Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I don't trust his head, if I trusted his head I'd have invested last year. He's the type that I won't buy into until it's too late. I just can't stomach dealing with potential head cases at the QB position. Last year didn't do much to change my opinion, now that there are expectations for the team I'm curious to see how he handles this year.
I don't know what "type" you're referring to, and I don't know why you're referring to him as a "potential head case." But I'm pretty sure 32 NFL teams don't share your opinion of him today.
32 other NFL teams don't manage my team. I can't get out of my head all the idiotic stuff he has done since getting to college. As I said above, if I ever buy in it will be way after he has proven all of his naysayers wrong. He's the type of risk I'd take on if I could get him cheap enough to pair with a safer low ceiling guys like Matt Ryan, but his current owner's won't do that nor will he drop that far on draft day.I just think there are better risks to take.
I'm confused. Are you saying he has WR instincts that kick in when he's in the pocket?
That is what I see when he drops back. He looks awkward and that is why we've gotten so many strange comparisons with Tannenhill. It is because he doesn't fit into any QB box so these strange comparisons with QBs who had awkward styles or where they had a physical weakness that forced them into an awkward style is used.I don't think the issue with his awkward passing style is due to any physical weakness, in fact I give him ample credit for superior athleticism and mobility. I do not think his awkwardness is a style thing either.I think that since he was moved to WR he picked up WR skills and they pop-up when he drops back in the pocket. I thnk that is why he looks soo awkard in the pocket.I also don't like his ability to pull the trigger.Don't take anyone's word for it since the pndits and draftnics are getting bashed.Just go to U-TUBE and take a look for yourself.
If Barkley were around there would be a bidding war for the Vikings pick between Cleveland and Miami. The loser would settle for Tannehill later in the 1st, which would be much more in line with his value imho. My guess would be Cleveland ponies up their 2 #1's and that would be enough to get it done then Miami looks to trade up from their 2 using the picks acquired in the Marshall trade to get Tannehill.
Montana missed half of the season in 1986 and was injured in the first half of their first playoff game against the Giants. His backup, Jeff Kemp, entered the game with the score 21-3 in favor of the Giants and it ended 49-3. That's why they needed a better backup to Montana and got him for a late 2nd and 4th.
True, but that is usually the best-case scenario for this type of QB prospect. A guy like Kyler Boller or Jason Campbell offers a more damning potential outcome.My feeling with QBs is that who they are in college is usually the same as who they'll be in the pros. This is especially true in terms of mental traits/tendencies. Tannehill strikes me as a Flacco or Campbell type. Mediocre mental talent paired with top 10 physical tools. It's enough to get him drafted high and it might be enough to have a decent pro career, but it's tough to envision a guy like this becoming a Pro Bowl type, whereas Griffin and Luck both seem to possess that innate potential. So for me he probably falls somewhere between Campbell and Flacco on the career expectancy chart. That doesn't do much for me from a FF perspective, although it wouldn't be such a bad proposition for a QB-less franchise like the Dolphins, Cardinals, or Browns.
I think you're going to have to be a little more specific.Some analysts are praising Tannehill's pocket presence and ability to make subtle adjustments to the rush to find angles and climb the pocket while keeping his eyes downfield.
I seem to recall last season a lot of talk about some guy named Gabbert being the first QB off the board That worked out well
I point out something that will prevent him from what I feel will prevent him from developing good pocket presence. Even Tannenhill's most ardent supporters are saying the same thing, he's raw and needs time to DEVELOP.'bonesman said:
Sorry, but I have to disagree with the point that he's raw. That's a term people use to say he only started 19 games and played a different position for much of his career. However, what a lot of people don't realize is that Ryan Tannehill came TAMU as a QB. He was in QB meetings throughout his career - even as the starting WR. He was ALWAYS a QB first. Cam Newton played fewer games at a Div-I level as a QB than Tannehill and didn't even play in a pro style offense. Sanchez I believe have fewer starts as well.You really need to check out my studies on him again in the pocket because he's better in the pocket in terms of his presence than any QB in this draft. He does way more than keep his eyes down field, he knows how to slide and climb the pocket. Taking off to run is not his first instinct in most situations and I don't know what you're seeing with footwork, because with what I've seen he has very good footwork. In most situations I've seen under pressure, he keeps his feet under him so he can deliver the ball with good torque, which generates good velocity and timing on his throws. The exact reason I like Tannehill is because his ability to maneuver the pocket reminds me of the elite quarterbacks you mentioned with one difference - he's better on the move than Manning or Brady. Greg Cosell, who also watches a ton of tape, also agrees that Tannehill has terrific pocket presence and makes the position look easy.
