We don't...and that's why I have wanted Fireland gone all this time. But to me, the foundation does not include the OL. Foundational positions for me are includes QB, WR and TE on offense, and DE and DB on defense.



I don't think I've ever disagreed with a statement on this board more than I disagree with this one. An offensive player cannot be a playmaker if he never touches the ball. Offensive playmakers put points on the board and directly change the outcome of the game - period.



Huh? What does longevity have to do with anything? Jake Long's been here 5 years...not a playmaker. I honestly have no idea what you mean.



So if we re-sign Long, will that make him a solution because he'll have been in Miami for 6 years?

And - I don't see your point. A player that lasts 3-5 years on a team can absolutely have a HUGE impact on that team and help make them champions. Hell, Peyton Manning single-handedly turned the Broncos into a legit contender over the course of one season, and I doubt he'll be in Denver more than three years. And what about the impact Marshawn Lynch has had on the Seahawks in just 3 seasons?



I'm confused. Anquan Boldin has been in Baltimore for three seasons and may get released. Does that mean he wasn't a solution?



Well, yeah - that's what we've been talking about the past few years. The Dolphins have done a terrible job in the draft and free agency. But it's not because they haven't kept players long enough - it's because they haven't been able to find difference makers, instead opting to play it safe with lunchpail-types. I agree that we need long-term solutions, but a player isn't a solution just because he's on the team for 5 years. The goal should be upgrading, not keeping the same players forever because longevity is somehow a key to winning.

Bolden was part of the solution, but he was brought in at the "let's win it all" phase. We can't be worried about the quick fix right now. Too much is broken to try to patch holes and hope for the best.

When I say a player playing a position for 3-5 years isn't a solution. It's that after 3-5 years we are looking for a replacement. The drafting and FA players have been bad here. Go back a decade and look at Baltimores roster. It has players there dating all the way back to 1996. Long term solutions create the ability to address a different "hole" in the roster at every new draft. If player X plays good for 3 years, crap in the 4th, and is looking for a pay day in the 5th. He wasn't a good choice. If player Y plays good in years 1-5 and there's no doubt he's a valuable player that we don't need a replacement for, that was a good pick. Even if it's a linemen. It allows us to look at addressing another area and continuing to build. Here we are five years later and it looks like we have to find a replacement for Long. A guy that was supposed to be an anchor on the line. Now he's an anchor that's tied around our necks. Guys that we draft that don't perform are still voids on the team. We wasted a valuable pick on. We just can't keep wasting picks throwing darts at a dart board and hoping players stick.

Exactly. That's what all us "Fireland haters" have been saying all along.



Right, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that the Dolphins need players that are going to directly win games. Sure, we can draft an O-lineman in the first and maybe keep him for 10 years...but so what? That's not going to get us to a Super Bowl. Pouncey was a good pick, but how many winning seasons has he led us to in his two seasons? If we are ever going to get ahead of the Pats, we need to stop making safe picks on lunch-pail players and start drafting difference makers. We've invested heavily in the OL the past 5 years, and all we've learned from it is that spending maximum resources on the OL while skimping at the skill positions is a recipe for failure.



Exactly. And that's why I don't want the Phins to re-sign most of their free agents. A mediocre player is a mediocre player - regardless of whether or not he's a starter.