The NFL QB Landscape....now that it's over (1 Viewer)

[wadegarrett]

Anytime I get down about being a Vikings fan, I think of Browns and Dolphins fans and all of a sudden I don't feel so bad anymore.

Is that because of all the Super Bowl's the Vikings have won?

They would have won all four that they've been in if they hadn't lost them to the Browns. Oh...wait...I'd also like to remind you that your offensive coordinator is now Brad Childress.

Every year there are 31 losers. You, and your Vikings, are in the same boat as us. Welcome aboard!

 

[Andy Dufresne]

But one way or another they have to make an attempt to fix the QB position and this year the best prospect capable of doing so (that they can have) is Ryan Tannehill.

But they don't have to fix the QB position this year. Reaching is reaching, no matter how badly you want to fill a need. Tannehill isn't going to be the last QB prospect to hit the draft.

They've had 16 different starting QBs since '99, drafting only one (Quinn at #22) in the 1st in that timeframe. Which year should they fix it?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Anytime I get down about being a Vikings fan, I think of Browns and Dolphins fans and all of a sudden I don't feel so bad anymore.

Is that because of all the Super Bowl's the Vikings have won?

They would have won all four that they've been in if they hadn't lost them to the Browns. Oh...wait...I'd also like to remind you that your offensive coordinator is now Brad Childress.

Every year there are 31 losers. You, and your Vikings, are in the same boat as us. Welcome aboard!

At least you've got Betty White on your side.

 

[Man In The Box]

MIA should make the move for Tebow...like right now...Marshall is gone so he can't complain....the rest of the WR's are journeyman types lucky to have a job.....they should trade for Tebow.....sign a M. Bush/Benson type to go with Reggie and run the offense DEN did last year....bring in a couple WR's and call it good.....at least Tebow gives MIA some buzz...

Don't think that's what Philbin signed up for.

What did he sign up for Chase? We the fan base sure thought it was part of a master plan to get Flynn and steal some of the good vibes Green Bay has had the last few seasons and bring a winning attitude in here. What did you think the 50 year old 1st time head coach who didn't call the plays as OC in GB signed up for? The fan base is now interested in knowing the answer. Feel bad for Philbin too with the recent loss of his son but this has the trimmings of Cam Cameron all over it.

I think he signed up for a coaching job where he would have complete control of the offense and a big say in the hiring of the defense. He had two personal friends to coach the offense and the defense, so the whole team will have his image stamped on it. No, he's not the GM, but he was a big target for Miami and I doubt they're going to try to get into a power struggle right away. Who knows exactly how much of the Marshall trade was driven by Philbin. I see Philbin making this team in his image and we see what happens; that's why the Dolphins hired him.

sooooooo....what do you see them doing at QB....?wouldn't "complete control" have included probably doing whatever it took to get Flynn...?...especially after it was clear Manning wasn't going there.....Miami front offense must not be on the same page as the "complete control" you say Philbin wanted.....he is very easily looking at being stuck with Moore or David Freking Garrard....do you think that is what he signed up for....heck I don't think even Alex Smith is what he would say he "signed up for".....lets say Smith doesn't sign with MIA.....what is the plan for the image Philbin wants to have....while I will agree it probably didn't include Tebow.....I will venture to guess it also didn't include David Garrard and Matt Moore....so dismissing Tebow as an option seems kind of crazy when you are looking at those two as "better" options...

Matt Moore is miles ahead of Tebow as an NFL QB. Especially one that is going to be expected to run a West Coast style offense. Hell I'd rather burn the 8 pick on Tannehill than bring in that sideshow, and I HATE the idea of Tannehill at 8. Tebow makes no sense in Miami from a football perspective. As I said in the team thread, if they bring Tebow in, it's the final nail in the coffin for this owner/GM. They will be officially clueless and the joke of the league(if not there already).

 

[Stinkin Ref]

personally I think Smith may give the finger to SF and sign with MIA.....

then we start talking about what a team that was only one win away from the Super Bowl is going to do at QB....while Smith should see that he may have a better chance at winning in SF than MIA....that may not be enough to do damage control on the hit his ego took....

there is something to be said for your girlfriend having her eye on and making a play on another dude only to be shot down by him and then come back to you hoping you think that nothing has "changed".....pro athletes egos get in the way sometimes even though you can't hardly blame any team for taking a look at a HOF'er....

 

[Stinkin Ref]

MIA should make the move for Tebow...like right now...Marshall is gone so he can't complain....the rest of the WR's are journeyman types lucky to have a job.....they should trade for Tebow.....sign a M. Bush/Benson type to go with Reggie and run the offense DEN did last year....bring in a couple WR's and call it good.....at least Tebow gives MIA some buzz...

Don't think that's what Philbin signed up for.

What did he sign up for Chase? We the fan base sure thought it was part of a master plan to get Flynn and steal some of the good vibes Green Bay has had the last few seasons and bring a winning attitude in here. What did you think the 50 year old 1st time head coach who didn't call the plays as OC in GB signed up for? The fan base is now interested in knowing the answer. Feel bad for Philbin too with the recent loss of his son but this has the trimmings of Cam Cameron all over it.

I think he signed up for a coaching job where he would have complete control of the offense and a big say in the hiring of the defense. He had two personal friends to coach the offense and the defense, so the whole team will have his image stamped on it. No, he's not the GM, but he was a big target for Miami and I doubt they're going to try to get into a power struggle right away. Who knows exactly how much of the Marshall trade was driven by Philbin. I see Philbin making this team in his image and we see what happens; that's why the Dolphins hired him.

sooooooo....what do you see them doing at QB....?wouldn't "complete control" have included probably doing whatever it took to get Flynn...?...especially after it was clear Manning wasn't going there.....Miami front offense must not be on the same page as the "complete control" you say Philbin wanted.....he is very easily looking at being stuck with Moore or David Freking Garrard....do you think that is what he signed up for....heck I don't think even Alex Smith is what he would say he "signed up for".....lets say Smith doesn't sign with MIA.....what is the plan for the image Philbin wants to have....while I will agree it probably didn't include Tebow.....I will venture to guess it also didn't include David Garrard and Matt Moore....so dismissing Tebow as an option seems kind of crazy when you are looking at those two as "better" options...

