PDA

View Full Version : NFL Draft Ryan Tannehill


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8

Frankie
01-23-2012, 11:04 PM
WTF? Why are people so eager to take a first round pick that they overlook the fact that this kid has only played one year?

Actually that could be the very reason. He has shown to be a fast bloomer with a lot of upside to bloom more.

SNR
01-23-2012, 11:15 PM
Right.

But assuming Pioli does not dump Cassel...which is probably the reality of the matter, who do you bring in to compete with him or Stanzi?

It has been brought up that Cassel has had no competition for the starting job. Are we going to find someone in FA or on the second day of the draft who can compete for the starting job?In my desire to give Stanzi a chance during the regular season, I've been pretty rough on the QBs in this draft not named Luck, RGIII, or Tannehill.

But honestly? They're all turds. The only one that interests me slightly is Lindley, and that's because I've only seen about 2 minutes of game footage of him, and there's a possibility that he won't be as big of a stinky wet fart as the other QBs. Seriously... Kirk Cousins? 29-year old Brandon Weeden? That's the best we can do? Get out of me. Stanzi with one year in the NFL is worth far more than taking one of these guys in the later rounds and then filling our roster up with nothing but developmental prospects and Matt fucking Cassel.

NJChiefsFan
01-23-2012, 11:31 PM
In my desire to give Stanzi a chance during the regular season, I've been pretty rough on the QBs in this draft not named Luck, RGIII, or Tannehill.

But honestly? They're all turds. The only one that interests me slightly is Lindley, and that's because I've only seen about 2 minutes of game footage of him, and there's a possibility that he won't be as big of a stinky wet fart as the other QBs. Seriously... Kirk Cousins? 29-year old Brandon Weeden? That's the best we can do? Get out of me. Stanzi with one year in the NFL is worth far more than taking one of these guys in the later rounds and then filling our roster up with nothing but developmental prospects and Matt ****ing Cassel.


The Chiefs got killed in the media and on the field for not having a better backup than Palko. I personally would have played Stanzi but I am not putting it out of the question that Pioli doesn't just get a vet to be a backup.

Even if you see something in Stanzi, and I do as well, I think you should draft another guy. Let them fight it out in camp. I would rather have 2 young guys to up the chances. If Stanzi is ready, he won't lose out to a QB that isn't.

You could say that if you believe in Stanzi and you still draft a QB that you are wasting a pick. The position and need is too big, I will take that risk every time its an option.

SNR
01-24-2012, 12:08 AM
The Chiefs got killed in the media and on the field for not having a better backup than Palko. I personally would have played Stanzi but I am not putting it out of the question that Pioli doesn't just get a vet to be a backup.

Even if you see something in Stanzi, and I do as well, I think you should draft another guy. Let them fight it out in camp. I would rather have 2 young guys to up the chances. If Stanzi is ready, he won't lose out to a QB that isn't.

You could say that if you believe in Stanzi and you still draft a QB that you are wasting a pick. The position and need is too big, I will take that risk every time its an option.There just comes a time when you have to stop drafting assholes, though. And by doing that I mean draft a first round QB.

Assuming we don't trade up for Luck or RGIII, I want Tannehill at 11/12. After that though? Don't give a shit, and would rather have a vet free agent QB than one of these quarterbacks in this particular draft class.

I would say MAYBE to Osweiler, Moore, or Wilson. I want no part of Old Man Weeden, and Kirk Cousins can go fuck his mother. I don't want that asshole.

chiefzilla1501
01-24-2012, 12:35 AM
There just comes a time when you have to stop drafting assholes, though. And by doing that I mean draft a first round QB.

Assuming we don't trade up for Luck or RGIII, I want Tannehill at 11/12. After that though? Don't give a shit, and would rather have a vet free agent QB than one of these quarterbacks in this particular draft class.

I would say MAYBE to Osweiler, Moore, or Wilson. I want no part of Old Man Weeden, and Kirk Cousins can go **** his mother. I don't want that asshole.

The problem is that you've become so married to that logic that you're talking about reaching for a guy who would be a second or third round pick any other year. Reaching 10 spots is one thing. Reaching 1-2 rounds is a whole other animal.

There is no freaking way Tannehill is worth a top 15 pick. Especially given how incredibly raw he is. He's a 2-3 year project, assuming he is even worth that. I'd rather draft Wilson or Cousins at value. Or trade a 3rd round pick for Jimmy Clausen.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-24-2012, 07:40 AM
The problem is that you've become so married to that logic that you're talking about reaching for a guy who would be a second or third round pick any other year. Reaching 10 spots is one thing. Reaching 1-2 rounds is a whole other animal.

There is no freaking way Tannehill is worth a top 15 pick. Especially given how incredibly raw he is. He's a 2-3 year project, assuming he is even worth that. I'd rather draft Wilson or Cousins at value. Or trade a 3rd round pick for Jimmy Clausen.

We know Pioli isnt trading up for Luck or RG3.

If we don't "reach" for Tannehill...WHO else do you bring in that can compete with Cassel and Stanzi.

With all the homer love for Stanzi, the fact of the matter is he is not a sure thing. He was a 5th rnd pick.

Do we bring in another 5th rnd pick and hope one of the two are capable of competing for the starting position? Or do you "reach" for someone with a higher projection?

A lot of people are saying no dont waste first on Tannehill, he isn't worth the pick. But they don't say WHO we should target to compete with Cassel for the starting position. Before the whole "conspiracy" with Haley+Palko...Stanzi was inactive and listed 3rd in depth. So is he even as THAT much more polished than a Tannehill? (I am sure the Iowa homers will throw me in a fire now)

Chiefnj2
01-24-2012, 08:15 AM
Tannehill's rise up draft boards reminds me of Ponder last year. I don't get it. You can watch half a dozen youtube clips of his games, and there is no way in hell he looks like a first round QB.

htismaqe
01-24-2012, 08:17 AM
We know Pioli isnt trading up for Luck or RG3.

If we don't "reach" for Tannehill...WHO else do you bring in that can compete with Cassel and Stanzi.

These two statements are irreconcilable.

We know Pioli isn't trading up but you want to know who we would bring in for competition.

Here's the simple fact of the matter - Pioli isn't trading up AND Pioli isn't bringing in any competition.

Get used to the idea.

With all the homer love for Stanzi, the fact of the matter is he is not a sure thing. He was a 5th rnd pick.

Do we bring in another 5th rnd pick and hope one of the two are capable of competing for the starting position? Or do you "reach" for someone with a higher projection?

A lot of people are saying no dont waste first on Tannehill, he isn't worth the pick. But they don't say WHO we should target to compete with Cassel for the starting position. Before the whole "conspiracy" with Haley+Palko...Stanzi was inactive and listed 3rd in depth. So is he even as THAT much more polished than a Tannehill? (I am sure the Iowa homers will throw me in a fire now)

I love how ANY discussion of Stanzi turns into accusations of being an Iowa homer. This place has always been a bastion of objectivity but the hyperbole lately is "Anchorman" worthy.

Again, another simple fact - Tannehill is NOT starting this year. He's probably not starting NEXT YEAR either.

Stanzi can start right now. Now is his ceiling as high as Tannehill's? Certainly not. But his floor isn't NEARLY as low. It's quite possible Tannehill will NEVER be able to play QB in the NFL.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-24-2012, 08:21 AM
Stanzi can start right now. Now is his ceiling as high as Tannehill's? Certainly not. But his floor isn't NEARLY as low. It's quite possible Tannehill will NEVER be able to play QB in the NFL.

With one of the worst QB situations midway thru the season...having to claim someone off of waivers...how did he manage not to get single snap?

I wouldn't be so quick to say he can start right now. He had trouble being activated on game day...

htismaqe
01-24-2012, 08:48 AM
With one of the worst QB situations midway thru the season...having to claim someone off of waivers...how did he manage not to get single snap?

I wouldn't be so quick to say he can start right now. He had trouble being activated on game day...

Tom Brady was inactive his entire 1st season and he's turned out to be the greatest QB ever. That's the Patriot Way.

There's also the fact that Haley was insistent on starting Palko no matter what - he celebrated it after the Chicago win.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-24-2012, 08:49 AM
Tom Brady was inactive his entire 1st season and he's turned out to be the greatest QB ever. That's the Patriot Way.

There's also the fact that Haley was insistent on starting Palko no matter what - he celebrated it after the Chicago win.

So, you have high hopes?

Chiefnj2
01-24-2012, 08:53 AM
.. he celebrated it after the Chicago win.

What does that mean? A head coach was happy his backup QB won a game?

Chiefs Pantalones
01-24-2012, 08:57 AM
Tom Brady was inactive his entire 1st season and he's turned out to be the greatest QB ever. That's the Patriot Way.

There's also the fact that Haley was insistent on starting Palko no matter what - he celebrated it after the Chicago win.

I thought Brady appeared in one game his first season? I don't care just thinking out loud

Saul Good
01-24-2012, 09:09 AM
We know Pioli isnt trading up for Luck or RG3.

If we don't "reach" for Tannehill...WHO else do you bring in that can compete with Cassel and Stanzi.

With all the homer love for Stanzi, the fact of the matter is he is not a sure thing. He was a 5th rnd pick.

Do we bring in another 5th rnd pick and hope one of the two are capable of competing for the starting position? Or do you "reach" for someone with a higher projection?

A lot of people are saying no dont waste first on Tannehill, he isn't worth the pick. But they don't say WHO we should target to compete with Cassel for the starting position. Before the whole "conspiracy" with Haley+Palko...Stanzi was inactive and listed 3rd in depth. So is he even as THAT much more polished than a Tannehill? (I am sure the Iowa homers will throw me in a fire now)

I'd sign Orton and cut Cassel. The QB value isn't going to be there this year, and I can live with Orton for a year.

PGM
01-24-2012, 09:16 AM
You're an idiot. Denver fans LOVE Tebow. That's Boss's point. Even intelligent Denver fans will not dismiss the fact that he wins games, and they love him for it.

They love him so much that they get plaster cast molds made of their T-Boners so they can remember just how hard he makes them in the offseason. Get a clue.

ROFL

mlyonsd
01-24-2012, 09:20 AM
I'd sign Orton and cut Cassel. The QB value isn't going to be there this year, and I can live with Orton for a year.I think this is the best we can hope for from Pioli. And I'm worried even this won't happen.

Frankie
01-24-2012, 09:38 AM
If we don't "reach" for Tannehill...WHO else do you bring in that can compete with Cassel and Stanzi.I'm kinda of on the Tannehill-at-value bandwagon. But if that value is determined to be somewhere in the 1st or early 2nd Stanzi is royally screwed. He won't get a chance even if he outplays Tannehill.

Do we bring in another 5th rnd pick and hope one of the two are capable of competing for the starting position?In the end, I think that's the scenario that will unfold.

Tom Brady was inactive his entire 1st season and he's turned out to be the greatest QB ever.I wonder if the Patriots fans where calling for cutting his ass and drafting another QBOTF then like posters here do.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-24-2012, 09:42 AM
I wonder if the Patriots fans where calling for cutting his ass and drafting another QBOTF then like posters here do.


Are you talking about Cassel? Nobody here has said we should cut Stanzi from what I have seen. That would be the last thing we need to do...

Frankie
01-24-2012, 09:45 AM
Are you talking about Cassel? Nobody here has said we should cut Stanzi from what I have seen. That would be the last thing we need to do...

No I was talking about Stanzi. But the discard-happy portion of the posters here are already calling Stanzi a bust.

SNR
01-24-2012, 09:47 AM
I thought Brady appeared in one game his first season? I don't care just thinking out loudHe did. He threw like... 4 passes or something like that. That was the only game he wasn't inactive, though.

Stanzi was taken off the inactive list as soon as Cassel went down.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-24-2012, 09:48 AM
No I was talking about Stanzi. But the discard-happy portion of the posters here are already calling Stanzi a bust.

Can't say they don't exist here.

I will just say I don't see him as a bust...rather I am not ready to put all my eggs in the "Stanzi is our QBOTF basket" yet.

I want us to bring in more competition.

htismaqe
01-24-2012, 09:49 AM
So, you have high hopes?

Not really. But I'm not gonna write him off when we've never seen him play.

htismaqe
01-24-2012, 09:50 AM
What does that mean? A head coach was happy his backup QB won a game?

So happy that he was jumping up and down in the locker room yelling "I told you we could do it".

Fucking crazy, nuff said.

htismaqe
01-24-2012, 09:51 AM
Can't say they don't exist here.

I will just say I don't see him as a bust...rather I am not ready to put all my eggs in the "Stanzi is our QBOTF basket" yet.

I want us to bring in more competition.

We're not going to, so Stanzi is all we have to hang our hope on.

Chiefnj2
01-24-2012, 09:54 AM
So happy that he was jumping up and down in the locker room yelling "I told you we could do it".

****ing crazy, nuff said.

What's wrong with that? Seriously, what's wrong with a coach pumping up his backup QB who had gotten off to a horrible start a week or two before?

Frankie
01-24-2012, 09:54 AM
Can't say they don't exist here.

I will just say I don't see him as a bust...rather I am not ready to put all my eggs in the "Stanzi is our QBOTF basket" yet.

I want us to bring in more competition.

That I agree with. I don't mind a camp consisting of Cassel (because we have no say), Orton (because we need a reliable vet for a year or so), Stanzi and a 5th round QB. This way we hopefully will finally see if Stanzi can hack it. Next year's draft seems to offer a better QB crop already if we wanted to draft a QB high.

I wonder if Weeden's age would drop him to that magical 5th round.

Pestilence
01-24-2012, 09:57 AM
I've already come to the realization that we won't be taking a QB in the first 2-3 rounds of the draft. So I'm holding out hope that Stanzi clowns Cassel in TC and PS play.....and then Cassel goes down with a season ending injury.

SNR
01-24-2012, 09:59 AM
The problem is that you've become so married to that logic that you're talking about reaching for a guy who would be a second or third round pick any other year. Reaching 10 spots is one thing. Reaching 1-2 rounds is a whole other animal.

There is no freaking way Tannehill is worth a top 15 pick. Especially given how incredibly raw he is. He's a 2-3 year project, assuming he is even worth that. I'd rather draft Wilson or Cousins at value. Or trade a 3rd round pick for Jimmy Clausen.He's GOING to be drafted in the first round this year, very possibly before we even get a chance to pick. And the way the draft is slotted, you're going to see many, many more inexperienced and raw QB talents get first round grades slapped on them. That's a fact of life. I know this year in particular the back half of the QB talent in this draft is pretty bad, but think about it. How long has it been since we've had a draft where the QB talent was that much better in those slots? To claim that "any other year Tannehill would be a 2nd-3rd round pick" is particularly foolish. Deep QB draft classes just don't happen anymore. It's been ages since we've had one. So until we come across one where that's not the case, Tannehill is a 1st round QB. Get used to it.

And look, I agree with you about Tannehill. He's raw. Real raw. Extremely raw. So what? That didn't stop this team from inactivating the only promising QB on the roster for the entire goddamn season. Let him get used to the speed of the pro game for at least a season and bring him along slowly as a backup. Tannehill CAN become a pretty damn good NFL QB, it's just that his path to that point is much rockier than Luck's or RGIII's.

And besides, I can take a QB with a 2nd or 3rd round grade with my 1st rounder, or I can waste a draft pick completely on a QB who's a piece of shit. Who would you rather want?

tredadda
01-24-2012, 10:05 AM
Tannehill's rise up draft boards reminds me of Ponder last year. I don't get it. You can watch half a dozen youtube clips of his games, and there is no way in hell he looks like a first round QB.

Whether he looks like a 1st round QB or not is irrelevant. He will be a first round QB. The question is will it be us or someone else taking him. If we don't, then what? Who do we bring in? Or do we just rely on Cassel and our 5th rounder to take us to the promised land?