Not enough, and I think he threw plenty of deep balls. It's just not consistent. At all. Touch comes with time so you can't say he won't ever be able to throw a good deep ball but it's another item on the laundry list that needs to be developed.Key word, developed. This is why he is not a 1st round prospect.
Teams who need a QB shouldn't be afraid of drafting Wheeden. The window on his career is short, but the team would be getting a mature QB who should be ready to start at the cost of a 2nd round pick salary.
Weeden played in a spread offense while Tannehill played in a pro-style offense. I believe they both need a year on the bench.
There's a lot fundamentally wrong with Weeden's game, he needs development too. It's why he shouldn't be picked before at least the 3rd.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if this scenario took place. Cleveland NEEDS to move on from the Colt McCoy Experience.
The Seahawks just signed a QB to a 3 year 26 million dollar deal, why would they waste the 12th overall pick on a QB?
From Rotoworld:
And if Tannnehill looks like a better option, the Seahawks aren't on the hook for all that much money and could easily cut bait.That said, I find the idea of Seattle taking Tannehill, even if he is there, quite farfetched.
More than half of those picks are fliers outside of the first 4 rounds. We have 3 in the top 50 and 6 in the top 120.If we don't address QB this off season we may fix every other problem on the team - right tackle, wide receiver, running back, left guard, corner, front 7 depth/upside. Then if Colt still sucks this year we can pay whatever it takes to get Barkley next year and he comes into a situation in which he has weapons at his disposal everywhere. If Colt doesn't suck and does step up then we're in a great spot going forward and can finally draft BPA instead of being swayed by 'need.'Or we can roll the dice on Tannehill, leave our team with several unfilled holes elsewhere, probably top out at 5 wins again this year then go into next off season not considering a top QB because we spent a #4 pick on one the last year and 'we have to see what we got in him.' Then our 2013 QB is reliant on rookies as weapons, since they were ignored in the 2012 draft instead of our 2013 QB having 2nd+ year players as weapons because we smartly didn't fall for the potential franchise QB trap in 2012. If that 2013 QB is Tannehill then we have to give him ANOTHER year in 2014 because he had a bunch of kids at skill positions and needs more time.Going Tannehill would be monumentally stupid. Something the old Browns would do. Hopefully this new regime is as smart as they think they are.
A) Those picks can still be used to move up. B) That's a lot in the top 120.
I don't know why you're so enamored with Barkley. He doesn't have elite skills any moreso than Tannehill.And if they were going to "pay whatever they have to" this would have been the year, not next. How did that work? You want to roll those dice again next year?
No. You would leave your team with one unfilled hole. One pick is one player. You act like it would take the Browns' entire draft to take him.Aw forget it. I know both our minds are made up and not changing...To me the question for the Browns comes down to which is riskier - missing out on a starting RB or a starting QB?
Clearly, we dropped the ball on RG3. I still think it's a bit fishy because I think the Browns offered a little bit more than the Skins, but the 2 deals were very close and if the Browns wanted to make sure they got RG3 then they should have added this years #2 to make sure.I think Barkley is a clear step down from RG3 and Luck, but I think he is a much better bet then Tannehill. How many of these all tools and no substance players have ever panned out at QB? I don't think Barkley will ever be elite, but a Matt Ryan type? I can see that. And if Colt bombs then I am absolutely fine with a Ryan type on a team that will be rebuilt everywhere else. Tannehill is little more than a roll of the dice. He has the physical tools to be a great QB, but has zero product to show for it.