Matt Moore is miles ahead of Tebow as an NFL QB. Especially one that is going to be expected to run a West Coast style offense. Hell I'd rather burn the 8 pick on Tannehill than bring in that sideshow, and I HATE the idea of Tannehill at 8. Tebow makes no sense in Miami from a football perspective. As I said in the team thread, if they bring Tebow in, it's the final nail in the coffin for this owner/GM. They will be officially clueless and the joke of the league(if not there already).

so after bringing in this new coach and all his boys and a new image, etc.....you are cool with Matt Moore and/or David Garrard...?

 

[MAC_32]

You don't draft projects at the top of round 1, you draft cornerstones. Tannehill is not a cornerstone, he's a project. If somehow he falls to day 2 I won't gripe (although I'd rather it be later round 2 via trade up), but he would be a silly pick at #4 and a poor pick at 22. He has tools, but his play on the field was spotty. Too many mistakes to warrant such a high pick.

Sometimes, yes. But sometimes you fix your problems. Especially when your #1 problem is quarterback.

Holmgren/Heckert/Shurmur are all about bringing in a guy that fits their system, that is the furthest thing from Tebow. They won't adjust to cater their players strengths.

"All about"? How long are they willing to wait until their guy comes around?

Reaching on a project doesn't fix anything, in the end it probably creates more problems. Tannehill anytime before Friday would be just as dumb as the Ponder, Gabbert, and Locker picks last year. What the 9ers did with Kaepernick and the Bengals with Dalton are what you're supposed to do with Tannehill-like QB's. Re patience, if there's one thing this group has it's that. I'd argue too much. So much that their lack of urgency has crept onto the product on the field. I am 100% sure they will not go after a guy they feel does not fit the wco.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Reaching on a project doesn't fix anything, in the end it probably creates more problems. Tannehill anytime before Friday would be just as dumb as the Ponder, Gabbert, and Locker picks last year. What the 9ers did with Kaepernick and the Bengals with Dalton are what you're supposed to do with Tannehill-like QB's.

Re patience, if there's one thing this group has it's that. I'd argue too much. So much that their lack of urgency has crept onto the product on the field. I am 100% sure they will not go after a guy they feel does not fit the wco.

Ponder and Locker weren't reaches either.Don't you wish the Browns had reached for Dalton last year?

And what if the guy does fit the WCO?

 

[Man In The Box]

MIA should make the move for Tebow...like right now...Marshall is gone so he can't complain....the rest of the WR's are journeyman types lucky to have a job.....they should trade for Tebow.....sign a M. Bush/Benson type to go with Reggie and run the offense DEN did last year....bring in a couple WR's and call it good.....at least Tebow gives MIA some buzz...

Don't think that's what Philbin signed up for.

What did he sign up for Chase? We the fan base sure thought it was part of a master plan to get Flynn and steal some of the good vibes Green Bay has had the last few seasons and bring a winning attitude in here. What did you think the 50 year old 1st time head coach who didn't call the plays as OC in GB signed up for? The fan base is now interested in knowing the answer. Feel bad for Philbin too with the recent loss of his son but this has the trimmings of Cam Cameron all over it.

I think he signed up for a coaching job where he would have complete control of the offense and a big say in the hiring of the defense. He had two personal friends to coach the offense and the defense, so the whole team will have his image stamped on it. No, he's not the GM, but he was a big target for Miami and I doubt they're going to try to get into a power struggle right away. Who knows exactly how much of the Marshall trade was driven by Philbin. I see Philbin making this team in his image and we see what happens; that's why the Dolphins hired him.

sooooooo....what do you see them doing at QB....?wouldn't "complete control" have included probably doing whatever it took to get Flynn...?...especially after it was clear Manning wasn't going there.....Miami front offense must not be on the same page as the "complete control" you say Philbin wanted.....he is very easily looking at being stuck with Moore or David Freking Garrard....do you think that is what he signed up for....heck I don't think even Alex Smith is what he would say he "signed up for".....lets say Smith doesn't sign with MIA.....what is the plan for the image Philbin wants to have....while I will agree it probably didn't include Tebow.....I will venture to guess it also didn't include David Garrard and Matt Moore....so dismissing Tebow as an option seems kind of crazy when you are looking at those two as "better" options...

Matt Moore is miles ahead of Tebow as an NFL QB. Especially one that is going to be expected to run a West Coast style offense. Hell I'd rather burn the 8 pick on Tannehill than bring in that sideshow, and I HATE the idea of Tannehill at 8. Tebow makes no sense in Miami from a football perspective. As I said in the team thread, if they bring Tebow in, it's the final nail in the coffin for this owner/GM. They will be officially clueless and the joke of the league(if not there already).

so after bringing in this new coach and all his boys and a new image, etc.....you are cool with Matt Moore and/or David Garrard...?

Sans Manning, I wasn't expecting to win much this year anyway.

 

[dgreen]

But one way or another they have to make an attempt to fix the QB position and this year the best prospect capable of doing so (that they can have) is Ryan Tannehill.

But they don't have to fix the QB position this year. Reaching is reaching, no matter how badly you want to fill a need. Tannehill isn't going to be the last QB prospect to hit the draft.

They've had 16 different starting QBs since '99, drafting only one (Quinn at #22) in the 1st in that timeframe. Which year should they fix it?

That's all in the past and should be irrelevant to what they do with 1.04. Right now, their choice is "try to fix it this year" or "wait to see what's available next year". They tried this year with a trade for RG3. It didn't work out for them. Depending on how Tannehill projects, the answer may very well be "wait to see what's available next year". And, if they can't hit on something next year that makes sense, then I'd suggest waiting again.Seriously, you know these aren't good reasons to draft someone who isn't worthy of a particular slot.

 

[MAC_32]

Reaching on a project doesn't fix anything, in the end it probably creates more problems. Tannehill anytime before Friday would be just as dumb as the Ponder, Gabbert, and Locker picks last year. What the 9ers did with Kaepernick and the Bengals with Dalton are what you're supposed to do with Tannehill-like QB's.