Frankie
01-24-2012, 10:05 AM
I've already come to the realization that we won't be taking a QB in the first 2-3 rounds of the draft. So I'm holding out hope that Stanzi clowns Cassel in TC and PS play.....and then Cassel goes down with a season ending injury.

Normally I would say it's not classy to wish injury upon someone. But our frustration of Pioli's attitude has come down to that.

Let's just hope for a small injury that Pioli can dress up as a big one to allow him to dislodge Matty while "saving face." :grovel:

htismaqe
01-24-2012, 10:06 AM
What's wrong with that? Seriously, what's wrong with a coach pumping up his backup QB who had gotten off to a horrible start a week or two before?

Again, you take an absolutely asinine position in an attempt to be the contrarian.

Tyler Palko was one of the worst experiments in the HISTORY of the franchise. Everybody could see it, even Haley. He was just hell bent on proving everybody wrong. I have that info from 2 different sources, you can do with that whatever you want but I guarantee you 90% of this board (or more) thinks Haley was crazy.

If he is, then we know NOTHING about why Stanzi didn't play because you can't logically and reasonable arrive at a motive for the actions of someone who is CRAZY.

tredadda
01-24-2012, 10:12 AM
Again, you take an absolutely asinine position in an attempt to be the contrarian.

Tyler Palko was one of the worst experiments in the HISTORY of the franchise. Everybody could see it, even Haley. He was just hell bent on proving everybody wrong. I have that info from 2 different sources, you can do with that whatever you want but I guarantee you 90% of this board (or more) thinks Haley was crazy.

If he is, then we know NOTHING about why Stanzi didn't play because you can't logically and reasonable arrive at a motive for the actions of someone who is CRAZY.

Exactly, no sane person could honestly say that Palko could be any better than Stanzi. We had nothing to lose and everything to gain by starting Stanzi over Palko. There is a reason why Palko was cut by the NFL, CFL, and UFL.

Coogs
01-24-2012, 10:18 AM
I don't mind a camp consisting of Cassel (because we have no say), Orton (because we need a reliable vet for a year or so), Stanzi and a 5th round QB. This way we hopefully will finally see if Stanzi can hack it. Next year's draft seems to offer a better QB crop already if we wanted to draft a QB high.


I want nothing to do with that scenario. Book is in on Cassel. Orton made a strong case in 3 games to what he can do for this team. A QB competition between these two... with basically all the playing time split between those two including trainging camp and pre-season games does nothing to develop a player like Stanzi/draft choice.

Man up time. Orton showed he was better in many ways. The training camp competition should be between Orton and Stanzi. Better man wins.

Chiefnj2
01-24-2012, 10:20 AM
Again, you take an absolutely asinine position in an attempt to be the contrarian.

Tyler Palko was one of the worst experiments in the HISTORY of the franchise. Everybody could see it, even Haley. He was just hell bent on proving everybody wrong. I have that info from 2 different sources, you can do with that whatever you want but I guarantee you 90% of this board (or more) thinks Haley was crazy.

If he is, then we know NOTHING about why Stanzi didn't play because you can't logically and reasonable arrive at a motive for the actions of someone who is CRAZY.

Yes, Haley was crazy. But to say he was crazy because he was happy his backup QB won a tough road game is asinine.

Iowa homers need to grasp the fact that Stanzi just might not be that good. In a league where the QB position is at a premium and teams are using 1st round picks on marginal quality, Stanzi still slipped all the way down the draft boards.

mlyonsd
01-24-2012, 10:22 AM
Yes, Haley was crazy. But to say he was crazy because he was happy his backup QB won a tough road game is asinine.

Iowa homers need to grasp the fact that Stanzi just might not be that good. In a league where the QB position is at a premium and teams are using 1st round picks on marginal quality, Stanzi still slipped all the way down the draft boards.I'm an Iowa homer that was against us drafting Stanzi.

That said, after seeing how bad Palko was, not starting Stanzi a game or two was a crime.

Frankie
01-24-2012, 10:28 AM
I want nothing to do with that scenario. Book is in on Cassel. Orton made a strong case in 3 games to what he can do for this team. A QB competition between these two... with basically all the playing time split between those two including trainging camp and pre-season games does nothing to develop a player like Stanzi/draft choice.

Man up time. Orton showed he was better in many ways. The training camp competition should be between Orton and Stanzi. Better man wins.

I only included Cassel because it is an inevitability. Ideally I like to see the competition that you mentioned. But I don't see any problem in making it a fair 3 man competition involving another 5th rounder with potential.

Frankie
01-24-2012, 10:33 AM
Iowa homers need to grasp the fact that Stanzi just might not be that good. "Might not" also means "might." I am a Cyclone fan and not an Iowa homer, but all everyone in our bandwagon is saying is "GIVE THE MAN A CHANCE!" I really don't think Hawkeye fans on this board have been pimping Stanzi nearly as much as you do. I don't see any homerism here.

In a league where the QB position is at a premium and teams are using 1st round picks on marginal quality, Stanzi still slipped all the way down the draft boards.As long as there's a Tom Brady, there's hope for a similar happening. Brady didn't do shit in college.

DenverDanChiefsFan
01-24-2012, 10:46 AM
I don't know where you got that information. But I disagree with it.



I agree with EVERY WORD of this post. :thumb:Denver is not going QB in the first round. They will bring in competition, but not a first rounder.

htismaqe
01-24-2012, 10:52 AM
Yes, Haley was crazy. But to say he was crazy because he was happy his backup QB won a tough road game is asinine.

He was crazy because he was jumping up and down in the locker room yelling "I told you we could do it" and "we proved everybody wrong". You're clinging to a flimsy, flimsy premise.

Iowa homers need to grasp the fact that Stanzi just might not be that good. In a league where the QB position is at a premium and teams are using 1st round picks on marginal quality, Stanzi still slipped all the way down the draft boards.

Again you come back to the idea that supporting Stanzi equals being an Iowa homer.

htismaqe
01-24-2012, 10:53 AM
Here's a hint, nj. When FRANKIE is the voice of reason, you might want to rethink your argument.

Frankie
01-24-2012, 10:54 AM
Denver is not going QB in the first round. They will bring in competition, but not a first rounder.

I bet they will trade-rape Khan and the Jax over Tebow and use a/their 1st or 2nd rounder on a QB. Elway, IMO, just can't stand Tebow and his opinion is what counts in the end.

Detoxing
01-24-2012, 11:00 AM
I bet they will trade-rape Khan and the Jax over Tebow and use a/their 1st or 2nd rounder on a QB. Elway, IMO, just can't stand Tebow and his opinion is what counts in the end.

And where are you getting this shit from?

You're just making shit up, man.

Pestilence
01-24-2012, 11:02 AM
I bet they will trade-rape Khan and the Jax over Tebow and use a/their 1st or 2nd rounder on a QB. Elway, IMO, just can't stand Tebow and his opinion is what counts in the end.

And Elway would lose 90% of his fan base with that move.

Frosty
01-24-2012, 11:09 AM
And Elway would lose 90% of his fan base with that move.

This. Tebow winning a play-off game against a beat up Steelers team was the best thing to happen to the AFC West. They are stuck with him for a while.

Coogs
01-24-2012, 11:09 AM
I only included Cassel because it is an inevitability. Ideally I like to see the competition that you mentioned. But I don't see any problem in making it a fair 3 man competition involving another 5th rounder with potential.

Unfortunately, I believe you are correct if Orton even comes back. It's just not what I want to see at all. Cassels body of work is in... everyone knows what it is. And outside of L.A. Chiefsfan and Pioli, everyone knows he is not the answer... but the problem.

Frankie
01-24-2012, 12:39 PM
And where are you getting this shit from?

You're just making shit up, man.

Pay attention!

Phrases like "I bet" mean one's opinion/prediction. AND "IMO" means "IN MY OPINION!!!!"

:banghead:

Frankie
01-24-2012, 12:42 PM
And Elway would lose 90% of his fan base with that move.

I think Elway has enough God-like stature around Denver, not to have to worry about that.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-24-2012, 12:57 PM
http://rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/39733/60/nfl-draft-preview

Texas A&M QB Ryan Tannehill (6-4/222/4.65) - The former Aggie was forced out of the Senior Bowl due to a broken foot, curtailing his NFL exposure in a prime opportunity. The quarterback-needy Redskins would have coached him in Mobile. Tannehill played some wide receiver at A&M, but is a natural signal caller. Possessing a compact release with velocity to make downfield throws or outside the numbers, Tannehill projects as an NFL starter. The biggest issue is that he requires more time to develop after starting at quarterback for just over one year. Tannehill's decision-making is also in question, as he forces throws into coverage too often while not setting his feet. Tannehill does flash top-level arm talent and his mobility is a bonus, but like many rookies his aptitude to diagnose coverages quickly must improve.

htismaqe
01-24-2012, 12:59 PM
I just don't see how Tannehill is going to shoot up anybody's draft board with the foot issue lingering.

I honestly can't remember the last time a guy was basically unable to run for the scouts AND shooting into the top 10 at the same time.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-24-2012, 01:21 PM
I just don't see how Tannehill is going to shoot up anybody's draft board with the foot issue lingering.

I honestly can't remember the last time a guy was basically unable to run for the scouts AND shooting into the top 10 at the same time.

I duno man...with today's science and athletic medical treatment, I am just not sure how he is going to come back from a broken foot.

Julio Jones had surgery on his [broken] foot last February and was a top 10 pick.

htismaqe
01-24-2012, 02:15 PM
I duno man...with today's science and athletic medical treatment, I am just not sure how he is going to come back from a broken foot.

Julio Jones had surgery on his [broken] foot last February and was a top 10 pick.

He was a top 10 pick prior to the broken foot. He didn't catapult into the Top 10 WHILE nursing a broken foot.

Tannehill has only been a QB for a short amount of time and was, for most of the season, considered a 2nd-round value. I just don't understand how he can move up at all when he can't do anything.

Do you understand what I mean?

BossChief
01-24-2012, 03:06 PM
Some questions I have for people that have seen this guy play more than once or twice...

How was he is pressure situations like third down, in the red zone, responding when his team went down a second score, etc. Those answers can tell us a lot about his natural ability to handle the pressure of the upcoming jump in competition.

Did his teammates respond to his leadership? Meaning, once he took over as the starter did his teammates seem to play better, or about the same?

Did he show patience to look downfield under pressure, or did he use his mobility as a crutch?

What situations caused the majority of his interceptions? Were they rushed throws that he made bad decisions? Was he late on pulling the trigger? Did he stare his primary read down and telegraph his throws? What caused his turnovers more, his own mistakes that came from lacking experience or stuff that would indicate he is a "greedy" player?

Was he a guy that completed passes to 3-5 different receivers per game or was it more like 6-7 most of the time?

I have more, but that should get us started.

scott free
01-24-2012, 03:17 PM
I'd be totally pleased if we got this guy, let him & Stanzi battle it out.

He's not the 'sexiest' pick out there, but he's a guy we actually have a chance of getting, considering the fact that Pioli IS NOT going to pull the trigger on some balls out trade-up.

Worst case scenario? we have two young, talented kids to work with... odds are, one of them will turn into something... if not, they get kicked down the road & another pick is made the next year.

Finding the QBOTF has to start somewhere, its time to get crackin.

Chiefnj2
01-24-2012, 03:21 PM
Tannehill was around the 50-60th ranked collegiate QB in completion %, YPA and QB rating.

jspchief
01-24-2012, 03:26 PM
Couple things:

1. Orton is not coming back. Period. Get it out of your head. He is going to a team as a starter. And KC is not going to sign day 1 competition for Cassel.

2. Stanzi discussions have been ruined by dickbag homers like Bosschief. 99% of the people in support of Stanzi are supporting giving him an opportunity in light of the alternatives. But then the 1% comes in making ridiculous homer-infused claims, and that's all that gets remembered.

3. Tannehill is going to kill at the combine. Even if he can't run, teams are going to fall in love with his measurables and his charisma. The guy is going in round 1, and won't make it to 20. Whether he's actually a top 20 player by forum pundits or not. And it doesn't matter to Chiefs fans anyway, because like I said in my first point, KC isn't bringing in day 1 competition for Cassel.

scott free
01-24-2012, 03:29 PM
Tannehill was around the 50-60th ranked collegiate QB in completion %, YPA and QB rating.

Yeah, that doesnt sound good.

I admit to only seeing him play one game, but he did look pretty dang good in it, having several long & accurate throws.

Guess my bottom line is this... we gotta take a chance on someone & this raw kid led his team to one of the bigger bowl games & played well in it.

htismaqe
01-24-2012, 03:46 PM
3. Tannehill is going to kill at the combine. Even if he can't run, teams are going to fall in love with his measurables and his charisma. The guy is going in round 1, and won't make it to 20. Whether he's actually a top 20 player by forum pundits or not. And it doesn't matter to Chiefs fans anyway, because like I said in my first point, KC isn't bringing in day 1 competition for Cassel.

This isn't for you but really my commentary on the process in general but I have to ask:

HOW?

His feet are part of what people like about him. And he can't RUN.

The whole combine process is FUCKED.

SNR
01-24-2012, 03:49 PM
2. Stanzi discussions have been ruined by dickbag homers like Bosschief. 99% of the people in support of Stanzi are supporting giving him an opportunity in light of the alternatives. But then the 1% comes in making ridiculous homer-infused claims, and that's all that gets remembered.
Isn't that all that BossChief is saying, that Stanzi deserves a fair chance to unseat Cassel this offseason? I'm not sure what these 1% claims are that you speak of.

BossChief
01-24-2012, 03:54 PM
Couple things:

1. Orton is not coming back. Period. Get it out of your head. He is going to a team as a starter. And KC is not going to sign day 1 competition for Cassel.

2. Stanzi discussions have been ruined by dickbag homers like Bosschief. 99% of the people in support of Stanzi are supporting giving him an opportunity in light of the alternatives. But then the 1% comes in making ridiculous homer-infused claims, and that's all that gets remembered.

3. Tannehill is going to kill at the combine. Even if he can't run, teams are going to fall in love with his measurables and his charisma. The guy is going in round 1, and won't make it to 20. Whether he's actually a top 20 player by forum pundits or not. And it doesn't matter to Chiefs fans anyway, because like I said in my first point, KC isn't bringing in day 1 competition for Cassel.

Give me some examples of what I've said about Stanzi that you view as unrealistic.

I said I would spend a late second rounder on him and some of you take that as a crowning moment.

Between all of my takes on him, it should be easy to dig up a handful that are as far off as you claim.

The truth is that some of you haven't ever seen him play (MAYBE one game) and just look at the round he was chosen and jump to a conclusion...disregarding it when respected guys on the board (Phobia, Htismque, Iowanian, etc) say the kid could be good and even disregard it when guys like Kiper and Mayock say he is a second round talent and that he could end up the best qb of this class.

I guess they are all "dickbag homers" too.

:facepalm:

boogblaster
01-24-2012, 03:54 PM
Isn't that all that BossChief is saying, that Stanzi deserves a fair chance to unseat Cassel this offseason? I'm not sure what these 1% claims are that you speak of.

ima on the Stanzi wagon .. hope its happens and he turns out to be a good-un ......

scott free
01-24-2012, 03:55 PM
ima on the Stanzi wagon .. hope its happens and he turns out to be a good-un ......

A.MEN boog

jspchief
01-24-2012, 03:57 PM
This isn't for you but really my commentary on the process in general but I have to ask:

HOW?

His feet are part of what people like about him. And he can't RUN.

The whole combine process is FUCKED.

I have no idea where this stuff about Tannehill running came from. He only ran for something like 350 yards all year. Hell I'd guess Luck ran more, and people don't talk about him like his running is such a heavy factor.

NFL scouts aren't looking at his running, outside of his ability to throw on the move.

BossChief
01-24-2012, 04:05 PM
Go back and read the camp reports from last year and read about all the picks Cassel threw and how Stanzi threw touchdowns every practice.

Then re-watch the time Stanzi played in preseason and had more than 2 seconds...the guy threw fire on damn near every pass!