Since I have no faith in any WR outside of the top 3, I have guys I like that are likely available later but want nothing to do with the consensus 4-6 Hill-Jeffrey-Randle, we will either need to trade the 22 and 37 to move up to get Floyd or Wright or go into the season with a WR corps that still sucks. If we trade up then the only positions of need we've addressed are QB and WR. We'll get a RB with one of the 3's and 4's and probably use the other two picks on an OL and front 7 guy. So, by going Tannehill we've addressed WR, one of two holes on the OL, one of the many holes in the front 7, and added another middling guy at RB while still leaving holes at CB, OL, and front 7. Or if we sit and wait at 22 and hope Floyd or Wright fall if they don't make it (personally I don't think they do) we take Doug Martin at 22. By doing that we'll fill another one of our holes at OL, front 7, or CB BUT still have little talent at WR - our biggest current hole. Sure we'll take 2 guys in the mid rounds like Criner and McNutt but are they really going to transform our offense? So, going Tannehill, we'll have more than one hole still remaining, at least if we play this draft how I think we should/will have to. It'll be more like 3 or 4 and some of those holes will still be offensive skill position players, which is why we really won't be fixing our problems and will have the same issues to fix going into 2013 that we do this year.If we pass on Tannehill we have A LOT of flexibility to fill all of these holes. Obviously if we're able to trade down 2-4 spots we'll have more, but we won't know about that until draft day. I'm also assuming we don't waste a pick on Weeden sometime in the first 2 days too, which may be more blind optimism on my part. But, if we do that I'll bet we can add a starting RB, starting WR, two OL, a CB, and a front 7 guy or two before the well on starters runs dry. Then we can add another WR, a developmental QB, among others with our glutton of later day 3 picks. Imho, this is the deepest class we've seen in some time, there seems to be a lot more value later in day 2 and probably leaking into day 3 than I've seen in a few years. A lot of starters can be found this year.If Colt sucks again then going into 2013 we have 19 or 20 starting spots already filled and can feel better about over paying for a QB, unlike this year in which we only have about 14 or 15 starting spots filled. Those numbers why I was hesitant about dealing for RG3, even though I think he is going to be elite, Washington is a better spot for him because there are more pieces around him. Once we're in that spot then we can feel safer paying whatever we have to in order to get a good QB.
Right. And I say the second thing is riskier.Edit: Wait. I mean that it's worse to miss out on a starting QB than a starting RB.
If you told me we could draft Richardson at 4 and one of Floyd or Wright is there at 22 I'd say take Richardson, but you can't guarantee that so yea I'm slightly leaning Blackmon and there has been no indication that Richardson is any better of a bet than Blackmon. The Browns like both. I just don't know who they like more. I know who I feel more comfortable with among RB and WR at pick 22 (assuming Floyd and Wright are gone) though and they're both RB's. Ideally I would like us to move back a few spots, get Floyd (the other guy on our want list), and add more day 2 picks. We need a trade partner to do that and we can't assume that will happen though.I have no interest in Randle at his price for similar reasons as Tannehill - where is the production? He has a ton of tools, but hasn't translated it to the field. If he fell to the 3rd round, ok, but in the top 40? No way. I'd rather have Criner later and a better player at another position instead of Randle.
In the arm of a QB that wasn't on his team, through no fault of his own.And I don't get the Criner love. Dude's not all there mentally.
His play on the field matched the spotty production though. He seemed to emerge with a big play or two most games, but for the most part his game was lacking throughout. He's a complimentary WR, not a starter, and I'd expect a starter if drafted in the top 40 which is what the Browns need. And it's not that I like Criner more all things equal, he should be at least a round cheaper and drafted along side other complimentary WR's. I think they're more similar then their draft status will indicate.'Andy Dufresne said:
In the end, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he dropped to the end of the first round or even into round 2. Guys like Aaron Rodgers, Brady Quinn & Jimmy Clausen all were talked about as top ten locks leading up to the draft. It's not unusual for guys to fall on draft day.