Re patience, if there's one thing this group has it's that. I'd argue too much. So much that their lack of urgency has crept onto the product on the field. I am 100% sure they will not go after a guy they feel does not fit the wco.

Ponder and Locker weren't reaches either.Don't you wish the Browns had reached for Dalton last year?

And what if the guy does fit the WCO?

Yes they were, neither are 1st round caliber picks. Locker's accuracy issues and Ponder's mediocreness belonged in round 2. All 3 of those picks were horrendous.If the guy fits the WCO and is considered of value these guys will take them. If they don't or they go too soon then they will stick with what they have. If Colt isn't the guy then we will be in position to trade up and get Barkley next year, or possibly even so bad that we don't need to trade up. I've thought RG3 was a better prospect than Barkley since October, but there's no doubt in my mind he's a better prospect than Tannehill. And absolutely worth a top pick.

If we take Tannehill there's a good chance we're in a position like Minnesota this year. Not considering a top QB prospect because we reached on a mediocre one the previous year. If we're not picking at the top it's because Colt stepped up and earned another year. To overcome the ineptness of this coaching staff he'll have to if we're going to win more than 4 games.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

That's all in the past and should be irrelevant to what they do with 1.04. Right now, their choice is "try to fix it this year" or "wait to see what's available next year". They tried this year with a trade for RG3. It didn't work out for them. Depending on how Tannehill projects, the answer may very well be "wait to see what's available next year". And, if they can't hit on something next year that makes sense, then I'd suggest waiting again.

Seriously, you know these aren't good reasons to draft someone who isn't worthy of a particular slot.

That's all I'm saying. At present, Tannehill is trending toward a top 10 pick. Why? A little bit supply and demand and a little bit that the kid is actually talented enough to become an NFL starter. He has size, intelligence, arm strength and mobility that can be developed by a decent coaching staff into a very good quarterback.

Which means he could very well go at #4.

Or they could wait and wait and wait for the chance to be in the position to draft the next Andrew Luck or RGIII again.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Reaching on a project doesn't fix anything, in the end it probably creates more problems. Tannehill anytime before Friday would be just as dumb as the Ponder, Gabbert, and Locker picks last year. What the 9ers did with Kaepernick and the Bengals with Dalton are what you're supposed to do with Tannehill-like QB's.

Re patience, if there's one thing this group has it's that. I'd argue too much. So much that their lack of urgency has crept onto the product on the field. I am 100% sure they will not go after a guy they feel does not fit the wco.

Ponder and Locker weren't reaches either.Don't you wish the Browns had reached for Dalton last year?

And what if the guy does fit the WCO?

Yes they were, neither are 1st round caliber picks. Locker's accuracy issues and Ponder's mediocreness belonged in round 2. All 3 of those picks were horrendous.If the guy fits the WCO and is considered of value these guys will take them. If they don't or they go too soon then they will stick with what they have. If Colt isn't the guy then we will be in position to trade up and get Barkley next year, or possibly even so bad that we don't need to trade up. I've thought RG3 was a better prospect than Barkley since October, but there's no doubt in my mind he's a better prospect than Tannehill. And absolutely worth a top pick.

If we take Tannehill there's a good chance we're in a position like Minnesota this year. Not considering a top QB prospect because we reached on a mediocre one the previous year. If we're not picking at the top it's because Colt stepped up and earned another year. To overcome the ineptness of this coaching staff he'll have to if we're going to win more than 4 games.

To expect your team to limp along with a below mediocre QB because "help is coming next year" is comical. Franchises don't build in the current year with the line of thinking in bold.

 

[dgreen]

That's all in the past and should be irrelevant to what they do with 1.04. Right now, their choice is "try to fix it this year" or "wait to see what's available next year". They tried this year with a trade for RG3. It didn't work out for them. Depending on how Tannehill projects, the answer may very well be "wait to see what's available next year". And, if they can't hit on something next year that makes sense, then I'd suggest waiting again.

Seriously, you know these aren't good reasons to draft someone who isn't worthy of a particular slot.

That's all I'm saying. At present, Tannehill is trending toward a top 10 pick. Why? A little bit supply and demand and a little bit that the kid is actually talented enough to become an NFL starter. He has size, intelligence, arm strength and mobility that can be developed by a decent coaching staff into a very good quarterback.

Which means he could very well go at #4.

Or they could wait and wait and wait for the chance to be in the position to draft the next Andrew Luck or RGIII again.

Supply and demand at QB, but not overall...right? I don't think they should over-value someone just because he's a QB. There are plenty of uber talented guys who are definitely worthy of 1.04.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

somebody should just bend over and let BB have have his way with them and trade for Mallet....

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Supply and demand at QB, but not overall...right? I don't think they should over-value someone just because he's a QB. There are plenty of uber talented guys who are definitely worthy of 1.04.

In today's NFL you have to, though, because the QB is BY FAR the most important position on the field if you want to win.What has having Adrian Peterson gotten the Vikings, for example. You cannot win in the NFL without a quarterback, which makes it necessary to take chances on the position.

Fortunately for NFL teams, the new CBA doesn't make it so financially punitive for whiffing on an early round pick.

 

[MAC_32]

Reaching on a project doesn't fix anything, in the end it probably creates more problems. Tannehill anytime before Friday would be just as dumb as the Ponder, Gabbert, and Locker picks last year. What the 9ers did with Kaepernick and the Bengals with Dalton are what you're supposed to do with Tannehill-like QB's.

Re patience, if there's one thing this group has it's that. I'd argue too much. So much that their lack of urgency has crept onto the product on the field. I am 100% sure they will not go after a guy they feel does not fit the wco.

Ponder and Locker weren't reaches either.Don't you wish the Browns had reached for Dalton last year?

And what if the guy does fit the WCO?

Yes they were, neither are 1st round caliber picks. Locker's accuracy issues and Ponder's mediocreness belonged in round 2. All 3 of those picks were horrendous.If the guy fits the WCO and is considered of value these guys will take them. If they don't or they go too soon then they will stick with what they have. If Colt isn't the guy then we will be in position to trade up and get Barkley next year, or possibly even so bad that we don't need to trade up. I've thought RG3 was a better prospect than Barkley since October, but there's no doubt in my mind he's a better prospect than Tannehill. And absolutely worth a top pick.