Stanzi made at least 10 throws in preseason that Cassel has/can never make.

All I'm saying is give the kid a LEGIT shot and he will not let you down.

chiefzilla1501
01-24-2012, 04:39 PM
He's GOING to be drafted in the first round this year, very possibly before we even get a chance to pick. And the way the draft is slotted, you're going to see many, many more inexperienced and raw QB talents get first round grades slapped on them. That's a fact of life. I know this year in particular the back half of the QB talent in this draft is pretty bad, but think about it. How long has it been since we've had a draft where the QB talent was that much better in those slots? To claim that "any other year Tannehill would be a 2nd-3rd round pick" is particularly foolish. Deep QB draft classes just don't happen anymore. It's been ages since we've had one. So until we come across one where that's not the case, Tannehill is a 1st round QB. Get used to it.

And look, I agree with you about Tannehill. He's raw. Real raw. Extremely raw. So what? That didn't stop this team from inactivating the only promising QB on the roster for the entire goddamn season. Let him get used to the speed of the pro game for at least a season and bring him along slowly as a backup. Tannehill CAN become a pretty damn good NFL QB, it's just that his path to that point is much rockier than Luck's or RGIII's.

And besides, I can take a QB with a 2nd or 3rd round grade with my 1st rounder, or I can waste a draft pick completely on a QB who's a piece of shit. Who would you rather want?

Just because other teams are crazy, doesn't mean KC should out-crazy them. Tannehill will break the top 15-20, and that is absolutely crazy. Does he have elite arm strength? No. Elite athleticism? No. Experience in a pro offense? No. Experience... period? No. Tebow-esque clutchness? No.

People got pissed because we threw away a 2nd round pick on Cassel, and yet we're okay with draining a #11-12 pick on a guy who is pretty much a spitting image of Matt Cassel? We're getting an inexperienced guy with average athleticism, good not great arm strength, no experience whatsoever, no proof that he can mentally or fundamentally run a pro style offense.

If we're going to gamble on a guy this raw, then use a low first or early second.

htismaqe
01-24-2012, 04:41 PM
I have no idea where this stuff about Tannehill running came from. He only ran for something like 350 yards all year. Hell I'd guess Luck ran more, and people don't talk about him like his running is such a heavy factor.

I'm not talking about him being Tim Tebow.

I'm talking about the fact that one of the things that scouts like about him is that he can move the pocket, ala Aaron Rodgers.

Not only that, but he hasn't played QB that long so people SHOULD want to see what his footwork looks like.

He can't display any of those things right now, so how could he possibly be IMPROVING his draft stock?

NFL scouts aren't looking at his running, outside of his ability to throw on the move.

Exactly. He can't show them that, either.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-24-2012, 04:44 PM
Just because other teams are crazy, doesn't mean KC should out-crazy them. Tannehill will break the top 15-20, and that is absolutely crazy. Does he have elite arm strength? No. Elite athleticism? No. Experience in a pro offense? No. Experience... period? No. Tebow-esque clutchness? No.

People got pissed because we threw away a 2nd round pick on Cassel, and yet we're okay with draining a #11-12 pick on a guy who is pretty much a spitting image of Matt Cassel? We're getting an inexperienced guy with average athleticism, good not great arm strength, no experience whatsoever, no proof that he can mentally or fundamentally run a pro style offense.

If we're going to gamble on a guy this raw, then use a low first or early second.

You are one if those guys who didnt see a single game of his arent you?

He has one of the top arms in the draft. Is athletic. You are correct in that he didn't come from a pro system.

...and you lost all credibility when you said he is a spitting image of cassel.

Sent from my MB612 using Tapatalk

SNR
01-24-2012, 04:48 PM
Just because other teams are crazy, doesn't mean KC should out-crazy them. Tannehill will break the top 15-20, and that is absolutely crazy. Does he have elite arm strength? No. Elite athleticism? No. Experience in a pro offense? No. Experience... period? No. Tebow-esque clutchness? No.
And all I'm saying is welcome to the future.

Also, you're selling his potential pretty short. You had a post awhile ago in response to a video that listed some pretty good qualities the guy has along with the more damning ones (which I totally agree with). Tannehill's not my ideal QB pick either, but something's gotta happen.

chiefzilla1501
01-24-2012, 04:51 PM
You are one if those guys who didnt see a single game of his arent you?

He has one of the top arms in the draft. Is athletic. You are correct in that he didn't come from a pro system.

...and you lost all credibility when you said he is a spitting image of cassel.

Sent from my MB612 using Tapatalk

I'd be shocked if he grades at a Jay Cutler level of arm strength. I'm sure he will grade out as having a strong arm, but anything but elite. Clearly, he's not going to grade out at a Cam Newton or RGIII level of athleticism. If you're raw and very behind on the mental aspect of the game, you can't just have good arm strength or athleticism. You have to be elite.

And I think the Cassel clone comment is perfectly appropriate. He's athletic, but not elite. His arm strength isn't as good as Tannehill's, but it's not as bad as people say. He sucks because he has no feel for the game or ability to mentally process it and because the game moves too fast for him at times. Tannehill isn't just raw. He is on a whole other level of raw.

Coogs
01-24-2012, 04:52 PM
when respected guys on the board (Phobia, Htismque, Iowanian, etc) say the kid could be good

Wait! So you are saying I am not respected around here? :sulk:

chiefzilla1501
01-24-2012, 04:55 PM
And all I'm saying is welcome to the future.

Also, you're selling his potential pretty short. You had a post awhile ago in response to a video that listed some pretty good qualities the guy has along with the more damning ones (which I totally agree with). Tannehill's not my ideal QB pick either, but something's gotta happen.

I don't think I'm selling him short. I like Tannehill as a developmental QB. But at his real value--second round.

I'm all for reaching or trading a gazillion picks for a QB with the potential of RGIII or Barkley. I'm all for reaching if we're talking about lower first round or second round. I do not in any way support throwing away a blue chip pick for a hugely developmental QB.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-24-2012, 04:55 PM
I'd be shocked if he grades at a Jay Cutler level of arm strength. I'm sure he will grade out as having a strong arm, but anything but elite. Clearly, he's not going to grade out at a Cam Newton or RGIII level of athleticism. If you're raw and very behind on the mental aspect of the game, you can't just have good arm strength or athleticism. You have to be elite.

And I think the Cassel clone comment is perfectly appropriate. He's athletic, but not elite. His arm strength isn't as good as Tannehill's, but it's not as bad as people say. He sucks because he has no feel for the game or ability to mentally process it and because the game moves too fast for him at times. Tannehill isn't just raw. He is on a whole other level of raw.

So you are looking for a QB with the athleticism of Cam Newton and the arm of Jay Cutler? For the record...nobody in this draft has Cutlers arm...not even RG3.

Good Luck.

And your comparison on the similarities of Matt Cassel and Ryan Tannehill could not be farther from the truth. Actually...it is the worst comparison I have heard yet.

chiefzilla1501
01-24-2012, 04:58 PM
So you are looking for a QB with the athleticism of Cam Newton and the arm of Jay Cutler? For the record...nobody in this draft has Cutlers arm...not even RG3.

Good Luck.

And your comparison on the similarities of Matt Cassel and Ryan Tannehill could not be farther from the truth. Actually...it is the worst comparison I have heard yet.

What are you talking about?

RgIII has the athleticism of cam, but not the arm strength of cutler. He's very raw but his athleticism is elite and justifies the pick.

If you are elite in either of those two things, you can justify taking a guy whose raw.

BossChief
01-24-2012, 05:01 PM
Why didn't he play quarterback until shy of 2 years ago?

Mr_Tomahawk
01-24-2012, 05:02 PM
What are you talking about?

RgIII has the athleticism of cam, but not the arm strength of cutler. He's very raw but his athleticism is elite and justifies the pick.

If you are elite in either of those two things, you can justify taking a guy whose raw.

Wow.

RG3 is not near what Cam was in terms of being able to tuck and run the ball. RG3 has made comments on how he doesn't want to be known as a scrambler. RG3 doesnt have the build Cam does to take hits from defenders often...RG3 may be the most athletic QB in this draft...but he is NOT as athletic as Cam was coming out.

chiefzilla1501
01-24-2012, 05:03 PM
So you are looking for a QB with the athleticism of Cam Newton and the arm of Jay Cutler? For the record...nobody in this draft has Cutlers arm...not even RG3.

Good Luck.

And your comparison on the similarities of Matt Cassel and Ryan Tannehill could not be farther from the truth. Actually...it is the worst comparison I have heard yet.

I guarantee that when tannehill starts playing, hes going to stare down receivers and shit his pants in the pocket the same way cassel does. He's going to struggle under center the way cassel does. He's going to have shaky fundamentals like cassel does. Mostly because he wasn't groomed through most of college to be a qb.

chiefzilla1501
01-24-2012, 05:05 PM
Wow.

RG3 is not near what Cam was in terms of being able to tuck and run the ball. RG3 has made comments on how he doesn't want to be known as a scrambler. RG3 doesnt have the build Cam does to take hits from defenders often...RG3 may be the most athletic QB in this draft...but he is NOT as athletic as Cam was coming out.

Thanks, captain literal. I'm. Ot saying be is cam newton.

RgIII's appeal is elite athleticism. He's not a blue chip pick without it.

SNR
01-24-2012, 05:08 PM
Thanks, captain literal. I'm. Ot saying be is cam newton.

RgIII's appeal is elite athleticism. He's not a blue chip pick without it.If RGIII had the athletic ability of say, Ryan Tannehill (pretty good but not elite) he'd still be the #2 QB in this draft. He's got an arm that can lead a team to a Super Bowl. His speed and running skills are just the cherry on top (though escapability in the pocket is huge, but those are skills that Luck and Tannehill also possess)

Mr_Tomahawk
01-24-2012, 05:09 PM
I guarantee that when tannehill starts playing, hes going to stare down receivers and shit his pants in the pocket the same way cassel does. He's going to struggle under center the way cassel does. He's going to have shaky fundamentals like cassel does. Mostly because he wasn't groomed through most of college to be a qb.

He was a QB in Highschool...spent a couple of seasons at Wr then was moved to QB midway thru his Jr. year once Jerrod Johnson began to suck. He has more experience as a QB if you go back to his high school days. That said, look at where he ranked in the Big XII amongst QBs. His growth at the position is exponential compared to most QBs in the league. The guy learns quick...hell he was a finalist for the William V. Campbell Trophy! The guy WILL outplay Cassel within his first couple years in the league.

BossChief
01-24-2012, 05:24 PM
If we are drafting a quarterback at 11/12, he better be able to outplay Cassel fairly soon.

That's like the Mendoza line of quarterbacks.

O.city
01-24-2012, 05:37 PM
Just curious but why was he put behind Johnson at A&M? That dude was terrible btw.

scott free
01-24-2012, 05:38 PM
I guarantee that when tannehill starts playing, hes going to stare down receivers and shit his pants in the pocket the same way cassel does. He's going to struggle under center the way cassel does. He's going to have shaky fundamentals like cassel does. Mostly because he wasn't groomed through most of college to be a qb.

You cant guarantee squat in regard to those things.

Is he going to develop into a top-flite pro, who the hell knows? millionaires paid to know, dont really know... but chances must now be taken & he's apparently impressed enough people to warrant a lot of talk both here & within pro circles.

BTW - Tomahawk is absolutely right, Tannehill looks nothing like Cassel & yes, i only need one game to see that, just like i only needed to see Ortons first game to know he's capable of many more things than Matt.

Brock
01-24-2012, 05:38 PM
Hell, if Stanzi can't outplay Cassel, he was a wasted pick.

Chiefnj2
01-24-2012, 05:46 PM
.. just like i only needed to see Ortons first game to know he's capable of many more things than Matt.

Yet Cassel has had two entire seasons of better QB play than Orton.

jspchief
01-24-2012, 05:48 PM
Yet Cassel has had two entire seasons of better QB play than Orton.

You mean statistically?

BossChief
01-24-2012, 05:49 PM
Hell, if Stanzi can't outplay Cassel, he was a wasted pick.True.

I do have a question, though.

In the only parts open to our eyes, would you say he didn't?

I know I'm biased to a point, but I think Stanzi displayed superior abilities in every measurable way in camp and preseason.

Brock
01-24-2012, 05:50 PM
True.

I do have a question, though.

In the only parts open to our eyes, would you say he didn't?

I know I'm biased to a point, but I think Stanzi displayed superior abilities in every measurable way in camp and preseason.

I'm pretty frustrated that we haven't gotten a look.

Chiefnj2
01-24-2012, 05:51 PM
You mean statistically?

Sure.

scott free
01-24-2012, 05:54 PM
Yet Cassel has had two entire seasons of better QB play than Orton.

Orton with Denver > Cassel with KC

Orton did more there with less, than Matt's done here... period.

Willie Lanier
01-24-2012, 06:02 PM
If RGIII had the athletic ability of say, Ryan Tannehill (pretty good but not elite) he'd still be the #2 QB in this draft. He's got an arm that can lead a team to a Super Bowl. His speed and running skills are just the cherry on top (though escapability in the pocket is huge, but those are skills that Luck and Tannehill also possess)

Agree with this 100% RGIII's arm may not be Mallettesque, but it's strong, accurate, and his best trait, even considering his athleticism

tredadda
01-24-2012, 06:53 PM
I think Elway has enough God-like stature around Denver, not to have to worry about that.

You obviously don't realize the pull Tebow has in Denver. This city almost went torch and pitchfork on Elway when he spoke poorly of Tebow. Elway quickly retracted all negative statements on Tebow and is now very "pro Tebow" whenever he speaks in public.

Chiefnj2
01-24-2012, 07:09 PM
Orton with Denver > Cassel with KC

Orton did more there with less, than Matt's done here... period.

Not really. Cassel led his team to more wins, more TDs and fewer INTs. Orton can move the ball between the 20's and then he bogs down and brain farts.

O.city
01-24-2012, 07:12 PM
Cassel had an all pro rb, a pro bowl wr and a solid TE.

Look at what Orton did with the same weapons this year compared to what Cassel did.

I don't think Orton would be a world beater, but he didn't have near the talent Cassel has had to throw to or around him and still put up pretty good numbers.

AndChiefs
01-24-2012, 08:02 PM
Just curious but why was he put behind Johnson at A&M? That dude was terrible btw.

True 3600 yards with 30 tds and 8 picks as a junior is pretty awful.

Nightfyre
01-24-2012, 08:29 PM
To me, addressing the QB position is simple. If you think you see a legitimate franchise QB, you do what you have to in order to acquire them. The end. There is no "value" pick when it comes to QB.

Bewbies
01-24-2012, 08:44 PM
Peter King in quoting Gil Brandt on twitter says Tannehil is a top 10 pick.

I still think he goes to Washington.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-24-2012, 08:46 PM
Peter King in quoting Gil Brandt on twitter says Tannehil is a top 10 pick.

I still think he goes to Washington.

That has been my bet.

I think Pete will pick him up and he wont even make it to us...

Bewbies
01-24-2012, 09:13 PM
Indy goes Luck, Miami goes Flynn, Cleveland tries for Luck, fails and waits for Barkley. RG3 will be between Seattle and whoever else likes him. Maybe a surprise team...Manning will be a FA, someone will jump on that.

I don't think the cost to go up for RG3 will be as high as people think.

O.city
01-24-2012, 10:01 PM
Cleveland will try and go for RGIII as will Washington.


Actually read a column saying the skins are already talking about trading up for RGIII.

O.city
01-24-2012, 10:03 PM
I don't think Washington will have enough firepower to trade up to that 2 spot. I think it's CLeveland or bust in that spot, having two first rounders to give up.


If that happnes, I think Washington should look at Vince Young. He could be pretty successful in Shanny system.

Frankie
01-25-2012, 12:10 AM
Tannehill has only been a QB for a short amount of time and was, for most of the season, considered a 2nd-round value. I just don't understand how he can move up at all when he can't do anything.To be fair he had risen to 1st rounder status before his foot injury on many draft predictions.

