3rd qtr to the Lions before they finally put the clamps down and pulled away while the Lions melted down (big surprise!). 

Basically, NE's defense was average at best, and at other times just mediocre or even bad throughout the season until the last 5 regular season games, where I will give them credit, they did buckle down and play well against some good (Jets, Bears) teams and bad (Bills, Dolphins at that point) teams, only getting into a *shootout* with the eventual champion Packers (led by Matt Flynn that game).  But to sit here and say that they were really good or "damn good" last season...pfft!  Opportunistic, maybe, and there is something to be said about that, no doubt, but those suckers were no better than us defensively, and I'm with Spider anyways--I'd take our D over theirs in a heartbeat!

As for the original topic at hand, while I'm slightly disappointed that we probably won't even have a shot at a Palmer or a VY, mainly just because I believe that Henne needs some good competition this offseason and a good veteran presence a la Pennington anyways, I'm also with the camp unwilling to give up picks at this point for an aged veteran and/or castoff.  That obviously would include the like of Orton as well, though I must admit he intrigues me because he really has seemed to turn it on a lot since landing in Denver, though I never thought he was that shabby in Chicago either when given the opportunity.  So maybe Orton would work out (though from the sound of that other topic on the board, maybe not), but regardless, I don't want to give up picks unless it's a Draft Day move next year like Spider was referring to...and even then I don't want it to be a reach, because we've still got plenty of holes to fill!