If we take Tannehill there's a good chance we're in a position like Minnesota this year. Not considering a top QB prospect because we reached on a mediocre one the previous year. If we're not picking at the top it's because Colt stepped up and earned another year. To overcome the ineptness of this coaching staff he'll have to if we're going to win more than 4 games.

To expect your team to limp along with a below mediocre QB because "help is coming next year" is comical. Franchises don't build in the current year with the line of thinking in bold.

When the alternatives are not worth the asking price it is. His stock is inflating because QB needy teams always find a reason to justify taking a guy early because they have a need while downplaying his warts. Oh which tannehill has many. He has tools, but his in-game decision making/execution is downright horrendous at times. He's a several year project if he pans out. That's not what you draft in round 1.

 

[Chase Stuart]

sooooooo....what do you see them doing at QB....?wouldn't "complete control" have included probably doing whatever it took to get Flynn...?...especially after it was clear Manning wasn't going there.....Miami front offense must not be on the same page as the "complete control" you say Philbin wanted.....he is very easily looking at being stuck with Moore or David Freking Garrard....do you think that is what he signed up for....heck I don't think even Alex Smith is what he would say he "signed up for".....lets say Smith doesn't sign with MIA.....what is the plan for the image Philbin wants to have....while I will agree it probably didn't include Tebow.....I will venture to guess it also didn't include David Garrard and Matt Moore....so dismissing Tebow as an option seems kind of crazy when you are looking at those two as "better" options...

You're assuming that Philbin really wanted Flynn; I don't think that's the case. If he really wanted him, Flynn was easily attainable. It speaks volumes to me about Flynn's ability that his old coach didn't go after him with more of an effort. That said, one could also argue that Philbin desperately wanted him but Miami was too cheap to do it and didn't care what Philbin thought. That seems much less likely to me, but acknowledge that it's a possibility.Matt Moore isn't an exciting option, but I suspect Philbin likes him much more than Tebow. If Philbin believes in his system, he probably thinks he can make Moore into something pretty good. I don't think he wants anything to do with Tebow. I also think Tannehill or Weedon are viable options, but again, who knows what Philbin thinks/wants.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Okay. We've beat that to death.

Let's say the Browns don't take him at #4. Then Miami makes it interesting. If they don't sign Alex Smith, it's almost a guarantee that they take Tannehill especially considering the Mike Sherman connection.

And if they don't, do the Browns consider him then if he's there at #22? At #37?

 

[dgreen]

Supply and demand at QB, but not overall...right? I don't think they should over-value someone just because he's a QB. There are plenty of uber talented guys who are definitely worthy of 1.04.

In today's NFL you have to, though, because the QB is BY FAR the most important position on the field if you want to win.What has having Adrian Peterson gotten the Vikings, for example. You cannot win in the NFL without a quarterback, which makes it necessary to take chances on the position.

Fortunately for NFL teams, the new CBA doesn't make it so financially punitive for whiffing on an early round pick.

In general/vague terms, I agree. But, these decisions have to be made about actual individuals who are actually available at a given time. At 1.04, Cleveland shouldn't just say, "Take the best QB available."

 

[Andy Dufresne]

In general/vague terms, I agree. But, these decisions have to be made about actual individuals who are actually available at a given time. At 1.04, Cleveland shouldn't just say, "Take the best QB available."

But if they decide "this kid has shown he can play and with a little coaching could be an NFL starter" then he's worth taking at the 4.

 

[MAC_32]

Okay. We've beat that to death.Let's say the Browns don't take him at #4. Then Miami makes it interesting. If they don't sign Alex Smith, it's almost a guarantee that they take Tannehill especially considering the Mike Sherman connection.And if they don't, do the Browns consider him then if he's there at #22? At #37?

I hope we don't at 22, but it wouldn't surprise me. I wouldn't gripe about 37, but I'd rather go in another direction. If he falls far enough in the 2nd in which we can trade our 3 and Atlanta's 4 to move up into the 2nd and get him that's what I would do. If someone takes him before then, good luck. I don't wish ill will on the guy, from everything I've read about him the last 2 years he seems like a quality person I just don't feel comfortable putting the franchise in his control when there are starters at other positions available.If our team was stronger I'd feel differently, but as is we suck. If we don't hit on a QB then we still will for the next half decade. If we can build a good team around the QB then hopefully we can take some more chances in a couple of years.

 

[Man In The Box]

If we take Tannehill there's a good chance we're in a position like Minnesota this year. Not considering a top QB prospect because we reached on a mediocre one the previous year.

This is a point that I don't think gets enough emphasis. This is my biggest gripe with taking him at 8.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Guys. Minnesota is not in the position they're in because they took a QB last year.

 

[MAC_32]

Guys. Minnesota is not in the position they're in because they took a QB last year.

Not my point. My point is they refused to target RG3 because they already had Ponder. Similar case with Jacksonville and Gabbert. That's a silly decision, but if you're the GM you have to ride with your #1 guy from the prior year for PR purposes. It isn't the right move, but it's the move they'll make to keep their job.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

sooooooo....what do you see them doing at QB....?

wouldn't "complete control" have included probably doing whatever it took to get Flynn...?...especially after it was clear Manning wasn't going there.....Miami front offense must not be on the same page as the "complete control" you say Philbin wanted.....he is very easily looking at being stuck with Moore or David Freking Garrard....do you think that is what he signed up for....heck I don't think even Alex Smith is what he would say he "signed up for".....

lets say Smith doesn't sign with MIA.....what is the plan for the image Philbin wants to have....

while I will agree it probably didn't include Tebow.....I will venture to guess it also didn't include David Garrard and Matt Moore....so dismissing Tebow as an option seems kind of crazy when you are looking at those two as "better" options...