I'd be totally pleased if we got this guy, let him & Stanzi battle it out.

Worst case scenario? we have two young, talented kids to work with... odds are, one of them will turn into something... If we get a 1st rd QB just say adios to Stanzi. He won't get a chance to compete. Your scenario does not account for office politics and egos.


2. Stanzi discussions have been ruined by dickbag homers like Bosschief. 99% of the people in support of Stanzi are supporting giving him an opportunity in light of the alternatives. , and that's all that gets remembered.Having followed all QB topic threads I simply do not remember any "homer-infused claims" regarding Stanzi.

ima on the Stanzi wagon .. hope its happens and he turns out to be a good-un ......

THAT would be the most ideal situation for KC.

L.A. Chieffan
01-25-2012, 12:14 AM
No 1st round qbs. Get over it.

Frankie
01-25-2012, 12:28 AM
He was a QB in Highschool...spent a couple of seasons at Wr then was moved to QB midway thru his Jr. year once Jerrod Johnson began to suck. He has more experience as a QB if you go back to his high school days. That said, look at where he ranked in the Big XII amongst QBs. His growth at the position is exponential compared to most QBs in the league. The guy learns quick...hell he was a finalist for the William V. Campbell Trophy! THAT's exactly why I like him.

The guy WILL outplay Cassel within his first couple years in the league.Couple of weeks, you mean.

Just curious but why was he put behind Johnson at A&M? That dude was terrible btw.Who knows what trips some college coach's trigger? Who was Brady backing up in college?

chiefzilla1501
01-25-2012, 05:06 AM
You cant guarantee squat in regard to those things.

Is he going to develop into a top-flite pro, who the hell knows? millionaires paid to know, dont really know... but chances must now be taken & he's apparently impressed enough people to warrant a lot of talk both here & within pro circles.

BTW - Tomahawk is absolutely right, Tannehill looks nothing like Cassel & yes, i only need one game to see that, just like i only needed to see Ortons first game to know he's capable of many more things than Matt.

I'm talking about the challenges. Tannehills entire career was based on a quick read, shotgun spread. And he was good not great at it. He has good arm strength and athleticism but isn't elite. He is an enormous work in progress and I sense he is going to struggle once they expand his responsibilities just like cassel. Sanchez became a pro with limited experience but at least he ran a pro offense. People who hate cassel will talk about his poor arm strength and athleticism. Neither is true. He has an NFL arm and above average athleticism. He just never mentally registers the game very well and probably never will. Doesn't mean tannehill won't improve. But the challenges are huge.

We're buying up on his upside and promise. But his promise isn't even that high either. I doubt he becomes as smart as Andrew luck. And unlike other elite picks, he can't compensate for that with his arm strength or athleticism.

milkman
01-25-2012, 07:00 AM
Per Walter Football:
"[Tannehill] should be a second-day pick, but the demand for the position has seen his stock rise significantly. "

Awesome.

Gotta love how they make that sound like this huge, epic reach by wording it the way they have.

"Second day pick".

People stillhaven't gotten used to the idea that the second day is the second round, not the 4th and later rounds anymore.

And Joe Flacco was viewed as a "second day" pick and a huge reach when he was selected.

Couple things:

1. Orton is not coming back. Period. Get it out of your head. He is going to a team as a starter. And KC is not going to sign day 1 competition for Cassel.

2. Stanzi discussions have been ruined by dickbag homers like Bosschief. 99% of the people in support of Stanzi are supporting giving him an opportunity in light of the alternatives. But then the 1% comes in making ridiculous homer-infused claims, and that's all that gets remembered.

3. Tannehill is going to kill at the combine. Even if he can't run, teams are going to fall in love with his measurables and his charisma. The guy is going in round 1, and won't make it to 20. Whether he's actually a top 20 player by forum pundits or not. And it doesn't matter to Chiefs fans anyway, because like I said in my first point, KC isn't bringing in day 1 competition for Cassel.

Since Tannehill could be viewed as a project, he could be selected and not be seen as day 1 competition.

milkman
01-25-2012, 07:01 AM
Chiefzilla is the best disingenuous debator ever.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-25-2012, 07:24 AM
I'm talking about the challenges. Tannehills entire career was based on a quick read, shotgun spread. And he was good not great at it. He has good arm strength and athleticism but isn't elite. He is an enormous work in progress and I sense he is going to struggle once they expand his responsibilities just like cassel. Sanchez became a pro with limited experience but at least he ran a pro offense. People who hate cassel will talk about his poor arm strength and athleticism. Neither is true. He has an NFL arm and above average athleticism. He just never mentally registers the game very well and probably never will. Doesn't mean tannehill won't improve. But the challenges are huge.

We're buying up on his upside and promise. But his promise isn't even that high either. I doubt he becomes as smart as Andrew luck. And unlike other elite picks, he can't compensate for that with his arm strength or athleticism.

So is anyone beyond Luck and RG3 worth selecting in this draft? Because they all have their 'struggles' in areas and will need to develop in the league...

tredadda
01-25-2012, 08:15 AM
So is anyone beyond Luck and RG3 worth selecting in this draft? Because they all have their 'struggles' in areas and will need to develop in the league...

^This. Some didn't want us to lose out for RGIII or Luck. Some don't want us to trade up for them. Some of them don't want us to "reach" on a possible franchise QB. I guess for some it is just better to maintain the status quo which is rely on career backups and washed up veteran QBs.

htismaqe
01-25-2012, 08:52 AM
To be fair he had risen to 1st rounder status before his foot injury on many draft predictions.

And he rose to the 1st round SOLELY because of the shortage of QBs in this draft. Not because he is actually WORTH a 1st round pick.

Brock
01-25-2012, 08:56 AM
And he rose to the 1st round SOLELY because of the shortage of QBs in this draft. Not because he is actually WORTH a 1st round pick.

There's a shortage of QBs in every draft.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-25-2012, 08:56 AM
The 'value' of a pick is all relative to what you already have in the said position.

In this case we have Cassel and Stanzi.

I don't think selecting Tannehill at 11/12 would be a reach at all given what we have and what will be available in free agency.

suds79
01-25-2012, 08:59 AM
The 'value' of a pick is all relative to what you already have in the said position.

In this case we have Cassel and Stanzi.

I don't think selecting Tannehill at 11/12 would be a reach at all given what we have and what will be available in free agency.

In today's NFL with it being 80% QB, 20% everybody else, I'm not sure there's such a thing as a reach at QB.

He's still the 3rd best projected QB in this class. Hard to minimize that.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-25-2012, 09:02 AM
In the end, I'm certain we won't pickup Tannehill...rather have a sick feeling we will get a 29 year old Weeden. :huh:

htismaqe
01-25-2012, 09:04 AM
There's a shortage of QBs in every draft.

Not like this one.

In general you have 1 or 2 franchise guys.

You have 2-4 guys that are 2nd tier.

And then you have a whole bunch of projects.

Tannehill is a major project, graded largely on his tangibles (because there's so little actual tape of him playing QB) and he's got a broken foot.

Him going in the top 10 just proves everything that's wrong with the NFL draft.

Brock
01-25-2012, 09:06 AM
Not like this one.

In general you have 1 or 2 franchise guys.

You have 2-4 guys that are 2nd tier.

And then you have a whole bunch of projects.

Tannehill is a major project, graded largely on his tangibles (because there's so little actual tape of him playing QB) and he's got a broken foot.

Him going in the top 10 just proves everything that's wrong with the NFL draft.

I don't know what you mean by "everything that's wrong with the NFL draft.". This draft isn't any different from the last several.

milkman
01-25-2012, 09:08 AM
In the end, I'm certain we won't pickup Tannehill...rather have a sick feeling we will get a 29 year old Weeden. :huh:

He's been mentioned in this thread, and there's a video of him in one of the threads in the draft planet, but the guy who seems to fit Pioli's/the Patriot mold at QB in this draft is Ryan Lindley.

I can see Pioli taking him in the third round.

htismaqe
01-25-2012, 09:08 AM
In today's NFL with it being 80% QB, 20% everybody else, I'm not sure there's such a thing as a reach at QB.

He's still the 3rd best projected QB in this class. Hard to minimize that.

None of those things translate to success.

You know what the #1 thing all of the great QBs in the NFL have in common? Experience. Something Tannehill doesn't have. Pretty much every QB worth a shit EVER started a couple of seasons or more in college. Tannehill started like 16 games in his entire college career.

The last time we had this discussion was with Mark Sanchez. How did that turn out?

htismaqe
01-25-2012, 09:09 AM
I don't know what you mean by "everything that's wrong with the NFL draft.". This draft isn't any different from the last several.

I didn't say "everything that's wrong with THIS NFL draft". It illustrates everything that's wrong with THE NFL draft.

Like Tamba Hali, one of the best pass rushers in the game, sliding 10 spots based on a poor showing at the Senior Bowl and guys shooting up the charts because they measured an inch taller than everybody thought they would.

This time of year, it's all about minimizing what guys did in ACTUAL GAMES. And it's borderline insanity.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-25-2012, 09:09 AM
Not like this one.

In general you have 1 or 2 franchise guys.

You have 2-4 guys that are 2nd tier.

And then you have a whole bunch of projects.

Tannehill is a major project, graded largely on his tangibles (because there's so little actual tape of him playing QB) and he's got a broken foot.

Him going in the top 10 just proves everything that's wrong with the NFL draft.

He is no more of a project than Stanzi.

Why did Stanzi drop to the 5th anyway? Hell, if we would have passed on him, again, he could have dropped to the 6th rnd. It isn't like we traded up in the 5th to grab him before someone else did...

Mr_Tomahawk
01-25-2012, 09:11 AM
He's been mentioned in this thread, and there's a video of him in one of the threads in the draft planet, but the guy who seems to fit Pioli's/the Patriot mold at QB in this draft is Ryan Lindley.

I can see Pioli taking him in the third round.

Yeah.

He has decent "youtube film"...but has been terrible thus far at the senior bowl practice...

I would feel..."meh"...if we selected him.

Brock
01-25-2012, 09:15 AM
I didn't say "everything that's wrong with THIS NFL draft". It illustrates everything that's wrong with THE NFL draft.

Like Tamba Hali, one of the best pass rushers in the game, sliding 10 spots based on a poor showing at the Senior Bowl and guys shooting up the charts because they measured an inch taller than everybody thought they would.

This time of year, it's all about minimizing what guys did in ACTUAL GAMES. And it's borderline insanity.

I think you may be overreacting to the hype going around. Tannehill doesn't have enough experience as a QB to go in the first, or IMO, the second, third, or fourth.

Saccopoo
01-25-2012, 09:17 AM
I didn't say "everything that's wrong with THIS NFL draft". It illustrates everything that's wrong with THE NFL draft.

Like Tamba Hali, one of the best pass rushers in the game, sliding 10 spots based on a poor showing at the Senior Bowl and guys shooting up the charts because they measured an inch taller than everybody thought they would.

This time of year, it's all about minimizing what guys did in ACTUAL GAMES. And it's borderline insanity.

Exactly.

Let's ignore all of the game tape and experience and get flipped out about a guy who weighed in or looked fantastic in his shorts.

The Senior Bowl is one of the worst things that happens to NFL teams in terms of the draft.

Ryan Sims anyone?

milkman
01-25-2012, 09:22 AM
I didn't say "everything that's wrong with THIS NFL draft". It illustrates everything that's wrong with THE NFL draft.

Like Tamba Hali, one of the best pass rushers in the game, sliding 10 spots based on a poor showing at the Senior Bowl and guys shooting up the charts because they measured an inch taller than everybody thought they would.

This time of year, it's all about minimizing what guys did in ACTUAL GAMES. And it's borderline insanity.

I was about to agree with you here, but then I saw sac agree with you on this, and now not only am I forced to pause and reconsider, I think you should also.

Chiefnj2
01-25-2012, 09:26 AM
Him going in the top 10 just proves everything that's wrong with the NFL draft.

Except he hasn't gone top 10.

I recall reading for months and months how Clausen was going top 10.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-25-2012, 09:38 AM
Because 'other' prospects seem to crop up in this thread....

Evan Silva @evansilva
Mayock on Kirk Cousins: "Being looked at as a middle-round guy. Good arm, not great. This is his opportunity to show he's better than that."

Mr_Tomahawk
01-25-2012, 09:45 AM
And...

Evan Silva @evansilva
Mayock on Russell Wilson: "Don't make a mistake that he's a pop-gun QB. This isn't Tyler Palko. Better arm than people give him credit for."

:)

Detoxing
01-25-2012, 09:51 AM
Yeah.

He has decent "youtube film"...but has been terrible thus far at the senior bowl practice...

I would feel..."meh"...if we selected him.

It could be the coaches tweaking his mechanics. The guy may have some accuracy issues, but he's not as bad as the reports have been in the Senior Bowl.

He sure as hell didn't have a ton of balls hitting the dirt when I watched him play. His issue was never throwing balls into the ground, but rather over throwing guys. So, something has to be going on with him over there.

The main issue he had this past year was a lack of talent around him. The best offensive weapon he's EVER had around him was Vincent Brown....a 3rd round draft pick.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-25-2012, 09:56 AM
It could be the coaches tweaking his mechanics. The guy may have some accuracy issues, but he's not as bad as the reports have been in the Senior Bowl.

He sure as hell didn't have a ton of balls hitting the dirt when I watched him play. His issue was never throwing balls into the ground, but rather over throwing guys. So, something has to be going on with him over there.

The main issue he had this past year was a lack of talent around him. The best offensive weapon he's EVER had around him was Vincent Brown....a 3rd round draft pick.

How was he in terms of:

Arm Strength, who would you compare him to in the NFL?

Pocket Awareness/Poise?

Was he a system guy/spread?

How was he at reading the defense presnap?

I obviously did not watch him much at all...

Chiefnj2
01-25-2012, 10:02 AM
It could be the coaches tweaking his mechanics. The guy may have some accuracy issues, but he's not as bad as the reports have been in the Senior Bowl.

He sure as hell didn't have a ton of balls hitting the dirt when I watched him play. His issue was never throwing balls into the ground, but rather over throwing guys. So, something has to be going on with him over there.

The main issue he had this past year was a lack of talent around him. The best offensive weapon he's EVER had around him was Vincent Brown....a 3rd round draft pick.

He's been inaccurate his entire college career. Don't blame it on the coaching at the Senior Bowl.

suds79
01-25-2012, 10:02 AM
I didn't say "everything that's wrong with THIS NFL draft". It illustrates everything that's wrong with THE NFL draft.

Like Tamba Hali, one of the best pass rushers in the game, sliding 10 spots based on a poor showing at the Senior Bowl and guys shooting up the charts because they measured an inch taller than everybody thought they would.

This time of year, it's all about minimizing what guys did in ACTUAL GAMES. And it's borderline insanity.

I understand if your take is that "I don't think this guy is any good."

But you have to also admit there's been QBs who we thought would be good who aren't. And those who we thought were garbage and turn out good. To a certain extent, it's a crapshoot.

Would you really be upset if the Chiefs rolled the dice on a QB? Not taking a chance hasn't gotten us anywhere.

I'd rather they dare to be great rather than draft some guy who ultimately doesn't matter in the big picture.

Frankie
01-25-2012, 10:08 AM
Gotta love how they make that sound like this huge, epic reach by wording it the way they have.

"Second day pick".

People stillhaven't gotten used to the idea that the second day is the second round, not the 4th and later rounds anymore.


Since Tannehill could be viewed as a project, he could be selected and not be seen as day 1 competition.

Good points, both.

BTW getting Tannehill in the "second day" would be the best scenario for everyone involved. We are stuck with Cassel but he has two years to go on his contract and I don't believe even Pioli will give him another contract. That gives a chance for Tanny to develop. Meanwhile Stanzi will have a better chance of competing if Tannehill is not viewed as the immediate answer. If he shows better than Tanny, then Tanny could be traded away.