You're assuming that Philbin really wanted Flynn; I don't think that's the case. If he really wanted him, Flynn was easily attainable. It speaks volumes to me about Flynn's ability that his old coach didn't go after him with more of an effort. That said, one could also argue that Philbin desperately wanted him but Miami was too cheap to do it and didn't care what Philbin thought. That seems much less likely to me, but acknowledge that it's a possibility.Matt Moore isn't an exciting option, but I suspect Philbin likes him much more than Tebow. If Philbin believes in his system, he probably thinks he can make Moore into something pretty good. I don't think he wants anything to do with Tebow. I also think Tannehill or Weedon are viable options, but again, who knows what Philbin thinks/wants.

not trying to sign like a d-bag here Chase, but you were the one who indicated in some of the posts above that you were pretty sure "that's not what Philbin wants" and he wanted "complete control" and "not what he signed up for" and wanted to 'bring his image", etc....and now it's, "who knows what he wants"....you said you don't think he wanted Flynn...so what do you think his plan was?....I'm sure the QB position was a point of discussion prior to him accepting the job and do you really think the mindset after those meetings was that Matt Moore is our future and the guy I want.....somehow I don't see that because to me the visits by Manning and Flynn indicate they were looking at other options and Moore isn't really their guy....and now Garrad is....Garrard...?...so now if we don't know what he wants how do we know Tebow won't become an option...sure he may not be the best fit, but for a pretty cheap price you could bring him in for a year or so, generate some buzz, sell some tickets, and actually maybe win a few games....then just keep looking or move up next year in the draft or something....if we don't know, we probably shouldn't dismiss anything at this point...

changing your offensive approach to what Tebow can do will probably net you as many, if not more wins, than having one of those guys pulling the trigger.....MIA fans, etc got to see what kind of things Tebow can do first hand last year....

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Guys. Minnesota is not in the position they're in because they took a QB last year.

Not my point. My point is they refused to target RG3 because they already had Ponder. Similar case with Jacksonville and Gabbert. That's a silly decision, but if you're the GM you have to ride with your #1 guy from the prior year for PR purposes. It isn't the right move, but it's the move they'll make to keep their job.

And you have to show you're willing to win this year in order to have a job next year. That's why team's don't make decisions in this year's draft based on what they hope they are in position to get next year.

 

[Man In The Box]

Guys. Minnesota is not in the position they're in because they took a QB last year.

Not my point. My point is they refused to target RG3 because they already had Ponder. Similar case with Jacksonville and Gabbert. That's a silly decision, but if you're the GM you have to ride with your #1 guy from the prior year for PR purposes. It isn't the right move, but it's the move they'll make to keep their job.

And you have to show you're willing to win this year in order to have a job next year. That's why team's don't make decisions in this year's draft based on what they hope they are in position to get next year.

Is it your opinion that Tannehill is NFL ready and will start for the team that takes him? Assuming it's a top 10 pick?

 

[Chase Stuart]

sooooooo....what do you see them doing at QB....?

wouldn't "complete control" have included probably doing whatever it took to get Flynn...?...especially after it was clear Manning wasn't going there.....Miami front offense must not be on the same page as the "complete control" you say Philbin wanted.....he is very easily looking at being stuck with Moore or David Freking Garrard....do you think that is what he signed up for....heck I don't think even Alex Smith is what he would say he "signed up for".....

lets say Smith doesn't sign with MIA.....what is the plan for the image Philbin wants to have....

while I will agree it probably didn't include Tebow.....I will venture to guess it also didn't include David Garrard and Matt Moore....so dismissing Tebow as an option seems kind of crazy when you are looking at those two as "better" options...

You're assuming that Philbin really wanted Flynn; I don't think that's the case. If he really wanted him, Flynn was easily attainable. It speaks volumes to me about Flynn's ability that his old coach didn't go after him with more of an effort. That said, one could also argue that Philbin desperately wanted him but Miami was too cheap to do it and didn't care what Philbin thought. That seems much less likely to me, but acknowledge that it's a possibility.Matt Moore isn't an exciting option, but I suspect Philbin likes him much more than Tebow. If Philbin believes in his system, he probably thinks he can make Moore into something pretty good. I don't think he wants anything to do with Tebow. I also think Tannehill or Weedon are viable options, but again, who knows what Philbin thinks/wants.

not trying to sign like a d-bag here Chase, but you were the one who indicated in some of the posts above that you were pretty sure "that's not what Philbin wants" and he wanted "complete control" and "not what he signed up for" and wanted to 'bring his image", etc....and now it's, "who knows what he wants"....you said you don't think he wanted Flynn...so what do you think his plan was?....I'm sure the QB position was a point of discussion prior to him accepting the job and do you really think the mindset after those meetings was that Matt Moore is our future and the guy I want.....somehow I don't see that because to me the visits by Manning and Flynn indicate they were looking at other options and Moore isn't really their guy....and now Garrad is....Garrard...?...so now if we don't know what he wants how do we know Tebow won't become an option...sure he may not be the best fit, but for a pretty cheap price you could bring him in for a year or so, generate some buzz, sell some tickets, and actually maybe win a few games....then just keep looking or move up next year in the draft or something....if we don't know, we probably shouldn't dismiss anything at this point...

changing your offensive approach to what Tebow can do will probably net you as many, if not more wins, than having one of those guys pulling the trigger.....MIA fans, etc got to see what kind of things Tebow can do first hand last year....

I agree he probably doesn't love Moore. Manning is a unique case, can't fault any team for going after him.Flynn is an enigma, but I have to imagine that Philbin knew exactly what he had in Flynn. I doubt he told Ireland and Ross that they need to sign this guy and then the FO scoffed at giving him decent money. Had Flynn signed a megadeal, sure, but he could have been had for relatively little.

I have no idea how he grades Tannehill or Weedon. Maybe he really wanted to trade up for RG3. Who knows? But there's nothing to suggest that he wants a QB like Tebow. Philbin will want to instill his system; maybe he doesn't get the QB he wants/needs until year 2, but I don't think that means they go with Tebow this year.

 

[MAC_32]

Guys. Minnesota is not in the position they're in because they took a QB last year.

Not my point. My point is they refused to target RG3 because they already had Ponder. Similar case with Jacksonville and Gabbert. That's a silly decision, but if you're the GM you have to ride with your #1 guy from the prior year for PR purposes. It isn't the right move, but it's the move they'll make to keep their job.