Frankie
01-25-2012, 10:30 AM
And he rose to the 1st round SOLELY because of the shortage of QBs in this draft. Not because he is actually WORTH a 1st round pick.I think I was reading glowin reports on him before Barklay and Jones announced they were staying.

The 'value' of a pick is all relative to what you already have in the said position.

In this case we have Cassel and Stanzi.

I don't think selecting Tannehill at 11/12 would be a reach at all given what we have and what will be available in free agency.If he'll have a bum foot or a fragile one, it is.
In the end, I'm certain we won't pickup Tannehill...rather have a sick feeling we will get a 29 year old Weeden. :huh:I can live with that if Weeden's age drops him to around 5th. If we trade down in the 4th i wouldn't mind him in the late 4th, even.

He's been mentioned in this thread, and there's a video of him in one of the threads in the draft planet, but the guy who seems to fit Pioli's/the Patriot mold at QB in this draft is Ryan Lindley.

I can see Pioli taking him in the third round.52% passer. Does not exactly give me a warm feeling inside.

I think you may be overreacting to the hype going around. Tannehill doesn't have enough experience as a QB to go in the first, or IMO, the second, third, or fourth.assuming he won't have a suspect foot:

late 1st = Good pick

2nd = Very good pick

3rd = Excellent pick

4th = STEAL!

Only my opinion.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-25-2012, 10:31 AM
Evan Silva @evansilva
From @caplannfl on #BoiseState QB Kellen Moore: "Reminds me of ... Tyler Palko."


LMAO!

ILChief
01-25-2012, 10:58 AM
Evan Silva @evansilva
From @caplannfl on #BoiseState QB Kellen Moore: "Reminds me of ... Tyler Palko."


LMAO!

Good thing Haley isn't here

chiefzilla1501
01-25-2012, 11:20 AM
Gotta love how they make that sound like this huge, epic reach by wording it the way they have.

"Second day pick".

People stillhaven't gotten used to the idea that the second day is the second round, not the 4th and later rounds anymore.

And Joe Flacco was viewed as a "second day" pick and a huge reach when he was selected.



Since Tannehill could be viewed as a project, he could be selected and not be seen as day 1 competition.
I've said all along. Tannehill is a second round pick. In last years draft he ranks slightly in front of kaepernick. 2 years ago, he ranks below clausen. I've never said he's second day.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-25-2012, 11:23 AM
I've said all along. Tannehill is a second round pick. In last years draft he ranks slightly in front of kaepernick. 2 years ago, he ranks below clausen. I've never said he's second day.

:facepalm:

milkman
01-25-2012, 11:40 AM
I've said all along. Tannehill is a second round pick. In last years draft he ranks slightly in front of kaepernick. 2 years ago, he ranks below clausen. I've never said he's second day.

Pay attention you useless dumbass.

2ND ROUND IS THE 2ND FUCKING DAY NOW.

chiefzilla1501
01-25-2012, 11:44 AM
He's been mentioned in this thread, and there's a video of him in one of the threads in the draft planet, but the guy who seems to fit Pioli's/the Patriot mold at QB in this draft is Ryan Lindley.

I can see Pioli taking him in the third round.

So is anyone beyond Luck and RG3 worth selecting in this draft? Because they all have their 'struggles' in areas and will need to develop in the league...

What is it with you and twisting words. I absolutely support being aggressive with a qb. I already said, I'd trade a ton for luck or rgIII. I would absolutely reach for ponder, Dalton, or clausen. I would trade back for tannehill but am tentative if that means leaving a playmakrr like Trent Richardson on the board.

Staying in place and reaching for a qb like tannehill, to me, is nutso.

chiefzilla1501
01-25-2012, 11:45 AM
Pay attention you useless dumbass.

2ND ROUND IS THE 2ND ****ING DAY NOW.

Forgot about that. Regardless in most years he is a second round pick.

whoman69
01-25-2012, 12:33 PM
Reaching for him in the first does not make him any better or transform him into a 1st round QB.

htismaqe
01-25-2012, 01:39 PM
I understand if your take is that "I don't think this guy is any good."

But you have to also admit there's been QBs who we thought would be good who aren't. And those who we thought were garbage and turn out good. To a certain extent, it's a crapshoot.

Would you really be upset if the Chiefs rolled the dice on a QB? Not taking a chance hasn't gotten us anywhere.

I'd rather they dare to be great rather than draft some guy who ultimately doesn't matter in the big picture.

Taking Tannehill a FULL ROUND too high is now "daring to be great"?

Seriously, this place has lost it.

htismaqe
01-25-2012, 01:43 PM
Except he hasn't gone top 10.

I recall reading for months and months how Clausen was going top 10.

I should have worded that conditionally.

Chiefnj2
01-25-2012, 01:52 PM
IMO you have two guys who are blue chips - Luck and Griffin.

Tier 2 - Weeden. Basically the biggest drawbacks are whether he can go through progressions and obviously his age.

Tier 3 - Guys that should have gone back to school, but appear (on limited starts) to have a ceiling high enough that they could be starters one day - Tannehill and Osweiler. These are the guys the draft gurus love because there is so much unknown, they can say whatever they want about the guy and build them up to create some hype.

Tier 4 - Foles and Cousins. Players that fit the mold of what a QB should look like, but will struggle to be starters without a lot of development. Most likely good/reliable backups.

Tier 5 - everyone else - inaccurate (Lindley), weak arm (Moore), etc.

suds79
01-25-2012, 01:54 PM
Taking Tannehill a FULL ROUND too high is now "daring to be great"?

Seriously, this place has lost it.

For the record, he's not my first choice. But I'm not going to kill the Chiefs if they were to ever draft a QB in the 1st. I've never seen it.

You have to try at some point. You mentioned Mark Sanchez to me earlier. Yes he hasn't worked out. But I'll bet you that organization takes another shot on a QB in the first than we do if they move on from him. At least they took their shot.

I'd rather this team take a chance on a QB in the first every now and then and not be afraid of having to start over in 4-5 years (should he not work out) rather than never sacking up to do it.

Brock
01-25-2012, 01:56 PM
The book is pretty far from written on Sanchez anyway.

Chiefnj2
01-25-2012, 02:00 PM
The book is pretty far from written on Sanchez anyway.

It's a pretty good book so far, Chapter 18 - Kate Upton visits.

Nightfyre
01-25-2012, 02:54 PM
Taking Tannehill a FULL ROUND too high is now "daring to be great"?

Seriously, this place has lost it.

You've lost it. It's not taking Tannehill a full round too high if you think he has franchise QB potential. Especially if he is going to be picked within a couple picks of you anyway. A franchise QB is worth everything, because you can win everything because of a franchise QB as Brady, Rodgers and Manning have proven time and time again.

PGM
01-25-2012, 05:55 PM
You've lost it. It's not taking Tannehill a full round too high if you think he has franchise QB potential. Especially if he is going to be picked within a couple picks of you anyway. A franchise QB is worth everything, because you can win everything because of a franchise QB as Brady, Rodgers and Manning have proven time and time again.

No, he hasn't lost it. Check the track records of QB's with that few of starts in college. It takes our percentages down to those of taking a mid round QB. Yes, we all want a QB in the first, but we want the RIGHT one as well.

jspchief
01-25-2012, 06:52 PM
Reaching for him in the first does not make him any better or transform him into a 1st round QB.

If you believe he's an NFL starting QB, he's worth it though.

This isn't an issue of positional value ie top 5 pick on a 3-4 DE.

It's also not a case of reaching for a guy that could be had much later.

His value may be inflated due to lack of supply, but at the end of the day, if you're drafting him because you think he's a starting NFL QB, what difference does it make if he's taken 20 picks earlier than he would have been taken in a different year?

It's a weak argument against taking him.

Nightfyre
01-25-2012, 06:57 PM
No, he hasn't lost it. Check the track records of QB's with that few of starts in college. It takes our percentages down to those of taking a mid round QB. Yes, we all want a QB in the first, but we want the RIGHT one as well.

You can nitpick statistics and technique all day. But the bottom-line is, if someone has the goods to be a franchise QB, you have to take that chance irrespective of value, because you need one to win the big show and nothing else matters until you have one.

whoman69
01-25-2012, 07:01 PM
If you believe he's an NFL starting QB, he's worth it though.

This isn't an issue of positional value ie top 5 pick on a 3-4 DE.

It's also not a case of reaching for a guy that could be had much later.

His value may be inflated due to lack of supply, but at the end of the day, if you're drafting him because you think he's a starting NFL QB, what difference does it make if he's taken 20 picks earlier than he would have been taken in a different year?

It's a weak argument against taking him.

A person's value in the draft is based upon their talent, not on whether there is a shortage in the position. Ponder was a reach last year. If we take Tannenhill at 11 or 12 this year, its the same.

chiefzilla1501
01-25-2012, 07:06 PM
You can nitpick statistics and technique all day. But the bottom-line is, if someone has the goods to be a franchise QB, you have to take that chance irrespective of value, because you need one to win the big show and nothing else matters until you have one.

That's careless.

Is he elite in mental processing the game? No. Will he ever be? Huge longshot.
Does he have elite athleticism? No and never will.
Does he have elite arm strength? No and never will.
On the NFL level, he is really far behind on point 1. He's probably slightly above average on the next two.

Where are these goods going to come from?

chiefzilla1501
01-25-2012, 07:09 PM
A person's value in the draft is based upon their talent, not on whether there is a shortage in the position. Ponder was a reach last year. If we take Tannenhill at 11 or 12 this year, its the same.

Ponder was a reach but one worth taking. What he lacked in physical ability he makes up for by his upside to be a very good leader and mental player. Like I've said before, it's ok to take a raw qb in the top 15 if you think he can one day have elite athleticism, elite arm strength, or elite mental ability (provided that he doesn't have any major fatal flaws, like mallet)

BossChief
01-25-2012, 07:17 PM
I'm tired of the high floor, low ceiling guys we always go after.

For once, just once, could we take a high ceiling guy?

I don't know if Tannehill is that guy, but everybody seems to list three quarterbacks from this class. Luck, RG3 and Tannehill.

I just wish I had seen the guy in actual games so I could offer up some informed takes on the kid.

Never trust YouTube videos.

chiefzilla1501
01-25-2012, 07:26 PM
I'm tired of the high floor, low ceiling guys we always go after.

For once, just once, could we take a high ceiling guy?

I don't know if Tannehill is that guy, but everybody seems to list three quarterbacks from this class. Luck, RG3 and Tannehill.

I just wish I had seen the guy in actual games so I could offer up some informed takes on the kid.

Never trust YouTube videos.

Pretty sure there are YouTube videos that show every pass thrown in a game, so they're not just highlights. Sould give you a good sample to look at.

Saul Good
01-25-2012, 08:52 PM
I'm still hoping Tyler Wilson comes out.

jd1020
01-25-2012, 08:53 PM
I'm still hoping Tyler Wilson comes out.

Bit too late for that.

Three7s
01-25-2012, 08:53 PM
I'm still hoping Tyler Wilson comes out.
I'd take him on the spot. I don't care if he's raw, that dude has crazy talent.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-25-2012, 08:55 PM
I'm still hoping Tyler Wilson comes out.

As stated, it's too late for that.

But I am real high on him too...

However, I hope we somehow address the problem this season so we are't having this discussion a year from now.

But in all likelyhood....we will be in the same spot.

htismaqe
01-26-2012, 09:42 AM
You've lost it. It's not taking Tannehill a full round too high if you think he has franchise QB potential. Especially if he is going to be picked within a couple picks of you anyway. A franchise QB is worth everything, because you can win everything because of a franchise QB as Brady, Rodgers and Manning have proven time and time again.

I think some of you have completely overrated Tannehill's potential. COMPLETELY.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-26-2012, 09:43 AM
I think some of you have completely overrated Tannehill's potential. COMPLETELY.

Yeah...let's put all our eggs in the Stanzi basket.

htismaqe
01-26-2012, 09:44 AM
For the record, he's not my first choice. But I'm not going to kill the Chiefs if they were to ever draft a QB in the 1st. I've never seen it.

You have to try at some point. You mentioned Mark Sanchez to me earlier. Yes he hasn't worked out. But I'll bet you that organization takes another shot on a QB in the first than we do if they move on from him. At least they took their shot.

I'd rather this team take a chance on a QB in the first every now and then and not be afraid of having to start over in 4-5 years (should he not work out) rather than never sacking up to do it.

Let's be clear, I'm not against them taking Tannehill. Like you, I'd prefer to see them take a shot vs. not taking a shot.

I'm just acknowledging that taking Tannehill isn't a sure thing - in fact, it's almost exactly the opposite. Guys like him almost NEVER make it in the NFL.

htismaqe
01-26-2012, 09:45 AM
Yeah...let's put all our eggs in the Stanzi basket.

Did I say that?

This is EXACTLY the type of hyperbole I'm talking about.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-26-2012, 09:47 AM
Let's be clear, I'm not against them taking Tannehill. Like you, I'd prefer to see them take a shot vs. not taking a shot.

I'm just acknowledging that taking Tannehill isn't a sure thing - in fact, it's almost exactly the opposite. Guys like him almost NEVER make it in the NFL.

Well our other two options are a 5th rnd QB and Cassel, so.....

htismaqe
01-26-2012, 09:51 AM
Well our other two options are a 5th rnd QB and Cassel, so.....

Then I'll hitch my wagon to the 5th round QB.

I'd LOVE for them to draft a QB in the 1st but they simply won't. It's not going to happen.

You've pinned all of your hopes on something that's not going to happen and you've bolstered it by hoping that it's Ryan Tannehill, somebody that can't possibly be ready to play until at least 2013, more likely 2014, and probably NEVER.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-26-2012, 09:53 AM
Then I'll hitch my wagon to the 5th round QB.

I'd LOVE for them to draft a QB in the 1st but they simply won't. It's not going to happen.

You've pinned all of your hopes on something that's not going to happen and you've bolstered it by hoping that it's Ryan Tannehill, somebody that can't possibly be ready to play until at least 2013, more likely 2014, and probably NEVER.

What are you basing that off of?

I will put a signature bet up that Tannehill starts as QB in the NFL before Stanzi does. Wanna take me up on that?

htismaqe
01-26-2012, 09:55 AM
What are you basing that off of?

His history. The history of NFL QBs suggest he'll never amount to anything in the NFL. That doesn't mean he absolutely won't. It just means that probability is not on his side.

I will put a signature bet up that Tannehill starts as QB in the NFL before Stanzi does. Wanna take me up on that?

Completely irrelevant.

Nightfyre
01-26-2012, 09:56 AM
I think some of you have completely overrated Tannehill's potential. COMPLETELY.

Where in any of my posts did I state that I thought that Tannehill was a franchise QB? My point is that if Pioli does, he should acquire him in the first round if he has to. I think if you want a franchise QB, the train stops after RG3, and therefore, Pioli should move up to the second pick and take him. I think Tannehill has tremendous upside but is a low-probability shot.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-26-2012, 09:57 AM
His history. The history of NFL QBs suggest he'll never amount to anything in the NFL. That doesn't mean he absolutely won't. It just means that probability is not on his side.



Completely irrelevant.

So 5th rnd QB historically are more successful than Qbs slectect in rnds 1-2?

And WHY did Stanzi drop ALL the way to the 5th rnd? You talk him up like he some highly touted QB who everyone wanted...he obviously wasn't. He fell in our lap. If we would have passed on him AGAIN, he would probably been a 6th rnd pick.

htismaqe
01-26-2012, 10:06 AM
So 5th rnd QB historically are more successful than Qbs slectect in rnds 1-2?

A 5th round QB with Stanzi's history has a MUCH higher probability of having a long career in the NFL, albeit most likely as a backup.

And we're not talking about all QBs selected in the 1st or 2nd rounds, we're talking about Ryan Tannehill. Matt Stafford had an exponentially greater chance of being good in the NFL over Mark Sanchez, given their college starting experience. See how that turned out?

And WHY did Stanzi drop ALL the way to the 5th rnd? You talk him up like he some highly touted QB who everyone wanted...he obviously wasn't. He fell in our lap. If we would have passed on him AGAIN, he would probably been a 6th rnd pick.

More hyperbole. You greatly exaggerate what I've said (and how I feel) about Stanzi.

He was a highly-successful QB that elevated a 2nd-tier Big 10 school to an Orange Bowl championship. He was a multi-year starter in a pro, not spread, system. He has ideal height, decent arm strength, and good footwork.

Does this mean he's a future pro-bowler? Of course not. It doesn't even mean he's a future starter. But it would be a DAMN SHAME to never find out.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-26-2012, 10:11 AM
He was a highly-successful QB that elevated a 2nd-tier Big 10 school to an Orange Bowl championship. He was a multi-year starter in a pro, not spread, system. He has ideal height, decent arm strength, and good footwork.


...and in his one and only full season, Ryan Tannehill threw for MORE yards and MORE touchdowns than Stanzi did in ANY of his seasons.


Go on with your next piss-poor rebuttal about this...


And I am willing to do a season-long signature bet...homer.

htismaqe
01-26-2012, 10:12 AM
...and in his one and only full season, Ryan Tannehill threw for MORE yards and MORE touchdowns than Stanzi did in ANY of his seasons.


Go on with your next piss-poor rebuttal about this...


And I am willing to do a season-long signature bet...homer.

ROFL

Dave Lane
01-26-2012, 10:51 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oXDEzCf3C7Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Tannehill throws 4 picks vs LSU

htismaqe
01-26-2012, 10:54 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oXDEzCf3C7Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Tannehill throws 4 picks vs LSU

One of the fastest defenses in the country.

I'm not a big fan of Tannehill but that's no fair.

Chiefnj2
01-26-2012, 10:56 AM
...and in his one and only full season, Ryan Tannehill threw for MORE yards and MORE touchdowns than Stanzi did in ANY of his seasons.


Go on with your next piss-poor rebuttal about this...


And I am willing to do a season-long signature bet...homer.

Case Keenum killed Tannehill in terms of yards and TDs. Should KC take him at 11/12?

Mr_Tomahawk
01-26-2012, 10:57 AM
Doesn't even matter.

We aren't drafting a QB that high. We will probably take B.J. Coleman or another backup QB in the 5th.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-26-2012, 10:59 AM
Case Keenum killed Tannehill in terms of yards and TDs. Should KC take him at 11/12?

Not my point.

Try again.

jd1020
01-26-2012, 11:02 AM
Case Keenum killed Tannehill in terms of yards and TDs. Should KC take him at 11/12?

Ryan Tannehill dominated in his head to head match up against RG3. Should the Chiefs throw a draft at Tannehill?

Chiefnj2
01-26-2012, 11:04 AM
Ryan Tannehill dominated in his head to head match up against RG3. Should the Chiefs throw a draft at Tannehill?

Yes, and the Colts should take Weeden over Luck.

whoman69
01-26-2012, 12:35 PM
...and in his one and only full season, Ryan Tannehill threw for MORE yards and MORE touchdowns than Stanzi did in ANY of his seasons.


Go on with your next piss-poor rebuttal about this...


And I am willing to do a season-long signature bet...homer.

Does anyone play defense in the Big 12?

whoman69
01-26-2012, 01:12 PM
If the only reason you give for Tannenhill at 11 or 12 is because QB is a weak position, you don't have an argument. Unless you're a playoff team with a starting roster pretty much set, you take people in the first round you think can start. I don't see that case made for Tannenhill who walked on originally for A&M, was a receiver two of his four years at A&M, plays in a weak conference defensively, and doesn't play in a pro style offense.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-26-2012, 01:21 PM
I think he has a higher ceiling than both Stanzi and Cassel.

The Iowa locals will disagree with this...

SNR
01-26-2012, 01:45 PM
I think he has a higher ceiling than both Stanzi and Cassel.

The Iowa locals will disagree with this...EVERYBODY has a higher ceiling than Cassel.

Tannehill has better physical tools than Stanzi, so sure, he has a higher ceiling, too. Does that mean he will end up being a better QB?

My guess is no.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-26-2012, 01:51 PM
EVERYBODY has a higher ceiling than Cassel.

Tannehill has better physical tools than Stanzi, so sure, he has a higher ceiling, too. Does that mean he will end up being a better QB?

My guess is no.

Doesn't mean he will be a worse QB either...exactly what the hell are you trying to say?

Pass on a guy who has a higher ceiling to go all in with a QB who was the 135th pick in the draft?

THERE IS A REASON HE DROPPED TO THE 5TH RND.

jd1020
01-26-2012, 01:54 PM
I was all about drafting Tannehill in the first, until he fractured his foot. Mobility is a big part of his game. I'd like to see him move around before using a first rounder on him now. If he was 100% healthy, I'd use the 11th or 12th pick on him no problem.

Doesn't matter, however. It's against Pioli's nature to draft a QB that early.

The only thing I do know is that we only have 2 QBs under contract. So we will be getting 1 from somewhere.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-26-2012, 01:55 PM
I was all about drafting Tannehill in the first, until he fractured his foot. Mobility is a big part of his game. I'd like to see him move around before using a first rounder on him now. If he was 100% healthy, I'd use the 11th or 12th pick on him no problem.

Doesn't matter, however. It's against Pioli's nature to draft a QB that early.

The only thing I do know is that we only have 2 QBs under contract. So we will be getting 1 from somewhere.

I don't think the fractured foot will affect him much. I haven't read anywhere how it will hurt his draft projection.

But I am with you...it isn't part of Pioli resume to draft a QB in the 1st.

jd1020
01-26-2012, 01:57 PM
I don't think the fractured foot will affect him much. I haven't read anywhere how it will hurt his draft projection.

But I am with you...it isn't part of Pioli resume to draft a QB in the 1st.

From what I know "he's expected to make a full recovery." But that shit could be a recurring issue.

durtyrute
01-26-2012, 01:58 PM
I was all about drafting Tannehill in the first, until he fractured his foot. Mobility is a big part of his game. I'd like to see him move around before using a first rounder on him now. If he was 100% healthy, I'd use the 11th or 12th pick on him no problem.

Doesn't matter, however. It's against Pioli's nature to draft a QB that early.

The only thing I do know is that we only have 2 QBs under contract. So we will be getting 1 from somewhere.

How does everyone know so much about Pioli?

jd1020
01-26-2012, 01:59 PM
How does everyone know so much about Pioli?

Maybe because Pioli hasn't drafted a QB before the 4th round, ever?

I'm sure if we were sitting at #1 he would draft Luck, but thats an entirely different argument.

Mr_Tomahawk
01-26-2012, 01:59 PM
How does everyone know so much about Pioli?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ELFl2_1q7DI/TObn1HnV2fI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/5JkvAtpbv7k/s1600/Not_sure_if_serious.jpg

durtyrute
01-26-2012, 02:04 PM
Except for his time with the Chiefs, how do you know he had final say in anything draft related?

SNR
01-26-2012, 03:59 PM
Doesn't mean he will be a worse QB either...exactly what the hell are you trying to say?

Pass on a guy who has a higher ceiling to go all in with a QB who was the 135th pick in the draft?

THERE IS A REASON HE DROPPED TO THE 5TH RND.Uhmm... I've posted NUMEROUS times that I want the Chiefs to draft Tannehill in the first round if he's available to us.

I like the pick because it's risky, it's bold, and it could potentially save our franchise.

I don't know why you're getting your feathers ruffled so easily by pro-Stanzi people.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-09-2012, 12:42 PM
I know a lot of people don't like us reaching for Tannehill in the first, but I agree that I think he is undervalued given how quickly he has transitioned to the QB position leapfrogging 2-3-4 year starters in this draft.

Josh Norris @JoshNorris
Undervalued includes: Reiff, Tannehill, Kendall Wright, Weeden, Mychal Kendricks, Orson Charles, Amini Silatolu, Malik Jackson...

jd1020
02-09-2012, 12:44 PM
I know a lot of people don't like us reaching for Tannehill in the first, but I agree that I think he is undervalued given how quickly he has transitioned to the QB position leapfrogging 2-3-4 year starters in this draft.

Josh Norris @JoshNorris
Undervalued includes: Reiff, Tannehill, Kendall Wright, Weeden, Mychal Kendricks, Orson Charles, Amini Silatolu, Malik Jackson...

How is Reiff undervalued? He's top 10 on pretty much every mock.

Marcellus
02-09-2012, 01:08 PM
How does everyone know so much about Pioli?

Well everyone was correct that he wouldn't draft a safety that high because he said so and had never done it before.........

Detoxing
02-09-2012, 01:25 PM
I know a lot of people don't like us reaching for Tannehill in the first, but I agree that I think he is undervalued given how quickly he has transitioned to the QB position leapfrogging 2-3-4 year starters in this draft.

Josh Norris @JoshNorris
Undervalued includes: Reiff, Tannehill, Kendall Wright, Weeden, Mychal Kendricks, Orson Charles, Amini Silatolu, Malik Jackson...

My dream draft would have us taking Richardson in the first and then trading back up into bottom of the 1st for Tannehill.....and Then Burfict gets caught smoking weed at the combine and falls to us in the 4th......

crazycoffey
02-09-2012, 01:28 PM
Well everyone was correct that he wouldn't draft a safety that high because he said so and had never done it before.........

oh yeah, that's awesome. The CP pundits always know best!

whoman69
02-09-2012, 04:19 PM
Uhmm... I've posted NUMEROUS times that I want the Chiefs to draft Tannehill in the first round if he's available to us.

I like the pick because it's risky, it's bold, and it could potentially save our franchise.

I don't know why you're getting your feathers ruffled so easily by pro-Stanzi people.

Its not a matter of pro-Stanzi. Its a matter of he is not a first round talent, especially with the 11/12th pick the draft. Just being a QB doesn't give him that talent. Only the fact that Barkely and Jones dropped out of the draft is he considered in the first round. That's a poor reason to make him one.

SNR
02-09-2012, 06:47 PM
Its not a matter of pro-Stanzi. Its a matter of he is not a first round talent, especially with the 11/12th pick the draft. Just being a QB doesn't give him that talent. Only the fact that Barkely and Jones dropped out of the draft is he considered in the first round. That's a poor reason to make him one.Hey whoman69! Have you met my friends Jake Locker and Christian Ponder?

Yeah yeah I know what you're going to say. But we haven't had a deep QB class in YEARS. Every year it's the same goddamn thing. "Don't reach on this QB, next year will be better."

This is a good year for QBs. Usually there are only two guys worthy of a first round grade. The demand for first round grade QBs is going to rise (or has already risen) exponentially. If you're a team like the Chiefs who can't lose the right way in the right year, you better be prepared to cough up the draft value to get the right QB. Because if you're not going to draft #1 overall (which the fans and the team seem to think is the worst thing ever) then be prepared to only ever have a pick of mediocre/god awful prospects.

Gone are the days when you can get a Ben Roethlisberger or Aaron Rodgers in the later half of the first round. The sooner a team with a hole at QB realizes that, the quicker they can get on the ball to find a good player.

ArrowheadMagic
02-09-2012, 06:56 PM
Hey whoman69! Have you met my friends Jake Locker and Christian Ponder?

Yeah yeah I know what you're going to say. NO, they werent WR's that changed positions.


QB starts in college are a good place to start. Sanchez didnt start college as a WR and didnt have enough college starts. Bradford was a spread monkey and wasnt good enough to be a Chief.


Tanneyhill is the answer if you dont know what the question is.

whoman69
02-09-2012, 07:55 PM
Hey whoman69! Have you met my friends Jake Locker and Christian Ponder?

Yeah yeah I know what you're going to say. But we haven't had a deep QB class in YEARS. Every year it's the same goddamn thing. "Don't reach on this QB, next year will be better."

This is a good year for QBs. Usually there are only two guys worthy of a first round grade. The demand for first round grade QBs is going to rise (or has already risen) exponentially. If you're a team like the Chiefs who can't lose the right way in the right year, you better be prepared to cough up the draft value to get the right QB. Because if you're not going to draft #1 overall (which the fans and the team seem to think is the worst thing ever) then be prepared to only ever have a pick of mediocre/god awful prospects.

Gone are the days when you can get a Ben Roethlisberger or Aaron Rodgers in the later half of the first round. The sooner a team with a hole at QB realizes that, the quicker they can get on the ball to find a good player.

You're trying to draft a first round talent at QB. That's what gets you to the SB. Reaching for Ponder is not going to put the Vikings in contention. Locker wasn't as much of a reach. The Titans had Hasselbeck under QB and could afford to make a bit of a reach.

SNR
02-09-2012, 08:42 PM
You're trying to draft a first round talent at QB. That's what gets you to the SB. Reaching for Ponder is not going to put the Vikings in contention. Locker wasn't as much of a reach. The Titans had Hasselbeck under QB and could afford to make a bit of a reach.We'll see what the combine says about this crop of QBs. I remember last year was the same issue. After Gabbert and Newton who would assuredly go in the top half, and Locker who was predicted to go later in the first round, you had guys like Ponder, Dalton, Kaepernick, Mallett, and even Stanzi that nobody knew how to handle or where to draft them. First Andy Dalton was a 4th rounder, then a 3rd rounder for most of the draft season, then his value jumped all the way into the first. He ended up going in the second.

It was the same story for those guys as it is for this class. I think the difference is the dropoff between Luck/RGIII and the rest of them is so goddamn huge that it makes the entire class look bad.

C-Mac
02-09-2012, 09:40 PM
Maybe because Pioli hasn't drafted a QB before the 4th round, ever.


Well he did use a second round pick to get Cassel, so at least he's showing the potential to draft a QB that high.

If you already had a T Brady on the roster, not sure how important drafting a first day would QB be.

chiefzilla1501
02-09-2012, 09:56 PM
We'll see what the combine says about this crop of QBs. I remember last year was the same issue. After Gabbert and Newton who would assuredly go in the top half, and Locker who was predicted to go later in the first round, you had guys like Ponder, Dalton, Kaepernick, Mallett, and even Stanzi that nobody knew how to handle or where to draft them. First Andy Dalton was a 4th rounder, then a 3rd rounder for most of the draft season, then his value jumped all the way into the first. He ended up going in the second.

It was the same story for those guys as it is for this class. I think the difference is the dropoff between Luck/RGIII and the rest of them is so goddamn huge that it makes the entire class look bad.

Umm... yeah, and that's a pretty big difference.

Don't be ridiculous. I would take Kaepernick before I'd take Tannehill. It's ridiculous that Tannehill would be a first round pick when he'd be a second round pick in any other draft class. If other teams want to be stupid, let them. No need for us to join in the crazy.

Hanging your hat on the wrong franchise QB is just as reckless as not hanging your hat on a QB at all.

Sorter
02-09-2012, 09:59 PM
In retrospect, the Cassel deal was good. He was thought to be better than he was, but there seemed to be potential. Can't fault an org for going out to get him. The decision to hang on to him has seemed to be the downfall, as he clearly hasn't shown traits needed to be a franchise QB. I would bypass drafting a QB this year (apart from Luck/RG3), in an attempt to get Barkley or Tyler Wilson next year. If we trade down, we will miss on more pleasing prospects (Dre, Trent, Upshaw) but would be able to secure ammo to trade up.

chiefzilla1501
02-09-2012, 10:02 PM
In retrospect, the Cassel deal was good. He was thought to be better than he was, but there seemed to be potential. Can't fault an org for going out to get him. The decision to hang on to him has seemed to be the downfall, as he clearly hasn't shown traits needed to be a franchise QB. I would bypass drafting a QB this year (apart from Luck/RG3), in an attempt to get Barkley or Tyler Wilson next year. If we trade down, we will miss on more pleasing prospects (Dre, Trent, Upshaw) but would be able to secure ammo to trade up.