And you have to show you're willing to win this year in order to have a job next year. That's why team's don't make decisions in this year's draft based on what they hope they are in position to get next year.

These guys know they have 2 more years. Probably more. When you have an owner that says - 'here are the keys, figure it out' and runs back to Britain to watch his soccer team you have time to get it figured out. If this season goes awry, as I expect it will, Shurmur falls on the sword. A year too late imho. Right or wrong Lerner seems content with their plan of build through the draft, re-sign your own, and use free agency to find role players. If they draft more Hardesty's they won't last, but if they sign more Haden's, Taylor's, Sheard's, etc. they'll have time.Don't get me wrong, the lack of urgency of this group drives me mad but it's better than the failed 'WE MUST FIX IT NOW' strategies used by prior regimes and other current ones in the NFL.

At the end of the day Mangini's monstrosity in 2008 and collection of retreads both set this team back 5 years and gave these guys more rope than most front office's get. May turn out being a good thing since panic moves are common by other front offices trying to save their own asses. Poor way to run any business and unfortunately that's how most of the NFL is run these days. Good organizations are patient, poor ones turn it over every other year and expect things to change. Define, insanity.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Is it your opinion that Tannehill is NFL ready and will start for the team that takes him? Assuming it's a top 10 pick?

Depends on what you mean by "NFL Ready". I think there are less than a dozen guys a decade that can come in and succeed at a high level immediately, which is what most people mean. With that in mind, the answer is "no", Tannehill is not that. But what he is is a guy with good tools and intelligence to be a tremendous fit for a team that runs the WCO, like the Browns that can develop into that type of player over 2-3 seasons.And with the new rookie wage scale he doesn't need to be one of the guys that plays and has to play well immediately. He has the ability to sit for a year to a year and a half and then take over.People are underestimating the economic change the new CBA brought to the draft.

 

[renesauz]

Is anyone really going to give more than a 4th for Tebow? And would Denver even take that?

Have to imagine Manning said they have to trade Tebow if he goes there.

That's true, I suppose.

Playing devil's advocate, I actually think that Tebow remaining a Bronco would not be that bad. I don't see much difference with Tebow in DEN or not as to the influence he would have on Manning. If DEN loses a few early or finds themselves trailing in the playoff race, people are going to be talking about why DEN went away from Tebow/signed Peyton regardless of whether he is on the team. To most eyes, regardless of his success last year, Tebow still needs time to develop and not just an off season. Spending 2-3 years behind one of the greatest QBs of all time could be great for him. And DEN has an insurance policy if Manning gets hurt. Of course, Tebow probably sees himself as a starter, DEN doesn't want the distraction, and Manning may not see that Tebow's shadow will loom no matter where Tebow is.

Why would ANYONE want to back up Manning? How have his previous backups fared? I understand he's a rep hog. If that's true, than how would becoming his backup be even remotely beneficial to Tebow?Tebow would be a nice insurance policy for Denver and the Broncos fans...but it certainly wouldn't be idel for Tebow himself.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Don't get me wrong, the lack of urgency of this group drives me mad but it's better than the failed 'WE MUST FIX IT NOW' strategies used by prior regimes and other current ones in the NFL.

I'm not communicating my meaning, apparently. As I said in my previous post, I don't think Tannehill is a "plug and play" QB. But I do think he is a guy that can learn and develop quickly into that guy. I guess the term is "upside", of which I think he has much more than any other QB in this class. And the problem is that there's a much, much higher probability of ending up with this type of player than there is the "plug and play" type so it simply makes sense to get started on the project NOW.

 

[Man In The Box]

Is it your opinion that Tannehill is NFL ready and will start for the team that takes him? Assuming it's a top 10 pick?

Depends on what you mean by "NFL Ready". I think there are less than a dozen guys a decade that can come in and succeed at a high level immediately, which is what most people mean. With that in mind, the answer is "no", Tannehill is not that. But what he is is a guy with good tools and intelligence to be a tremendous fit for a team that runs the WCO, like the Browns that can develop into that type of player over 2-3 seasons.And with the new rookie wage scale he doesn't need to be one of the guys that plays and has to play well immediately. He has the ability to sit for a year to a year and a half and then take over.People are underestimating the economic change the new CBA brought to the draft.

I agree with this, but it doesn't jive with the whole 'win now' thing though, and that's the problem. You're saying there's an emphasis to go for it and win now. How does drafting a guy who's a project that will most likely take 2-3 years to develop in the top 10 accomplish that?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Is it your opinion that Tannehill is NFL ready and will start for the team that takes him? Assuming it's a top 10 pick?

Depends on what you mean by "NFL Ready". I think there are less than a dozen guys a decade that can come in and succeed at a high level immediately, which is what most people mean. With that in mind, the answer is "no", Tannehill is not that. But what he is is a guy with good tools and intelligence to be a tremendous fit for a team that runs the WCO, like the Browns that can develop into that type of player over 2-3 seasons.

And with the new rookie wage scale he doesn't need to be one of the guys that plays and has to play well immediately. He has the ability to sit for a year to a year and a half and then take over.

People are underestimating the economic change the new CBA brought to the draft.

I agree with this, but it doesn't jive with the whole 'win now' thing though, and that's the problem. You're saying there's an emphasis to go for it and win now. How does drafting a guy who's a project that will most likely take 2-3 years to develop in the top 10 accomplish that?

I'm saying that you have to get started now. Waiting year after year for the "perfect" quarterback and substituting in mediocrity after mediocrity is what gets you nowhere.

 

[MAC_32]

Don't get me wrong, the lack of urgency of this group drives me mad but it's better than the failed 'WE MUST FIX IT NOW' strategies used by prior regimes and other current ones in the NFL.

I'm not communicating my meaning, apparently. As I said in my previous post, I don't think Tannehill is a "plug and play" QB. But I do think he is a guy that can learn and develop quickly into that guy. I guess the term is "upside", of which I think he has much more than any other QB in this class. And the problem is that there's a much, much higher probability of ending up with this type of player than there is the "plug and play" type so it simply makes sense to get started on the project NOW.