Yup. The 2013 class is going to be better and deeper. I'd much rather trade up next year with a hell of a lot less trade bait than to settle for a QB just because he's sitting there waiting for us.

SNR
02-10-2012, 12:53 AM
Umm... yeah, and that's a pretty big difference.

Don't be ridiculous. I would take Kaepernick before I'd take Tannehill. It's ridiculous that Tannehill would be a first round pick when he'd be a second round pick in any other draft class. If other teams want to be stupid, let them. No need for us to join in the crazy.

Hanging your hat on the wrong franchise QB is just as reckless as not hanging your hat on a QB at all.And I'm saying the way the future of the NFL is going, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A CHOICE.

"Legit" first round QBs are always going to snatched up before this idiot of a franchise grows a pair and tries out a guy who perhaps isn't the perfect prospect. THAT'S ALL THAT'S EVER GOING TO BE AVAILABLE FOR US.

Lord knows we take project 5-techs in the top 5. We TRADE UP in the first round to take project left tackles. But we won't gamble on a project QB in the first round.

I don't know if you're a praying man or not, but you better hope to Christ that Ricky Stanzi really is Tom Brady. Because if he isn't, the franchise ain't sniffing shit for a long time. We'll have to wait until we hit rock bottom AGAIN. And this is a young team. It's going to take a fucking while for that to happen.

chiefzilla1501
02-10-2012, 06:20 AM
And I'm saying the way the future of the NFL is going, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A CHOICE.

"Legit" first round QBs are always going to snatched up before this idiot of a franchise grows a pair and tries out a guy who perhaps isn't the perfect prospect. THAT'S ALL THAT'S EVER GOING TO BE AVAILABLE FOR US.

Lord knows we take project 5-techs in the top 5. We TRADE UP in the first round to take project left tackles. But we won't gamble on a project QB in the first round.

I don't know if you're a praying man or not, but you better hope to Christ that Ricky Stanzi really is Tom Brady. Because if he isn't, the franchise ain't sniffing shit for a long time. We'll have to wait until we hit rock bottom AGAIN. And this is a young team. It's going to take a ****ing while for that to happen.

Yes, we do have a choice. Frankly, Matt Flynn is a better unknown than Tannehill is (and I'm not even a fan of his). I still believe Jimmy Clausen has more upside than Tannehill and he can be had for probably a 3rd or 4th rounder. And there isn't a huge dropoff between Tannehill and Foles. Big difference is, guys like Foles will be taken at the pick's value rather than being tremendous reaches. Or... you wait until 2013.

When it comes to first round QBs, teams typically take only one shot. Is this the QB you want to take a shot with? I sure don't. Tampa Bay, the Jets, etc... they've wasted a lot of time on a QB that isn't the answer for them. My top option is just to wait for 2013. The QB class should be much deeper, assuming the right guys declare (and I imagine they would). Even if we pick at 20 this year, it will be a hell of a lot easier to trade up for a QB that actually deserves a first round value rather than burning a first round pick on a QB who would be a second round value any other year.

I don't have any confidence that Tannehill is any kind of answer. he's a great risk to take in the second round, but not in the first when you can bring in an immediate starter, maybe even a playmaker.

jd1020
02-10-2012, 06:42 AM
Well he did use a second round pick to get Cassel, so at least he's showing the potential to draft a QB that high.

If you already had a T Brady on the roster, not sure how important drafting a first day would QB be.

Pioli traded a 2nd for Cassel and Vrabel. Pioli drafted Cassel in the 7th round.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-10-2012, 07:35 AM
Yes, we do have a choice. Frankly, Matt Flynn is a better unknown than Tannehill is (and I'm not even a fan of his). I still believe Jimmy Clausen has more upside than Tannehill and he can be had for probably a 3rd or 4th rounder. And there isn't a huge dropoff between Tannehill and Foles. Big difference is, guys like Foles will be taken at the pick's value rather than being tremendous reaches. Or... you wait until 2013.

When it comes to first round QBs, teams typically take only one shot. Is this the QB you want to take a shot with? I sure don't. Tampa Bay, the Jets, etc... they've wasted a lot of time on a QB that isn't the answer for them. My top option is just to wait for 2013. The QB class should be much deeper, assuming the right guys declare (and I imagine they would). Even if we pick at 20 this year, it will be a hell of a lot easier to trade up for a QB that actually deserves a first round value rather than burning a first round pick on a QB who would be a second round value any other year.

I don't have any confidence that Tannehill is any kind of answer. he's a great risk to take in the second round, but not in the first when you can bring in an immediate starter, maybe even a playmaker.

Everything you said here is negated by your stance on Jimmy Clausen.

chiefzilla1501
02-10-2012, 07:53 AM
Everything you said here is negated by your stance on Jimmy Clausen.

And you wonder why the chiefs wanted to not start stanzi. A shaky rookie start and all of a sudden his career is over.

Clausen isnt a guy you hang your franchise on. But his upside is better than tannehills and you can trade for him 2 rounds lower. I support a low round trade, see how he and stanzi do, then in 2013 aggressively go after a good qb in the first round not some raw prospect with enormous mental development necessary.

Frankie
02-10-2012, 10:56 AM
I still believe Jimmy Clausen has more upside than Tannehill ..... :shake: You almost made me quit reading your post here.

And there isn't a huge dropoff between Tannehill and Foles.I have seen them live twice each. I know that's very limited. But i have come away with the notion that Tannehill exhibited a lot of poise and Foles didn't. Talentwise they may be close, but poise is a hell of a tie breaker.

When it comes to first round QBs, teams typically take only one shot. Is this the QB you want to take a shot with? I sure don't. Tampa Bay, the Jets, etc... they've wasted a lot of time on a QB that isn't the answer for them. My top option is just to wait for 2013. The QB class should be much deeper,...
This I do agree with. I'm OK with getting Tannehill after a trade down or two, but if we get him at 11 we have reached severely IMO.

evolve27
02-10-2012, 11:06 AM
:shake: You almost made me quit reading your post here.

I have seen them live twice each. I know that's very limited. But i have come away with the notion that Tannehill exhibited a lot of poise and Foles didn't. Talentwise they may be close, but poise is a hell of a tie breaker.


This I do agree with. I'm OK with getting Tannehill after a trade down or two, but if we get him at 11 we have reached severely IMO.

I would love to see Foles as a Chief. Tannehill IMO doesn't look like an NFL qb.

Detoxing
02-10-2012, 12:27 PM
I would love to see Foles as a Chief. Tannehill IMO doesn't look like an NFL qb.

Tannehill, though raw, has shown more poise in the pocket than Foles ever has. IMO, Tannehill looks more like an NFL QB.

The QB's i like the best are the ones who stand tall in the pocket and deliver an accurate pass under pressure.

I think Tannehill can have Matt Ryan like upside. Not great, but good enough to win with.

whoman69
02-10-2012, 12:51 PM
And I'm saying the way the future of the NFL is going, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A CHOICE.

"Legit" first round QBs are always going to snatched up before this idiot of a franchise grows a pair and tries out a guy who perhaps isn't the perfect prospect. THAT'S ALL THAT'S EVER GOING TO BE AVAILABLE FOR US.

Lord knows we take project 5-techs in the top 5. We TRADE UP in the first round to take project left tackles. But we won't gamble on a project QB in the first round.

I don't know if you're a praying man or not, but you better hope to Christ that Ricky Stanzi really is Tom Brady. Because if he isn't, the franchise ain't sniffing shit for a long time. We'll have to wait until we hit rock bottom AGAIN. And this is a young team. It's going to take a ****ing while for that to happen.

So your argument is that we've already made plenty of crappy picks, so what does one more matter?

whoman69
02-10-2012, 12:52 PM
We'll see what the combine says about this crop of QBs. I remember last year was the same issue. After Gabbert and Newton who would assuredly go in the top half, and Locker who was predicted to go later in the first round, you had guys like Ponder, Dalton, Kaepernick, Mallett, and even Stanzi that nobody knew how to handle or where to draft them. First Andy Dalton was a 4th rounder, then a 3rd rounder for most of the draft season, then his value jumped all the way into the first. He ended up going in the second.

It was the same story for those guys as it is for this class. I think the difference is the dropoff between Luck/RGIII and the rest of them is so goddamn huge that it makes the entire class look bad.

You should have stopped here.

chiefzilla1501
02-10-2012, 01:04 PM
Tannehill, though raw, has shown more poise in the pocket than Foles ever has. IMO, Tannehill looks more like an NFL QB.

The QB's i like the best are the ones who stand tall in the pocket and deliver an accurate pass under pressure.

I think Tannehill can have Matt Ryan like upside. Not great, but good enough to win with.

Tannehill also played in an offense with pre determined reads. Still... I like tannehill better than files but the difference is marked enough to justify taking one a full round ahead of the other neither of them are first round picks. But one of them will be for the wrong reasons.

Coogs
02-10-2012, 01:40 PM
This I do agree with. I'm OK with getting Tannehill after a trade down or two, but if we get him at 11 we have reached severely IMO.

So if he busts at 20 your good with it, but not if he busts at 11?

SNR
02-10-2012, 04:19 PM
So your argument is that we've already made plenty of crappy picks, so what does one more matter?My argument is if you want even a decent shot at a QB who could be a franchise guy (which Tannehill is) then you're going to have to reach and reach pretty hard in future draft classes.

The "let's wait until we're in good position to draft the right guy" argument no longer works if you're the Chiefs who will consistently draft in the 10-20 range for many years. You're going to have to roll hard sixes on some of these guys, or at least be willing to take a risk.

The demand for QBs is increasing at an exponential rate in this league. The overall talent level for the position is staying the same.

That means pay up a 1st rounder for a guy and be prepared to do it even a few times.

Otherwise, you can also trade for a backup and draft Ricky Stanzis and hope one of them becomes Tom Brady.

Micjones
02-10-2012, 04:22 PM
As much as everyone's been clamoring for this organization to draft a QB we're going to haggle over a slight reach to get one?

Mr_Tomahawk
02-10-2012, 04:22 PM
http://blogs.baltimoreravens.com/2012/02/10/strengths-of-2012-draft-class/

Strengths Of 2012 Draft Class

Director of College Scouting Joe Hortiz identified what he thinks are the top 3 positions.

Posted by Garrett Downing on Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 11:19 am | Categories: Garrett Downing

It’s still early, but the 2012 draft class looks awfully similar to last year.

Defensive line and quarterbacks dominated the top of last year’s draft, and Ravens Director of College Scouting Joe Hortiz could once again see that being the case.


In his early analysis of this year’s crop, Hortiz identified three positions (in no particular order) that appear to be the strengths of the 2012 class:

1. Quarterbacks
2. Defensive line
3. Wide receivers

Quarterback

The talk about the quarterback position has primarily focused on Stanford’s Andrew Luck, who is regarded as the consensus No. 1 overall selection. Right behind him is reigning Heisman Trophy winner Robert Griffin III out of Baylor, who is also likely to go in the top five picks.

But this year’s quarterback’s class is more than just top heavy. For teams that won’t have an opportunity to nab Luck or Griffin, there will still be quality options on the board because the group runs deep, according to Hortiz.

Last season, six quarterbacks were taken in the first 36 picks, but Hortiz thinks this year’s class could be even better.

“Last year was looked at as a good year, and I think this year’s quarterback group is a better overall group of quarterbacks,” Hortiz said. “It may not go off the same way as it did last year, but that doesn’t mean they’re not better than the guys that were drafted in the first round and/or high second round.”

As teams go through the combine and private workouts, quarterbacks have a tendency to move up teams’ draft boards, meaning that when draft time rolls around there could likely be more quarterbacks getting taken in the first round or early second.

“I think there will be a run on quarterbacks” Hortiz said.

Defensive Line

Pass rushers are a valuable commodity in the NFL, making defensive linemen some of the most popular picks in recent drafts. There were 12 defensive linemen taken in the first round last year, more than any other position, and they could again dominate the top of the draft this April.

“This year, D-line is strong,” Hortiz said.

That could be good news for the Ravens, who said at the season-review press conference that adding a pass rusher will be one of the priorities this offseason.

The strength in this year’s defensive line group is that a number of the players could fit in either 4-3 or 3-4 defensive schemes. These “tweener” guys, as Hortiz calls them, could be defensive ends or pass-rushing outside linebackers, depending on the team that drafts them.

Some of the players who fit that mold are South Carolina’s Melvin Ingram, Alabama’s Courtney Upshaw and Southern California’s Nick Perry.

“You’re probably going to see a lot of defensive lineman go in the first round again,” Hortiz said.

Wide Receiver

The top-flight wideouts of last year’s class lived up to their hype as top-10 picks A.J. Green and Julio Jones turned out to be two of the league’s top offensive rookies. Ravens second-round pick Torrey Smith was also one of the top rookie receivers and the success of last year’s class has teams looking for this year’s playmaking receivers.

The 2012 wide receiver corps has talent at the top – Oklahoma State’s Justin Blackmon is expected to be a top five pick – and Hortiz believes the group is also deep.

“I think receivers are a strong group,” he said. “It’s helped because the seniors are a strong group.”

Coincidentally, building the receiver corps in Baltimore is also an offseason priority.

Beyond Blackmon, Notre Dame’s Michael Floyd, Baylor’s Kendall Wright and South Carolina’s Alshon Jeffery are prospects that several mock drafts have as first-round picks. Floyd and Wright are both seniors.

Hortiz also thinks that some other receivers could jump on the scene before the draft.

“Wideouts will start emerging through the process,” he said. “We’ve got a lot of time to figure that out.”

SNR
02-10-2012, 04:26 PM
This is fucking ridiculous. I don't even want Tannehill that badly this year. I'm just trying to explain the reasoning behind taking him and why I would like the pick if we took him at 11.

All of a sudden I'm Tannehill's #1 fanboy just because I'd be glad if this team sacrificed value just to take a risk on something that could be really good in a few years if treated the right way.

Whatever. Go masturbate to Luke Kuechly. It's what you guys deserve.

chiefzilla1501
02-10-2012, 04:51 PM
My argument is if you want even a decent shot at a QB who could be a franchise guy (which Tannehill is) then you're going to have to reach and reach pretty hard in future draft classes.

The "let's wait until we're in good position to draft the right guy" argument no longer works if you're the Chiefs who will consistently draft in the 10-20 range for many years. You're going to have to roll hard sixes on some of these guys, or at least be willing to take a risk.

The demand for QBs is increasing at an exponential rate in this league. The overall talent level for the position is staying the same.

That means pay up a 1st rounder for a guy and be prepared to do it even a few times.

Otherwise, you can also trade for a backup and draft Ricky Stanzis and hope one of them becomes Tom Brady.

I have no problem trading my left nut for rgIII. I have no problem reaching for ponder or Dalton. I have a very big problem reaching for tannehill. If i had any confidence he could be a franchise qb, great. But when second round pucks from other years are more glamorous than a guy you want to take at 11. There's the problem.

SNR
02-10-2012, 04:55 PM
I have no problem trading my left nut for rgIII. I have no problem reaching for ponder or Dalton. I have a very big problem reaching for tannehill. If i had any confidence he could be a franchise qb, great. But when second round pucks from other years are more glamorous than a guy you want to take at 11. There's the problem.You just made my point for me.

Those second round picks from previous years ARE first round picks of the future.

chiefzilla1501
02-10-2012, 05:39 PM
You just made my point for me.

Those second round picks from previous years ARE first round picks of the future.

That isn't the point. The point is in last years draft he maybe grades ahead of kaepernick. Even in te modern era we are reaching a full round.

Frankie
02-10-2012, 05:40 PM
I would love to see Foles as a Chief. Tannehill IMO doesn't look like an NFL qb.

There you go my friend.

http://www.bondseyecare.com/user-files/PageImage186663.jpg


Tannehill, though raw, has shown more poise in the pocket than Foles ever has. IMO, Tannehill looks more like an NFL QB.

The QB's i like the best are the ones who stand tall in the pocket and deliver an accurate pass under pressure.

I think Tannehill can have Matt Ryan like upside. Not great, but good enough to win with.
This.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-10-2012, 05:42 PM
I think people are really putting too much stock into him only starting 1.5 seasons...

Those people will be surprised.

Frankie
02-10-2012, 05:43 PM
So if he busts at 20 your good with it, but not if he busts at 11?

Anybody can bust. Even Luck can bust. But if Tannehill busts at 20 at least we might have gotten a 2nd rounder or two out of the trade down.

Frankie
02-10-2012, 05:48 PM
I think people are really putting too much stock into him only starting 1.5 seasons...

Those people will be surprised.

If someone can improve so much in a mere 1.5 year, how fast can he develop as a legit NFL QB? THAT's what's tantalizing about Tannehill.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-10-2012, 05:54 PM
If someone can improve so much in a mere 1.5 year, how fast can he develop as a legit NFL QB? THAT's what's tantalizing about Tannehill.

x100000000000

He is rated higher with 1.5 years experience than other QBs who started 2-3-4 years. The guy is growing exponentially in terms of the learning the position...

chiefzilla1501
02-11-2012, 09:41 AM
I think people are really putting too much stock into him only starting 1.5 seasons...

Those people will be surprised.

What do you mean? We're not putting too much stock because of pure inexperience. We're putting stock in it because he looks exactly that inexperienced. When Sanchez came out of the pros, he at least looked the part. Tannehill doesn't. He needs ENORMOUS development. He was average on a team that was surrounded with talent.

This is what frustrates me about the hype around him. Does he run an NFL offense? No--he ran a pro-style system with pre-determined reads, which is pretty obvious because he seems to get rid of the ball to his first read even if there's nothing there. Does he have elite athleticism? Not even close. For an NFL QB, it's slightly above average. Does he have elite arm strength? No. Again, he grades as slightly above average.

He is being graded this high because of his size, motor, and work ethic. But the fact is, because he doesn't have elite skills, he's going to have win games with his brain. And he is way behind. Again, I like the kid as a second round pick. But we can't just throw away a first round pick every single year. Yeah, if we trade down, I won't be ecstatic about the pick, but I'd be okay with it--I'd still think it was a reach.

Like I've said many times before... I get the importance of getting a franchise QB. But let's be real about something. Of all the QBs you consider to be franchise today, only two (Brees and Brady) were not considered consensus first round picks. Even Aaron Rodgers, who plummeted, was for most of the weeks leading up to the draft, considered a top 10 pick.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-12-2012, 01:48 PM
http://rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/39882/60/draft-2012-the-underrated

Draft 2012: The Underrated
Sunday, February 12, 2012

Share

This is the complementary Underrated prospects column following last Friday's Overrated article. Read below for the most underrated players eligible for this year's draft, and bang it here for the most overrated.

All 40 times and heights/weights for non-senior prospects are projected.

Underrated:

1. Iowa OT Riley Reiff (6-6/300/4.94) - The consensus opinion will soon consider Reiff a top-ten lock, and he earned that recognition with consistent play as a 37-game starter at Iowa. Reiff is an athletic left tackle with solid lateral agility and quick hands to lock or redirect. He bends at the waist occasionally, but flashes solid posture and knee bend when recovering that nullifies the worry. Once Reiff gets into proper positioning in the run or pass game, it's over. He can contain even the most elite defenders. NFL teams will love Reiff's strong first punch and nastiness that most Iowa players bring. Reiff is a serious contender to be selected third overall and won't make it past the Panthers at the back end of the top ten.

2. Texas A&M QB Ryan Tannehill (6-4/222/4.65) - The former Aggie wide receiver is a natural quarterback, possessing a strong arm and compact release while handling movement in the pocket very well. Where Tannehill falters at times is his decision making, trusting his receivers to make plays on contested catches -- many of which did not go Tannehill's way in college. Even more necessary than arm talent, a quarterback must be a game manager who makes sound decisions. I am confident this is an area in which Tannehill will develop, and he is already more adept playing under center than most draft-eligible signal callers. While some consider there to be a major drop-off after this year's top two quarterbacks, Tannehill possesses all the qualities of an early-career starter. With the Browns, Redskins, and Dolphins drafting in the top ten, I see little chance that Tannehill makes it into the double-digit picks.

3. Baylor WR Kendall Wright (5-10/190/4.42) - It would not surprise me at all if Wright were the first wideout picked. While I still don't consider him top-ten worthy, Wright's combination of playmaking ability and versatility is unmatched in this year's draft class. Wright lines up at every receiver position, running each route with ease and creating separation at all parts of the field with quickness and body control. I'd go so far as to call Wright the top playmaker at any skill position. Height is the lone knock on Wright, as very few receivers under 6-foot have historically been selected in the first round. My question is, how many "small" receivers would you swap with larger ones who never met expectations? Plenty.

4. Georgia TE Orson Charles (6-3/242/4.64) - Charles fits the "Joker" classification as predominately a mismatch receiving threat, but he also offers solid blocking effort. Charles shows intelligent play while weaving through traffic inside to find space between linebackers, as well as quickness and balance to get down the seam and threaten secondaries. Charles' balance helps him bounce off hits while hauling in contested catches. With the mismatches he presents, I think Charles is worthy of a first-round pick. However, tight end-needy teams at the end of round one may require more of an in-line type. I do see Charles is a superior prospect to Lance Kendricks, the 47th overall selection in last year's draft.

5. Tennessee DE Malik Jackson (6-5/270/4.82) - Jackson quietly offers the same versatility as top-five prospect Quinton Coples, having played extensively at end and tackle and excelled at both in the SEC. Jackson displays incredible strength off the snap with quick hands that throw even the most thickly built interior linemen off balance. Jackson's arm length helps disrupt passing lanes, but he has yet to maximize his length potential into leverage against the run, especially in short-yardage situations. When rushing the passer, Jackson is persistent and very active with strong counter moves if his initial burst is halted. His "tweener" label may be frowned upon by some, but I think Jackson is a top-five defensive end in this draft and worthy of a second-round pick.

6. Oklahoma State QB Brandon Weeden (6-3/219/4.92) - Weeden possesses the arm talent, composure, and confidence to take calculated risks in tight windows. Realistically, there is no competition for this year's No. 4 quarterback; the discussion should begin and end at Weeden. I believe he is much more ready to start immediately than most give him credit. Again, Weeden's age should be a non-factor for the NFL's most quarterback-needy teams. He deserves to be selected late in the first round.

7. California ILB Mychal Kendricks (5-11/240/4.72) - When I referenced inside 'backers that deserve to be drafted ahead of Vontaze Burfict in Friday's Overrated prospects column, Kendricks was one of the thumpers I had in mind. Kendricks' height has been discussed as a negative, but plenty of undersized "Mikes" are NFL starters. Kendricks has outstanding closing speed with excellent timing on delayed blitzes around the edge or up the middle once leaving his zone coverage. He can struggle to fight through blocks when leading with the wrong shoulder, but makes up for it with exceptional lateral quickness to knife through lanes. Kendricks' reliable instincts are showcased in every game, making plenty of jarring hits at the line of scrimmage on aggressive angles inside or out. Kendricks' cover skills are solid as well, but obviously his limited length will be a detriment when competing with taller receivers. Still, a team will get a starter on the second day with Kendricks.

8. Alabama NT Josh Chapman (6-0/310/5.02) - Possibly the least flashy player in the draft, Chapman is one of my favorites. He was the unheralded piece of a relentless 'Bama defense, plugging the middle to let others run free. Chapman plays within a two-yard radius, getting little penetration but displaying a rare anchor that rarely gets moved, even when facing double teams. With limited upfield ability, Chapman will be a two-down NFL player but he accomplishes his responsibility extraordinarily well. Despite playing with a torn ACL for the last eight games of the 2011 season, Chapman was the nation's top run defender.

9. Midwestern State OG Amini Silatolu (6-3/318/5.40) - It's a shame Silatolu was forced out of the Senior Bowl due to injury, because he would have put on a show. The Division-II prospect has mammoth size and an equal amount of strength. He looks to punish his opposition in any manner on every snap. Silatolu lays out for bone-crushing blocks and can toss smaller defensive ends to the side like rag dolls. His feet are a bit heavy against quick rushers, and Silatolu can get too high at times while redirecting, but he is a violent prospect. He should be drafted earlier than fellow small-schooler Will Rackley was in 2011.

10. Texas A&M CB Terrence Frederick (5-10/187/4.52) - A veteran player, Frederick is often overlooked after playing alongside more highly touted Aggie cornerback Coryell Judie. Frederick's best work is in the slot, where he exhibits short-area quickness in both man and zone coverage while staying with his responsibility. He rarely played press at A&M, but has plenty of physicality to his game and is a tremendous blitzer off the edge while disguising pre-snap. His ball skills are lacking, needing to get his hands on more passes, but Frederick stays in a receiver's hip pocket consistently. Even against the run, Frederick shows the necessary skills to be a team's 12th defensive starter as a nickel corner. He'd be a value pick on the third day.

whoman69
02-12-2012, 05:16 PM
How can he be called underrated if they don't expect him to get out of the top 10?

whoman69
02-12-2012, 05:19 PM
If you draft a QB top 10 he has to be ready to play day one. There is no way Tannenhill gets to that point. Whoever is pushing this agenda is trying to fit him into a category that he doesn't belong in.

jspchief
02-12-2012, 05:58 PM
People do realize Tannehill was a QB in high school, right?

I mean, I realize that's not the same as college, but its not like he just walked on as an exchange student from Greenland and started American football.

And he was also the 2nd string QB when he was playing WR.

It's not like he's only been exposed to the position for 1.5 years.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-12-2012, 06:00 PM
People do realize Tannehill was a QB in high school, right?

I mean, I realize that's not the same as college, but its not like he just walked on as an exchange student from Greenland and started American football.

And he was also the 2nd string QB when he was playing WR.

It's not like he's only been exposed to the position for 1.5 years.

This.

I have mentioned this before in this thread...but people tend to ignore the fact that he has always been a QB...he lacks experience as a WR.

chiefzilla1501
02-12-2012, 06:23 PM
People do realize Tannehill was a QB in high school, right?

I mean, I realize that's not the same as college, but its not like he just walked on as an exchange student from Greenland and started American football.

And he was also the 2nd string QB when he was playing WR.

It's not like he's only been exposed to the position for 1.5 years.

I don't care that he is inexperienced.

I care that he looks and plays very inexperienced. Again, Sanchez was inexperienced, but at least looked the part of an NFL QB. Tannehill is so far away from that.

Chief_For_Life58
02-12-2012, 06:26 PM
I don't care that he is inexperienced.

I care that he looks and plays very inexperienced. Again, Sanchez was inexperienced, but at least looked the part of an NFL QB. Tannehill is so far away from that.

yeah i agree. tanny is not worth our first or even second pick signing orton is still better. How many top tier qbs only started one year of college? doesnt seem like many

Coogs
02-12-2012, 07:09 PM
I know this is a Tannehill thread, but this was in the article from above:




3. Baylor WR Kendall Wright (5-10/190/4.42) - It would not surprise me at all if Wright were the first wideout picked. While I still don't consider him top-ten worthy, Wright's combination of playmaking ability and versatility is unmatched in this year's draft class. Wright lines up at every receiver position, running each route with ease and creating separation at all parts of the field with quickness and body control. I'd go so far as to call Wright the top playmaker at any skill position. Height is the lone knock on Wright, as very few receivers under 6-foot have historically been selected in the first round. My question is, how many "small" receivers would you swap with larger ones who never met expectations? Plenty.

8. Alabama NT Josh Chapman (6-0/310/5.02) - Possibly the least flashy player in the draft, Chapman is one of my favorites. He was the unheralded piece of a relentless 'Bama defense, plugging the middle to let others run free. Chapman plays within a two-yard radius, getting little penetration but displaying a rare anchor that rarely gets moved, even when facing double teams. With limited upfield ability, Chapman will be a two-down NFL player but he accomplishes his responsibility extraordinarily well. Despite playing with a torn ACL for the last eight games of the 2011 season, Chapman was the nation's top run defender.



These are two guys I wouldn't mind seeing in R&G next season. Len Dawson was talking at the end of the season about our WR's not having the ability to get seperation, and Wright has that skill. And even though we have Bowe, Breaston, and Baldwin... if "the top playmaker at any skill position" is setting there at our pick at #11 or #12 it would be hard to bypass IMO.

And most mocks at this point have Chapman being in the 3rd round range. IMO he would be a great pick for our NT position. If Powe progresses along, the middle of our line could be set for several years.

O.city
02-12-2012, 07:29 PM
I like Wright, but he's likely to go in the first round.


I'd like to have Joe Adams, who could be had in the 3 round. I like Chapman, but he doesn't really fit our defense.

crazycoffey
02-12-2012, 07:38 PM
I don't care that he is inexperienced.

I care that he looks and plays very inexperienced. Again, Sanchez was inexperienced, but at least looked the part of an NFL QB. Tannehill is so far away from that.


I disagree.

Chief_For_Life58
02-12-2012, 07:47 PM
I disagree.

sanchez could and can make all the throws. Just cus he just sucks in general does not downgrade the fact he was a much better pro prospect at the draft then tannehill is now. Why would we want to pick him with our first pick? no way man

crazycoffey
02-12-2012, 07:54 PM
sanchez could and can make all the throws. Just cus he just sucks in general does not downgrade the fact he was a much better pro prospect at the draft then tannehill is now. Why would we want to pick him with our first pick? no way man


I'll reserve my opinions on Tannehill and any comparisons between him and Sanchez, until I can see watch more tape on the kid. But I just had my reservations about Sanchez and thought Stafford would be the better pro when most of CP was sucking Sanchez off.

chiefzilla1501
02-12-2012, 07:54 PM
I disagree.

When he played in USC. He operated under center and was very effective, including against some pretty good opponents. I didn't worry about Sanchez as much as I worry about Tannehill.

Chocolate Hog
02-12-2012, 07:57 PM
Tannehill, Reiff, Kuechly none of these are bad picks.

Chief_For_Life58
02-12-2012, 08:05 PM
I'll reserve my opinions on Tannehill and any comparisons between him and Sanchez, until I can see watch more tape on the kid. But I just had my reservations about Sanchez and thought Stafford would be the better pro when most of CP was sucking Sanchez off.

I would take stafford anyday over dirty sanchez. Stafford is going to be in the room of best qbs in the league for the next decade. Sanchez? selling fish tacos on a beach in la for the next decade.

Brock
02-12-2012, 08:08 PM
I'll reserve my opinions on Tannehill and any comparisons between him and Sanchez, until I can see watch more tape on the kid. But I just had my reservations about Sanchez and thought Stafford would be the better pro when most of CP was sucking Sanchez off.

Who didn't think Stafford would be better than Sanchez?

milkman
02-12-2012, 08:13 PM
Who didn't think Stafford would be better than Sanchez?

The way that Sanchez always showed up and played his best games in the biggest games, I thought he had that intangible that would separate him.

I own my mistake.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-12-2012, 08:14 PM
Weren't Sanchise's weapons > Tannehill's weapons in college?

Chocolate Hog
02-12-2012, 08:15 PM
The way that Sanchez always showed up and played his best games in the biggest games, I thought he had that intangible that would separate him.

I own my mistake.

He's still won more playoff games than Stafford though I'm not saying I would choose Sanchez over him but the book hasn't been written just yet. If the Jets can sort out the mess Sanchez just might make a super bowl.

milkman
02-12-2012, 08:18 PM
He's still won more playoff games than Stafford though I'm not saying I would choose Sanchez over him but the book hasn't been written just yet. If the Jets can sort out the mess Sanchez just might make a super bowl.

The book isn't written yet, but the rough draft says he's a pretty mediocre QB.

No, actually, a really mediocre QB.