Is his upside worth more than a WR1? lock down corner? the best RB prospect in the last 5 years? I'd say absolutely not.What about a starting WR? starting RB? complimentary pass rusher? complimentary corner? It's closer, but I'd rather have the starter on a team void of talent across the board.Once you've gone through all of the starters that's when you start shooting your upside darts. A team like the Browns, any team for that matter, must leave the draft with 3-4 starters for the future. You're significantly minimizing your margin of error by rolling the dice in favor of a starter. I get that QB is the most important position, but that doesn't mean it's right to look at your pair of decuces and push all-in pre flop.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Is his upside worth more than a WR1? lock down corner? the best RB prospect in the last 5 years? I'd say absolutely not.

To the Browns? I'd say yes. Blackmon is a very good talent, but you should gripe about him being a top 5 pick just as much as you are Tannehill. He's no AJ Green or Calvin Johnson.You already have a #1 CB. Do you need a lockdown #2 at the #4 spot? Probably not.

How important are RBs in today's NFL?

What about a starting WR? starting RB? complimentary pass rusher? complimentary corner? It's closer, but I'd rather have the starter on a team void of talent across the board.

What about them? Do you draft them at #4 over your quarterback of the future?

Once you've gone through all of the starters that's when you start shooting your upside darts. A team like the Browns, any team for that matter, must leave the draft with 3-4 starters for the future. You're significantly minimizing your margin of error by rolling the dice in favor of a starter. I get that QB is the most important position, but that doesn't mean it's right to look at your pair of decuces and push all-in pre flop.

I have no idea what that analogy means. Suffice it to say that you don't think Tannehill is a worthwhile prospect. I do. So no wonder we disagree.

East is east, west is west, and ne'er the 'twain shall meet.

 

[duaneok66]

I don't know why Browns fans are so resistant to Tannehill.

As a plan, taking him then the best WR available at 22 (perhaps Kendall Wright or Rueben Randle) and then best RB available at 37 (Doug Martin/Lamar Miller/David Wilson) at least gives you something to cheer about on offense.

Or as an alternative, you're looking at Richardson, WR, Weeden. That's not bad either, I guess.

Would rather have Weeden later than reach for a guy who played more WR in college than QB with #4 overall. IMO Heckert thinking this way also.

In the games he played in college he had 5,450 passing yards and 42 touchdowns. The guy isn't the schlub fans are making him out to be.

You don't draft projects at the top of round 1, you draft cornerstones. Tannehill is not a cornerstone, he's a project. If somehow he falls to day 2 I won't gripe (although I'd rather it be later round 2 via trade up), but he would be a silly pick at #4 and a poor pick at 22. He has tools, but his play on the field was spotty. Too many mistakes to warrant such a high pick.

post of the thread.

 

[MAC_32]

Suffice it to say that you don't think Tannehill is a worthwhile prospect. I do. So no wonder we disagree.

Don't think that's the case at all, I think it's draft philosophy differences. I'm 99% sure I liked Tannehill more than most did in October, but anticipated this happening once I saw warts emerge in his game. He's exactly the type of QB to vault up draft boards from December until April, rightly or wrongly. Personally, my draft board doesn't change much after December. From my experience most of the people that signfiicantly improve their value after December are the ones that bust. In the end, you think it's a good idea to take a big risk on big upside early on whereas I am much more risk adverse early on. You're supposed to draft starters in the first 2 rounds. If you don't your team will suck. I don't value big risk big upside QB's as worthwhile gambles until after all of the likely starters are off the board, which is usually sometime later in round 2 or into round 3. I'm all for dice rolls at that point (i.e., Ryan Mallett), but earlier is just reckless.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Suffice it to say that you don't think Tannehill is a worthwhile prospect. I do. So no wonder we disagree.

Don't think that's the case at all, I think it's draft philosophy differences. I'm 99% sure I liked Tannehill more than most did in October, but anticipated this happening once I saw warts emerge in his game. He's exactly the type of QB to vault up draft boards from December until April, rightly or wrongly. Personally, my draft board doesn't change much after December. From my experience most of the people that signfiicantly improve their value after December are the ones that bust. In the end, you think it's a good idea to take a big risk on big upside early on whereas I am much more risk adverse early on. You're supposed to draft starters in the first 2 rounds. If you don't your team will suck. I don't value big risk big upside QB's as worthwhile gambles until after all of the likely starters are off the board, which is usually sometime later in round 2 or into round 3. I'm all for dice rolls at that point (i.e., Ryan Mallett), but earlier is just reckless.

That's what I said. You think Tannehill is a riskier pick than I do.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I believe DEN would like to deal Tebow even though he is a pretty cheap backup....I think they like Adam Webber and could see him better suited for what Peyton will be doing....I believe Tebow will also ask to be dealt, because while he may be the greatest "team guy" of all time, he wants to play, not sit.....he has had a taste of being a starter in the NFL and I think he likes it.....

 

[jurb26]

Suffice it to say that you don't think Tannehill is a worthwhile prospect. I do. So no wonder we disagree.

Don't think that's the case at all, I think it's draft philosophy differences. I'm 99% sure I liked Tannehill more than most did in October, but anticipated this happening once I saw warts emerge in his game. He's exactly the type of QB to vault up draft boards from December until April, rightly or wrongly. Personally, my draft board doesn't change much after December. From my experience most of the people that signfiicantly improve their value after December are the ones that bust. In the end, you think it's a good idea to take a big risk on big upside early on whereas I am much more risk adverse early on. You're supposed to draft starters in the first 2 rounds. If you don't your team will suck. I don't value big risk big upside QB's as worthwhile gambles until after all of the likely starters are off the board, which is usually sometime later in round 2 or into round 3. I'm all for dice rolls at that point (i.e., Ryan Mallett), but earlier is just reckless.

That's what I said. You think Tannehill is a riskier pick than I do.

Where does all this confidence in Tannehill come from? I'm with MAC on this one, the guy shoulnd't sniff the top 15 picks of the draft and any team taking him early than pick 25 is risking too much IMO. I'd be OK with a team like Clev taking him late in round based off of some need. 1.04 is just criminally too early. Picks like that set you back, instead of move you forward. There is GREAT talent on the board at 1.04. There is no need to be reaching that much for a QB.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Where does all this confidence in Tannehill come from? I'm with MAC on this one, the guy shoulnd't sniff the top 15 picks of the draft and any team taking him early than pick 25 is risking too much IMO. I'd be OK with a team like Clev taking him late in round based off of some need. 1.04 is just criminally too early. Picks like that set you back, instead of move you forward. There is GREAT talent on the board at 1.04. There is no need to be reaching that much for a QB.

You tell me. More and more scouts and plugged in NFL guys are saying he's top 10 material.I'm just reading tea leaves here and saying that there certainly is justification for starting the Tannehill project this year over starting the Barkley or whoever project next year.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Suffice it to say that you don't think Tannehill is a worthwhile prospect. I do. So no wonder we disagree.

Don't think that's the case at all, I think it's draft philosophy differences. I'm 99% sure I liked Tannehill more than most did in October, but anticipated this happening once I saw warts emerge in his game. He's exactly the type of QB to vault up draft boards from December until April, rightly or wrongly. Personally, my draft board doesn't change much after December. From my experience most of the people that signfiicantly improve their value after December are the ones that bust. In the end, you think it's a good idea to take a big risk on big upside early on whereas I am much more risk adverse early on. You're supposed to draft starters in the first 2 rounds. If you don't your team will suck. I don't value big risk big upside QB's as worthwhile gambles until after all of the likely starters are off the board, which is usually sometime later in round 2 or into round 3. I'm all for dice rolls at that point (i.e., Ryan Mallett), but earlier is just reckless.

That's what I said. You think Tannehill is a riskier pick than I do.

Where does all this confidence in Tannehill come from? I'm with MAC on this one, the guy shoulnd't sniff the top 15 picks of the draft and any team taking him early than pick 25 is risking too much IMO. I'd be OK with a team like Clev taking him late in round based off of some need. 1.04 is just criminally too early. Picks like that set you back, instead of move you forward. There is GREAT talent on the board at 1.04. There is no need to be reaching that much for a QB.

couldn't CLE use a RB...?....theres this kid from Alabama...

 

[jurb26]

Where does all this confidence in Tannehill come from? I'm with MAC on this one, the guy shoulnd't sniff the top 15 picks of the draft and any team taking him early than pick 25 is risking too much IMO. I'd be OK with a team like Clev taking him late in round based off of some need. 1.04 is just criminally too early. Picks like that set you back, instead of move you forward. There is GREAT talent on the board at 1.04. There is no need to be reaching that much for a QB.

You tell me. More and more scouts and plugged in NFL guys are saying he's top 10 material.I'm just reading tea leaves here and saying that there certainly is justification for starting the Tannehill project this year over starting the Barkley or whoever project next year.

Barkley is a far superior prospect to Tannehill. It's not even close. If a team were allowed to do so, I bet they would draft Barkley in this years draft over Tannehill despite knowing he wouldn't even be able to play a down for them until 2013. The separation is that wide IMO. As far as Tannehill being top 10 caliber. I have no idea where that comes from. I'm not seeing it. I've seen people force him into that draft position in mocks because they think teams needing a QB will reach for him. I'm not seeing anyone say he is a top 10 player in this draft though. Not even close.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Tannehill is a bad prospect. I just think he is a bad pick in the top half of the 1st round. Blain Gabbert bad. Clev has too many holes and there are too many high level prospects on the board at their picks to be fooling around with a project QB at those picks. Perhaps that's just my opinion but that's pretty much we're here to do, discuss our opinions.

 

[daveR]

I'm thinking Andy just wants someone to offer his Vikes a huge draft package to move up to #3. (Browns will not take him at #4.)

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Where does all this confidence in Tannehill come from? I'm with MAC on this one, the guy shoulnd't sniff the top 15 picks of the draft and any team taking him early than pick 25 is risking too much IMO. I'd be OK with a team like Clev taking him late in round based off of some need. 1.04 is just criminally too early. Picks like that set you back, instead of move you forward. There is GREAT talent on the board at 1.04. There is no need to be reaching that much for a QB.

You tell me. More and more scouts and plugged in NFL guys are saying he's top 10 material.I'm just reading tea leaves here and saying that there certainly is justification for starting the Tannehill project this year over starting the Barkley or whoever project next year.

Barkley is a far superior prospect to Tannehill. It's not even close. If a team were allowed to do so, I bet they would draft Barkley in this years draft over Tannehill despite knowing he wouldn't even be able to play a down for them until 2013. The separation is that wide IMO. As far as Tannehill being top 10 caliber. I have no idea where that comes from. I'm not seeing it. I've seen people force him into that draft position in mocks because they think teams needing a QB will reach for him. I'm not seeing anyone say he is a top 10 player in this draft though. Not even close.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Tannehill is a bad prospect. I just think he is a bad pick in the top half of the 1st round. Blain Gabbert bad. Clev has too many holes and there are too many high level prospects on the board at their picks to be fooling around with a project QB at those picks. Perhaps that's just my opinion but that's pretty much we're here to do, discuss our opinions.

Well that's not the argument, is it?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'm thinking Andy just wants someone to offer his Vikes a huge draft package to move up to #3. (Browns will not take him at #4.)

And it would have worked too if it weren't for the meddling of daveR!

 

[MAC_32]

Where does all this confidence in Tannehill come from? I'm with MAC on this one, the guy shoulnd't sniff the top 15 picks of the draft and any team taking him early than pick 25 is risking too much IMO. I'd be OK with a team like Clev taking him late in round based off of some need. 1.04 is just criminally too early. Picks like that set you back, instead of move you forward. There is GREAT talent on the board at 1.04. There is no need to be reaching that much for a QB.

You tell me. More and more scouts and plugged in NFL guys are saying he's top 10 material.I'm just reading tea leaves here and saying that there certainly is justification for starting the Tannehill project this year over starting the Barkley or whoever project next year.

So...how much of Tannehill have you watched? I want to go deeper here, but if you haven't watched him play then I won't bother because I'm wary I'll be talking to a brick wall. I may be anyway, but at least if you've watched him play more than a couple of times I could put some context to your argument.